U.S. Department of Justice
The prosecution of public corruption is a top priority for the U.S. Attorney’s offices. Public corruption is a breach of the public’s trust by government officials who use their public office to obtain personal gain. It is a violation of federal law for any federal, state, or local government official to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for, or because of, any official act. Under federal law, any person who offers or pays a bribe is also guilty. These crimes are the result of secret deals, sealed with whispered conversations, quick handshakes, and money paid “under the table.” Because of the secretive nature of bribes and shady deals, such crimes are often difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove without the assistance of concerned citizens. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has established a task force to target public corruption.
The Public Integrity Section in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was created in 1976 in order to consolidate in one unit of the Criminal Division the Department’s oversight responsibilities for the prosecution of criminal abuses of the public trust by government officials. Section attorneys prosecute selected cases involving federal, state, or local officials, and also provide advice and assistance to prosecutors and agents in the field regarding the handling of public corruption cases. In addition, the Section serves as the Justice Department’s center for handling various issues that arise regarding public corruption statutes and cases.
An Election Crimes Branch was created within the Section in 1980 to supervise the Department’s nationwide response to election crimes, such as voter fraud and campaign-financing offenses. The Director of Election Crimes reviews all major election crime investigations throughout the country and all proposed criminal charges relating to election crime.
The vast majority of federal corruption prosecutions are handled by the local United States Attorney’s Office for the geographic district where the crime occurred, a fact demonstrated by the statistical charts in Part III of this Report. At times, however, it may be inappropriate for the local United States Attorney’s Office to handle a particular corruption case.
Public corruption cases tend to raise unique problems of public perception that are generally absent in more routine criminal cases. An investigation of alleged corruption by a government official, whether at the federal, state, or local level, or someone associated with such an official, always has the potential of becoming a high-profile case simply because its focus is on the conduct of a public official. In addition, these cases are often politically sensitive because their ultimate targets tend to be politicians or government officials appointed by politicians.
A successful public corruption prosecution requires both the appearance and the reality of fairness and impartiality. This means that a successful corruption case involves not just a conviction but public perception that the conviction was warranted, not the result of improper motivation by the prosecutor, and is free of conflicts of interest. In a case in which the local conflict of interest is substantial, the local office is removed from the case by a procedure called recusal. Recusal occurs when the local office either asks to step aside, or is asked to step aside by Department headquarters, as primary prosecutor. Federal cases involving corruption allegations in which the conflict is substantial are usually referred to the Public Integrity Section either for prosecution or direct operational supervision.
Allegations involving possible crimes by federal judges almost always require recusals of the local offices for significant policy, as well as practical reasons. Having the case handled outside the local offices eliminates the possible appearance of bias, as well as the practical difficulties and awkwardness that would arise if an office investigating a judge were to appear before the judge on other matters. Thus, as a matter of established Department practice, federal judicial corruption cases generally are handled by the Public Integrity Section.
Similar concerns regarding the appearance of bias also arise when the target of an investigation is a federal prosecutor, a federal investigator, or other employee assigned to work in or closely with a particular United States Attorney’s Office. Thus, cases involving United States Attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs), or federal investigators or employees working with AUSAs in the field generally result in a recusal of the local office. These cases are typically referred to the Public Integrity Section.
In addition to recusals, the Public Integrity Section handles other special categories of cases. At the request of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, the Section handles cases that are highly sensitive and cases that involve the jurisdiction of more than one United States Attorney’s Office.
Cases may be sensitive for a number of reasons. Because of its importance, a particular case may require close coordination with high-level Department officials. Alternatively, the case may require substantial coordination with other federal agencies in Washington. The latter includes cases involving classified information that require careful coordination with intelligence agencies. Sensitive cases may also include those that are so politically controversial on a local level that they are most appropriately handled in Washington.
In addition to sensitive cases, this category encompasses multi-district cases, that is, cases involving allegations that cross judicial district lines and, as a result, fall under the jurisdiction of two or more United States Attorneys’ Offices. In these cases, the Section occasionally is asked to coordinate the investigation among the various United States Attorneys’ Offices, to handle a case jointly with one or more United States Attorney’s Office, or, when appropriate, to assume operational responsibility for the entire case.
