Bribery and Kickbacks

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares89 Views

    Read the Justice Department’s filing in the Adams case.

    by

    Case 1:24-cr-00556-DEH Document 175-1 Filed 03/25/25
    Page 10 of 15
    the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good
    faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice”). But Adams’s consent-which was
    negotiated without my Office’s awareness or participation-would not guarantee a successful
    motion, given the basic flaws in the Department’s rationales. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428
    F. Supp. at 117 (declining to “rubber stamp” dismissal because although defendant did not appear
    to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on
    whose behalf the criminal action is brought”).
    The Government “may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment” under Rule 48(a) of the
    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. “The principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement is
    apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and
    recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.”
    Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30 n.15 (1977). “But the Rule has also been held to permit
    the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the
    motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest.” Id.; see also JM 9-
    2.050 (reflecting Department’s position that a “court may decline leave to dismiss if the manifest
    public interest requires it).
    “Rarely will the judiciary overrule the Executive Branch’s exercise of these prosecutorial
    decisions.” Blaszczak, 56 F.4th at 238. But courts, including the Second Circuit, will nonetheless
    inquire as to whether dismissal would be clearly contrary to the public interest. See, e.g., id. at
    238-42 (extended discussion of contrary to public interest standard and cases applying it); see also
    JM 9-2.050 (requiring “a written motion for leave to dismiss. . . explaining fully the reason for
    the request” to dismiss for cases of public interest as well as for cases involving bribery). Although
    it appears rare, at least one court in our district has rejected a dismissal under Rule 48(a) as contrary
    to the public interest, regardless of the defendant’s consent. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428
    F. Supp. At 116-17 (“After reviewing the entire record, the court has determined that a dismissal
    of the indictment against Mr. Massaut is not in the public interest. Therefore, the government’s
    motion to dismiss as to Mr. Massaut must be and is denied.”).
    The cases show some inconsistency concerning what courts should do if they find the
    standard for dismissal without prejudice not met. Some have instead dismissed indictments with
    prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Madzarac, 678 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.D.C. 2023). The better-
    reasoned view, however, is that courts considering a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss without
    prejudice must either grant or deny the motion as made-they cannot grant the dismissal, but do
    so with prejudice, unless the Government consents. See United States v. B.G.G., 53 F.4th 1353,
    1369 (11th Cir. 2022) (“[R]ule 48(a) does not give the district court the discretion to rewrite the
    government’s dismissal motion from one without prejudice to one with prejudice.”); United States
    v. Flotron, 17 Cr. 00220 (JAM), 2018 WL 940554, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2018) (denying
    Government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as contrary to public interest and requiring
    Government to proceed to trial); see also In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003)
    (suggesting that courts might condition grant of Rule 48(a) motion on Government’s consent that
    prejudice attach).
    The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a
    searching inquiry in this case. Although Judge Ho is a recent appointee with little judicial track
    record, he has resolved the motions in this case in lengthy written opinions that included research
    5 More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares118 Views

      in Elections

      Adams’s Associates Under Federal Investigation Over Ties to China

      by

      The Justice Department is pushing to drop corruption charges against Eric Adams in Manhattan while federal authorities in Brooklyn have been investigating his top fund-raisers.The Trump administration appears likely to succeed in having federal corruption charges dropped against Mayor Eric Adams in Manhattan.But in Brooklyn, a separate group of prosecutors has been conducting a long-running investigation involving Mr. Adams’s most prominent fund-raiser — and at one point searched her homes and office for evidence of a possible Chinese government scheme to influence Mr. Adams’s election, according to a copy of a search warrant, portions of which were read to The New York Times.Mr. Adams has known the fund-raiser, Winnie Greco, for more than a decade, and he appointed her to be his Asian affairs adviser after he became mayor in 2022. She has been a close collaborator with people and groups linked to the Chinese government over the years, and she has showed a willingness to steer politicians toward pro-Beijing narratives, The Times reported in October.The searches of her homes in the Bronx and office in Queens occurred early last year and were overseen by prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York. The agents conducting the searches were also seeking evidence of solicitation of illegal contributions from foreign nationals, wire fraud and conspiracy, the warrant said.On the day Ms. Greco’s homes were searched, and as part of the same investigation, agents also searched the mansion of another prominent fund-raiser for the Adams campaign, Lian Wu Shao, on Long Island, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The search of Mr. Shao’s home has not been previously reported.A wealthy Chinese businessman, Mr. Shao is the operator of the New World Mall in Flushing, Queens, which housed Ms. Greco’s office. Records show that hundreds of donors associated with his companies boosted Mr. Adams’s 2021 campaign.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Dale Ho Faces Demands to Continue Eric Adams’s Prosecution

