Federal corruption charges are serious, carrying significant prison time, hefty fines and long-term damage to the accused’s reputation. The allegations that result in the levying of these charges often stem from abuse of entrusted power or public authority. It’s easy to see why prosecutors across the country and the world have increased enforcement of anti-corruption statutes.
Whether it’s an embezzlement of public funds by a city official, self-dealing with pension funds on the part of a fund manager or bribery by a government employee in the award of government contracts, allegations of misconduct by people in public office are widespread. And even if the evidence is circumstantial, the taint of a conviction for public corruption is severe and can ruin careers.
In these cases, prosecutors try to prove that the corrupt act was intended to influence someone’s decision making or their behavior. For instance, in a case of alleged bribery it is helpful to have a record of the person asking for the bribe and the person agreeing to accept it. Often times this evidence will be corroborated by other witnesses who saw the request and the agreement in process.
Since these types of charges almost always involve a conspiracy it is important to make sure that the evidence is presented in a way that explains what role each person played in the scheme to defraud. Moreover, these cases are typically tried in front of a jury which means it is important to present a clear and compelling story.
About the Author