In another area of major responsibility, the Section handles matters referred directly by federal agencies concerning possible federal crimes by agency employees. The Section reviews these allegations to determine whether an investigation of the matter is warranted and, ultimately, whether the matter should be prosecuted.
Agency referrals of possible employee wrongdoing are an important part of the Section’s mission. The Section works closely with the Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) of the executive branch agencies, as well as with other agency investigative components, such as the Offices of Internal Affairs and the Criminal Investigative Divisions. In addition, the Section invests substantial time in training agency investigators in the statutes involved in corruption cases and the investigative approaches that work best in these cases. These referrals from the various agencies require close consultation with the referring agency’s investigative component and prompt prosecutive evaluation.
The final category of cases in which the Section becomes involved is cases that are handled jointly by the Section and a United States Attorney’s Office or other component of the Department. At times, the available prosecutorial resources in a United States Attorney’s Office may be insufficient to undertake sole responsibility for a significant corruption case. In this situation the local office may request the assistance of an experienced Section prosecutor to share responsibility for prosecuting the case. On occasion, the Section may also be asked to provide operational assistance or to assume supervisory responsibility for a case due to a partial recusal of the local office. Finally, the Public Integrity Section may be assigned to supervise or assist with a case initially assigned to another Department component.
One of the Section’s law enforcement priorities is its supervision of the Justice Department’s nationwide response to election crimes. The prosecution of all forms of election crime is a high Departmental priority, and headquarters’ oversight in this area is designed to ensure that the Department’s nationwide response to election crime matters is uniform, impartial, and effective. In 1980, the Election Crimes Branch was created within the Section to handle this supervisory responsibility.
The Election Crimes Branch oversees the Department’s handling of all election crime allegations other than those involving federal voting rights, which are handled by the Civil Rights Division. Specifically, the Branch provides advice and guidance on three types of election crime cases: (1) vote frauds, such as vote buying and absentee ballot fraud; (2) campaign-financing crimes, most notably under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); and (3) patronage crimes, such as political shakedowns and misuse of federal programs for political purposes. Vote frauds and campaign-financing offenses are the most significant, and most common types of election crimes. The election-related work of the Section and its Election Crimes Branch falls into the following categories:
a. Consultation and Field Support. Under long-established Department procedures, the Section’s Election Crimes Branch reviews all major election crime investigations, including all proposed grand jury investigations and FBI full-field investigations, and all election crime charges proposed by the various United States Attorneys’ Offices for legal and factual sufficiency. (United States Attorneys’ Manual 9-85.210.) The Branch is also often consulted before a United States Attorney’s Office opens a preliminary investigation into a vote fraud allegation, although this is not required.
In the area of campaign-financing crimes, Department procedures require consultation with headquarters before any investigation, including a preliminary investigation, is commenced by a United States Attorney’s Office. U.S.A.M. 9-85-5210. The increased coordination with the Section at the initial stage of a criminal investigation of a FECA matter enables the Department to coordinate, when necessary, with another federal agency, the Federal Election Commission, which has civil enforcement authority over FECA violations.
The Section’s consultation responsibility for election matters includes providing advice to prosecutors and investigators regarding the application of federal criminal laws to vote fraud, patronage crimes, and campaign-financing crimes, and the most effective investigative techniques for particular types of election offenses. In addition, the Election Crimes Branch helps draft election crime charges and other pleadings when requested.
The majority of the Branch’s consultations are in the following two categories: vote fraud, also known as election fraud or ballot fraud; and campaign financing crimes arising under the FECA. During 2017, the Branch assisted in evaluating allegations, helping to structure investigations, and drafting charges for United States Attorneys’ Offices around the country in these areas of law enforcement.
The Public Integrity Section is staffed with specialists who have considerable experience investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. Section attorneys participate in a wide range of formal training events for federal prosecutors and investigators. They are also available to provide informal advice on investigative methods, charging decisions, and trial strategy in specific cases.