      by

      As Judge Dale E. Ho considers the Justice Department’s request to stop the corruption case against New York’s mayor, former U.S. attorneys are asking him to investigate.Judge Dale E. Ho, who is overseeing the foundering corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, is facing a storm of demands that he look deeply into the federal government’s reasons for seeking to drop the prosecution.On Monday night, three former U.S. attorneys from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut filed a brief asking the judge to conduct an extensive inquiry into whether the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Adams case was in the public interest or merely a pretext for securing the mayor’s cooperation with the administration’s anti-immigration policies.Earlier Monday, Common Cause, the good-government advocacy group, filed a letter with the judge asking that he deny the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Adams case, which the group called part of a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain.” The organization also asked the judge to consider appointing an independent special prosecutor to continue the case in court.And the New York City Bar Association, which has more than 20,000 lawyers as members, said Monday that the order by a top Justice Department official, Emil Bove III, to Danielle R. Sassoon, who was the interim U.S. attorney in Manhattan, to dismiss the case “cuts to the heart of the rule of law.” The organization called for a “searching inquiry” into facts of what happened.The legal and political crisis encompasses both New York’s City Hall and the U.S. Department of Justice, calling into question Mr. Adams’s future as well as the independence and probity of federal prosecutions.Mr. Adams was indicted last year on five counts, including bribery, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations. He pleaded not guilty and was scheduled for trial in April. But last week, Mr. Bove caused a cascade of resignations — including Ms. Sassoon’s — as prosecutors in Manhattan and Washington refused to comply with his order. On Friday, Mr. Bove himself signed a formal request that Judge Ho will now consider.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump’s Takedown of an Anti-Bribery Law Could Backfire

      by

      The president has said the law is unfair to U.S. businesses. But lawyers say weakening it could end up costing corporate America big.President Trump has long argued that a law barring companies from bribing officials of foreign governments stifles deal-making abroad and puts American companies at a disadvantage.But when he effectively put the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act out of commission this week, the order did not elicit the cheers from corporate America that you might have expected. Lawyers who specialize in corporate corruption cases told DealBook that moves to potentially weaken the law could backfire on multinationals by actually raising the cost of doing business overseas.The F.C.P.A. has ensnared the likes of McKinsey, Petrobras and Goldman Sachs in some of the biggest corporate bribery scandals of the past half century. It is supposed to send the message that paying or seeking bribes to win business will not be tolerated anywhere, said William Garrett, a legal expert who manages the Foreign Corrupt Practices Clearinghouse, a project developed by Stanford Law and the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.The F.C.P.A. isn’t dead. But it’s up for review, and the concern is it could be weakened or shelved. That could create an open season for kickbacks — a price no business wants to pay. “It’s kind of the same idea like you don’t pay kidnappers, right? Because you just embolden the kidnappers to keep doing it,” Garrett said.A recap: Trump ordered the Justice Department to cease enforcing the F.C.P.A. for the next six months and instructed prosecutors to refrain from bringing F.C.P.A. cases until Pam Bondi, his attorney general, reviews and potentially recommends new enforcement guidelines. Bondi can extend the review period if needed.The order raises questions about the law’s future. While it does not eliminate the F.C.P.A., it’s unclear what changes Bondi may make. And what about the S.E.C., another agency that enforces F.C.P.A. violations? Will it, too, demand a second look? Paul Atkins, Trump’s pick to run the agency, has a track record of taking a light touch to corporate enforcement actions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      How the Justice Dept. Helped Sink Its Own Case Against Eric Adams

      by

      President Trump had just taken office when lawyers for Mayor Eric Adams of New York went to the White House with an extraordinary request: They formally asked in a letter that the new president pardon the mayor in a federal corruption case that had yet to go to trial.Just a week later, one of Mr. Trump’s top political appointees at the Justice Department called Mr. Adams’s lawyer, saying he wanted to talk about potentially dismissing the case.What followed was a rapid series of exchanges between the lawyers and Mr. Trump’s administration that exploded this week into a confrontation between top Justice Department officials in Washington and New York prosecutors.On Monday, the acting No. 2 official at the Justice Department sent a memo ordering prosecutors to dismiss the charges against the mayor. By Thursday, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, had resigned in protest over what she described as a quid pro quo between the Trump administration and the mayor of New York City. Five officials overseeing the Justice Department’s public integrity unit in Washington stepped down soon after.The conflagration originated in the back-and-forth between Mr. Adams’s lawyers, Alex Spiro and William A. Burck, and the Justice Department official, Emil Bove III, exchanges which have not been previously reported.The series of events — in which the acting No. 2 official at the Justice Department seemed to guide criminal defense lawyers toward a rationale for dropping charges against a high-profile client — represents an extraordinary shattering of norms for an agency charged with enforcing the laws of the United States.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Curtails Anti-Corruption Efforts, as Aides Seek End to Eric Adams Case

