Conspiracy of the Hobbs Act Extortion in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In May, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided on whether a public official could be convicted of conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion where the extortion victims were also co-conspirators. The Court in Ocasio v. United States reviewed a kickback scheme between a police officer and the car repair shop's owners who provided money to the police officer in return for every referral of damaged cars at car accidents' scene to the repair shop by the police officer. The main issue presented in this case is whether a public official can be convicted of conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right when the property obtained is from his conspirators. In this 5-3 decision, the majority viewed that a person who paid his property to the extortionist public official can be a co-conspirator and be included within the conspiracy. Thus, when the extortionist public official extorts property from his co-conspirator, the public official can be charged with extortion as well as extortion conspiracy. This paper analyzes the Supreme Court’s Ocasio decision by reviewing the laws of conspiracy and extortion under the United States federal statutes. The rules of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion drawn by the Court in Ocasio give some lessons on how to interpret the law of extortion in terms of bribery aspect, and on how to apply the law in case of conspiracy between extortionist public officials and private individuals who claim themselves as “victims,” not co-conspirators although they conspire and participate voluntarily in their kickback scheme for their potential benefits or interests. The main purpose of this paper is to share the lesson from this case in dealing with those who try to circumvent laws of conspiracy and extortion by denying any wrong-doings even though they participate in bribery dealings as extortionists and victims.
Abstract
In May, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided on whether a public official could be convicted of conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion where the extortion victims were also co-conspirators. The Court in Ocasio v. United States reviewed a kickback scheme between a police officer and the car repair shop's owners who provided money to the police officer in return for every referral of damaged cars at car accidents' scene to the repair shop by the police officer. The main issue presented in this case is whether a public official can be convicted of conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right when the property obtained is from his conspirators. In this 5-3 decision, the majority viewed that a person who paid his property to the extortionist public official can be a co-conspirator and be included within the conspiracy. Thus, when the extortionist public official extorts property from his co-conspirator, the public official can be charged with extortion as well as extortion conspiracy. This paper analyzes the Supreme Court’s Ocasio decision by reviewing the laws of conspiracy and extortion under the United States federal statutes. The rules of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion drawn by the Court in Ocasio give some lessons on how to interpret the law of extortion in terms of bribery aspect, and on how to apply the law in case of conspiracy between extortionist public officials and private individuals who claim themselves as “victims,” not co-conspirators although they conspire and participate voluntarily in their kickback scheme for their potential benefits or interests. The main purpose of this paper is to share the lesson from this case in dealing with those who try to circumvent laws of conspiracy and extortion by denying any wrong-doings even though they participate in bribery dealings as extortionists and victims.
참고문헌 (23)
- John C. Klotter, "Criminal Law" (2006), LexisNexis
- Joycelyn M. Pollock, "Criminal Law" (2013), Elsevier
- Sue Titus Reid, "Criminal Law" (2001), McGrawHill
- Kadish Schulhofer, "Criminal Law and its Processes" (1995), Little. Brown and Company
- Wayne R. LaFave, "Criminal Law" (1986), West Publishing Co.
- Diane M. Allen, "When is Act of Extortion Performed Under Color of Official Right so as to be in Violation of Hobbs Act (18 USCA § 1951)", American Law Reports Federal, 74, pp.199~ (2016)
- Howard J. Alperin, "Elements of Offense Proscribed by the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951) Against Racketeering in Interstate or Foreign Commerce", American Law Reports Federal, 4, pp.881~ (2016)
- Susan W. Brenner, "Of Complicity and Enterprise Criminality: Applying Pinkerton Liability to RICO Actions", Missouri Law Review, 56, pp.931~ (1991)
- George D. Brown, "Applying Citizens United to Ordinary Corruption: With a Note on Blagojevich, McDonnell, and the Criminalization of Politics", Notre Dame Law Review, 91, pp.177~ (2015)
- James L. Buchwalter, "15 A Corpus Juris Secundum Conspiracy", 291~ (2016)
- Michael W. Carey, "Federal Prosecution of State and Local Public Officials: The Obstacles to Punishing Breaches of the Public Trust and a Proposal for Reform, Part One", West Virginia Law Review, 94, pp.301~ (1991)
- 최영란, "Extortion of a Bribery Case in the United States - The Hobbs Act Extortion in the Former Governor Blagojevich Case -", 법학논고, (57), pp.1~25 (2017), 법학연구원
- James P. Fleissner, "Prosecuting Public Officials Under the Hobbs Act: Inducement as an Element of Extortion Under Color of Official Right", University of Chicago Law Review, 52, pp.1066~ (1985)
- Martin B. Goldberg, "White-Collar Crime: Fourth Survey Of Law - Substantive Crimes - Extortion", American Criminal Law Review, 24(Winter), pp.547~ (1987)
- The Harvard Law Review Association, "Federal Corruption Statutes - Bribery - Definition of 'Official Act' - McDdonnell v. United States", Harvard Law Review, 130, pp.467~ (2016)
- Michael Heyman, "Losing All Sense of Just Proportion: The Peculiar Law of Accomplice Liability", Saint John’s Law Review, 87(Winter), pp.129~ (2013)
- James Lindgren, "The Elusive Distinction Between Bribery and Extortion: From the Common Law to the Hobbs Act", UCLA Law Review, 35, pp.815~ (1988)
- Christopher Robertson, "The Appearance and the Reality of Quid Pro Quo Corruption: An Empirical Investigation", Journal of Legal Analysis, 8(Winter), pp.375~ (2016)
- Paul H. Robinson, "1 Criminal Law Defenses § 81 (Inchoate offenses (attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, and facilitation) and complicity—Renunciation, abandonment, and withdrawal)", ~ (2016)
- Laurent Sacharoff, "Conspiracy as Contract", U.C. Davis Law Review, 50, pp.405~ (2016)
- Harvey A. Silverglate, "Tawdry or Corrupt? McDonnell Fails to Draw a Clear Line for Federal Prosecution of State Officials", Cato Supreme Court Review, 2016, pp.189~ (2015)
- Alex Stein, "Corrupt Intentions: Bribery, Unlawful Gratuity, and Honest-Services Fraud", Law and Contemporary Problems, 75, pp.61~ (2012)
- What Constitutes Obstruction, Delay, or Effect upon Commerce for Purposes of Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951) - Extortion Cases, "Jay M. Zitter", American Law, ~, pp.24 American Law Reports 2d 1