The Section also conducts a public corruption seminar, held annually, at the National Advocacy Center. Speakers at this seminar typically include both the Section’s senior prosecutors and Assistant United States Attorneys from the field who have handled significant corruption cases. The seminar provides training for federal prosecutors regarding the statutes most commonly used in corruption cases, guidance in the use of the complex and difficult investigative techniques necessary to investigate government corruption, and advice from experienced prosecutors on conducting corruption trials.
Pursuant to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-409, 122 Stat. 4302 (Oct. 14, 2008), the designee of the Chief of the Public Integrity Section serves as Legal Advisor to the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). The CIGIE is a body composed of the Inspectors General of the various agencies of the executive branch of the federal government. The Integrity Committee of the CIGIE is charged with handling allegations against Inspectors General and senior members of their staff.
In addition, the Integrity Committee is charged with establishing policies and procedures to ensure consistency in conducting administrative investigations. The Committee’s procedures, drafted with the assistance of the Public Integrity Section, provide a framework for the investigative function of the Committee. Allegations of wrongdoing by Inspectors General and their senior staff are initially reviewed by an Integrity Committee working group, with assistance from the Public Integrity Section, for potential criminal prosecution. In noncriminal matters, the procedures guide the Committee’s process for reviewing or investigating alleged misconduct and for reporting on its findings. The Public Integrity Section also advises the Integrity Committee on matters of law and policy relating to its investigations.
An important responsibility of the Public Integrity Section is the review of proposed legislation that may affect, directly or indirectly, the investigation and prosecution of public officials and those who seek to corrupt these officials. The Section is often called upon to comment on legislation proposed by Congress, by the Administration, or by other departments of the executive branch; to draft or review testimony for congressional hearings; and to respond to congressional inquiries concerning legislative proposals. On occasion, the Section drafts legislative proposals relating to various corruption matters.
Public corruption cases are often controversial, complex, and highly visible. These factors may warrant Departmental supervision and review of a particular case. On occasion Section attorneys are called upon to conduct a careful review of a sensitive public corruption case, evaluating the quality of the investigative work and the adequacy of any proposed indictments. Based on its experience in this area, the Section can often identify tactical or evidentiary problems early on and either provide needed assistance or, if necessary, assume operational responsibility for the prosecution.
The Section also has considerable expertise in the supervision of the use of undercover operations in serious corruption cases. The Section serves on the FBI’s Criminal Undercover Operations Review Committee. A number of the Section’s senior prosecutors have experience in the practical and legal problems involved in such operations and have the expertise to employ this sensitive investigative technique effectively and to advise law enforcement personnel on its use.
The Public Integrity Section actively participates in the area of international law enforcement. The Section regularly provides briefings and training on United States public corruption issues to visiting foreign delegations and continues the efforts of the United States to assist foreign countries in their quest to combat public corruption and election crime in their respective countries. This assistance includes participation in international proceedings and coordination with other components of the Justice Department and the State Department on the Administration’s positions in this area.
Section experts continue to address visiting foreign officials in investigations and prosecutions of public corruption. These presentations are generally conducted under the auspices of the State Department’s Foreign Visitor Program and the Justice Department’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training. During 2017, the Section made presentations to officials from Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belize, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Guatemala, Italy, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Malaysia, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
The Public Integrity Section plays a central role in the effort to combat corruption in the federal legislative branch. These cases raise unique issues of inter-branch comity, and they are always sensitive given the high-profile stature of elected officials. The Section has developed substantial expertise regarding the unique protections provided to Members of Congress and their staff by the Speech or Debate Clause set forth in Article I of the Constitution and has worked closely and effectively with House and Senate counsel and the Ethics Committees in both houses. In addition to handling its own cases, the Section routinely provides advice and guidance to prosecutors across the country regarding these sensitive investigations. During 2017, the Section handled a number of cases involving legislative branch corruption, including one described below.
United States v. Corrine Brown, et al., Middle District of Florida: Former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown was convicted by a federal jury in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 11, 2017, for her role in a conspiracy and fraud scheme involving a fraudulent scholarship charity. Brown was convicted on 18 counts of an indictment charging her with participating in a conspiracy involving a fraudulent education charity, concealing material facts on required financial disclosure forms, obstructing the due administration of the internal revenue laws and filing false tax returns. Brown’s co-conspirators, Elias “Ronnie” Simmons, Brown’s long-time Chief of Staff, and Carla Wiley, the president of the fraudulent charity, previously pleaded guilty to their roles in the education charity scheme on February 8, 2017, and March 3, 2016, respectively.
Evidence at trial showed that between late 2012 and early 2016, Brown participated in a conspiracy and fraud scheme involving One Door for Education – Amy Anderson Scholarship Fund (One Door) in which Brown, Simmons, Wiley and others acting on their behalf solicited more than $800,000 in charitable donations based on false representations that the donations would be used for college scholarships and school computer drives, among other charitable causes. Donors were misled to believe that One Door was a properly registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Brown, Simmons, Wiley and others used the vast majority of One Door donations for their personal and professional benefit. According to evidence presented at trial, despite raising over $800,000 in donations, One Door granted only two scholarships totaling $1,200. Additionally, the trial evidence demonstrated that Brown failed to disclose the reportable income she received from One Door and falsely claimed deductions on her tax returns for donations that she did not make.
Brown was sentenced to 60 months in prison; Elias “Ronnie” Simmons was sentenced to 48 months in prison; and Carla Wiley was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Brown and Wiley were ordered to forfeit $654,292.39, and Simmons was ordered to forfeit $727,964.90. All three defendants were ordered to pay total restitution of $452,515.87 to victims of the fraud scheme. Brown was ordered to pay an additional $62,650.99 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service, and Simmons was ordered to pay an additional $91,621.38 in restitution to the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Public Integrity Section frequently receives allegations of corruption in the executive branch from federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the Inspectors General for the various departments and agencies, and United States military investigators. These matters involve a careful balancing of the requirements of a criminal investigation and the operational needs of the executive offices involved. During 2017, the Section handled a number of cases involving executive branch corruption, several of which are described below.
United States v. Christopher Ciccione, et al., Southern District of Florida: Christopher Ciccione, a former U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent, pleaded guilty on November 30, 2017, to accepting bribes in exchange for orchestrating, through multiple misrepresentations to numerous government agencies, the dismissal of a drug trafficking indictment filed against a fugitive Colombian narcotics kingpin.
According to admissions in his plea agreement, Ciccione accepted cash and other things of value and used his official position to cause a drug trafficking indictment against Colombian national Jose Bayron Piedrahita to be dismissed and to obtain official authorization for Piedrahita and his family to enter the United States. Piedrahita and Colombian national Juan Carlos Velasco Cano gave Ciccione approximately $20,000 in cash, as well as dinner, drinks, and prostitution during an extended hotel stay in Bogota, Colombia, in exchange for official acts that resulted in the dismissal of the indictment against Piedrahita. Velasco pleaded guilty on November 3, 2017, to his role as the intermediary between Ciccione and Piedrahita.
Ciccione admitted that, in furtherance of this scheme to obstruct justice, he misled the U.S. Attorney’s Office and HSI management and altered law enforcement records to represent to decision makers that Piedrahita was a “former” suspect of a closed investigation rather than a “current” subject, was “never positively identified,” and that his case should be dismissed—all while maintaining contact with Piedrahita. Ciccone also falsified the concurrence of several other federal agents and attempted to parole Piedrahita into the United States. Piedrahita is currently incarcerated in the Republic of Colombia. Velasco was sentenced to 27 months in prison, and Ciccione was sentenced to 36 months in prison.
United States v. Carla Sena, District of New Mexico: On December 5, 2017, Carla Sena, a former procurement officer employed by Sandia Corporation, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering for orchestrating a scheme to fraudulently obtain a $2.3 million federal contract. Sena’s employer, Sandia Corporation, managed and operated Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), a nuclear research and development facility owned by the federal government under sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to admissions in her plea agreement, in late 2010, Sena managed the bidding process for the award of a multi-million-dollar contract for moving services at SNL. Sena admitted that, in anticipation of the bidding process for this contract, she created the company, New Mexico Express Movers LLC (Movers LLC), to which she eventually awarded the multi-million-dollar contract. In order to conceal her involvement, Sena prepared a bid for Movers LLC containing fraudulent misrepresentations and submitted the bid under the name of an individual who had no knowledge of Movers LLC or Sena’s scheme. Sena also admitted that she used her position as a procurement officer with SNL to access inside information and competing bidders’ documents that she leveraged in the Movers LLC bid.
As a direct result of Sena’s fraudulent scheme, Movers LLC received approximately $2.3 million in federal funds between May 2011 and April 2016. Sena also admitted that, between October 2011 and April 2015, she transferred via negotiated checks at least $643,000 of the fraudulently obtained proceeds to businesses owned by her father with the intent to conceal the source and control of those funds and her subsequent personal gain from the proceeds. Sena was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Public corruption, the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority, poses a fundamental threat to national security and the American way of life. It can affect everything from how well borders are secured and neighborhoods protected to how verdicts are handed down in courts to how public infrastructure such as roads and schools are built. It also takes a significant toll on the public’s pocketbooks by siphoning off tax dollars—it is estimated that public corruption costs the U.S. government and the public billions of dollars each year. The FBI is uniquely situated to combat corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and surveillance. For example, on October 10, 2010, 89 law enforcement officers and 44 others were arrested and charged in Puerto Rico as part of Operation Guard Shack, the largest police corruption investigation in the history of the FBI. Close to 750 FBI agents were flown in to Puerto Rico from across the country to assist in the arrests. This two-year multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency operation sent a powerful message—that corruption among our public officials will not be tolerated. The Bureau’s Public Corruption program focuses on:
In 2008, the FBI created the International Corruption Unit (ICU) to oversee the increasing number of investigations involving global fraud against the U.S. government and the corruption of federal public officials outside of the continental U.S. involving U.S. funds, persons, businesses, etc. The ICU’s tasks include:
No other law enforcement agency has attained the kind of success the FBI has achieved in combating corruption. This success is due largely to the cooperation and coordination from a number of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to combat public corruption. These partnerships include, but are not limited to the Department of Justice, Agency Offices of Inspector General; law enforcement agencies’ internal affairs divisions; federal, state and local law enforcement and regulatory investigative agencies; and state and county prosecutor’s offices.
Does the FBI investigate graft and corruption in local government and in state and local police departments? Yes. The FBI uses applicable federal laws, including the Hobbs Act, to investigate violations by public officials in federal, state, and local governments. A public official is any person elected, appointed, employed, or otherwise having a duty to maintain honest and faithful public service. Most violations occur when the official solicits, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive something of value in return for influence in the performance of an official act. The categories of public corruption investigated by the FBI include legislative, judicial, regulatory, contractual, and law enforcement.
Types of Corruption
Prison Corruption: The FBI’s prison corruption initiative, which began in June 2014, addresses contraband smuggling by local, state, and federal prison officials in exchange for bribe payments. Through this initiative, the Bureau works to develop and strengthen collaborative relationships with state/local corrections departments and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General to help identify prison facilities plagued with systemic corruption and employ appropriate criminal investigative techniques to combat the threat. Prison officials and staff being co-opted, even if unwittingly, betrays the public trust, threatens the integrity of the justice system in the U.S., and threaten national security interests overall. Schemes to corrupt prison officials come in a variety of forms, including:
Border Corruption: The federal government is responsible for protecting approximately 7,000 miles along the U.S. border and 95,000 miles of U.S. shoreline, and every day, over a million people visit the U.S. and enter through one of the more than 300 official ports of entry into the U.S., as well as through seaports and international airports. The FBI recognizes the very real threat public corruption at nation’s borders and all other ports of entry pose.
Common acts of border corruption involve drug trafficking and alien smuggling. Throughout the U.S., the FBI has investigated corrupt government and law enforcement officials who accept bribes and gratuities in return for allowing loads of drugs or aliens to pass through ports of entry or checkpoints; protecting and escorting loads of contraband; overlooking contraband; providing needed documents, such as immigration papers and driver’s licenses; leaking sensitive law enforcement information; and conducting unauthorized records checks.
Border corruption potentially impacts national security as well—corrupt officers might believe they are accepting a bribe simply in return for allowing a carload of illegal