      by

      Two nearly simultaneous moves by the Trump administration on Monday signaled a new and far more transactional approach to the Justice Department’s handling of corruption cases.In the evening, President Trump signed an executive order halting investigations and prosecutions of corporate corruption in foreign countries, arguing such cases hurt the United States’ competitive edge. “It’s going to mean a lot more business for America,” he said of his decision to pause enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.Around the same time, a top Justice Department official directed federal prosecutors in Manhattan to drop bribery charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. The stated justification for the demand had nothing to do with the evidence in the case and focused instead on politics.The actions on Monday stunned current and former prosecutors and investigators who said the department was abandoning a tradition of holding public officials, corporate executives and others accountable for corruption in favor of an approach built on political or economic expedience.That same day, Mr. Trump pardoned Rod R. Blagojevich, the former Democratic governor of Illinois who was convicted in 2011 of essentially trying to sell a Senate seat that was vacated by President Barack Obama. Mr. Trump had previously commuted Mr. Blagojevich’s sentence.Trump administration officials have also ordered the shutdown of an initiative to seize assets owned by foreign kleptocrats, dialed back scrutiny of foreign influence efforts aimed at the United States and replaced the top career Justice Department official handling corruption cases.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Dropping Charges Against Adams Wouldn’t Affect Case Against Ingrid Lewis-Martin

      by

      The criminal case against Mayor Eric Adams’s former chief adviser, who is charged with participating in a long-running bribery and money-laundering scheme, will proceed despite a request by the Justice Department to drop corruption charges against Mr. Adams.The case against the adviser, Ingrid Lewis-Martin, and her son, Glenn Martin II, was brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, who accused the two of intervening with city regulators on behalf of two businessmen in exchange for $100,000 in bribes.Mr. Trump has no authority to intervene in the case against Ms. Lewis-Martin and Mr. Martin, which was brought in state criminal court in December. The president’s jurisdiction is limited to federal cases, like the one against Mr. Adams.Elizabeth Glazer, a former federal prosecutor who led the mayor’s office of criminal justice under Mr. Adams’s predecessor, Bill de Blasio, said it was “worth considering whether or not Bragg may have charges that he may be thinking of bringing” against Mr. Adams.In the case involving Ms. Lewis-Martin and her son, the indictment against them says, the businessmen, Mayank Dwivedi and Raizada Vaid, were seeking help pushing construction projects through the city’s Buildings Department.Ms. Lewis-Martin and Mr. Martin received the bribes in the form of checks that Mr. Martin cashed and used to buy a Porsche, according to prosecutors. Ms. Lewis-Martin, the indictment says, used her official position to “illegally influence Department of Buildings and other city decisions” in exchange for the cash and other benefits for herself and her son.Both are scheduled to appear in court on Thursday. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supervisor Andrew Do in Southern California Resigns and Agrees to Plead Guilty in Bribery Scheme

      by

      Federal prosecutors said that Andrew Do, an Orange County supervisor, enriched himself and his family with federal pandemic aid meant for seniors.The federal money was supposed to feed seniors and people with disabilities in Southern California who were stuck at home and especially vulnerable to Covid-19.Instead, Supervisor Andrew Do figured out how to funnel more than $550,000 to himself and his family through a charity in Orange County, Calif., federal prosecutors said on Tuesday. Rather than pay for meals, some of the funds helped to finance a million-dollar home for his daughter and retire $15,000 of his own credit card debt.Mr. Do, 62, resigned on Tuesday from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and agreed to plead guilty to taking bribes in exchange for directing more than $10 million in pandemic relief funds to a charity that had no track record of serving the community.Mr. Do now faces up to five years in prison under a plea agreement that he struck with federal prosecutors. He had sat on the elected board since 2015.“By putting his own interests over those of his constituents, the defendant sold his high office and betrayed the public’s trust,” Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in a statement. “Even worse, the money he misappropriated and accepted as bribe payments was taken from those most in need — older adults and disabled residents.”The case, the latest in a string of criminal corruption investigations in California, ended the tenure of one of the most influential Vietnamese American politicians in the country. Mr. Do, a Republican, represented more than 600,000 people, including a large constituency of older Vietnamese Americans who fled communism as refugees and live on a fixed income.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Scandal of the Indonesian Leader’s Son and the Private Jet

      by

      It was a major blow to the Everyman image cultivated by President Joko Widodo, who is stepping down on Sunday.At first glance, it looked like so many other photos posted on social media, the kind taken by excited travelers en route. The wing of a plane, juxtaposed against fluffy white clouds, with the sun streaming through. The caption read: “U.S.A. here we go.”On board that August flight from Jakarta to Los Angeles were Kaesang Pangarep, the younger son of President Joko Widodo of Indonesia, and Mr. Kaesang’s wife, Erina Gudono. Details of the trip trickled out on Ms. Erina’s social media accounts: a $1,500 stroller for their soon-to-be-born baby and a $25 lobster roll for lunch. Her posts were seen as tone deaf and led to an uproar at home because most Indonesians cannot afford luxury items.But what made many furious was the fact that the couple traveled on a private jet. It was the antithesis of the Everyman image Mr. Joko has long projected. The plane was linked to Shopee, the operator of an online mall. The company had planned to construct a new building in the city of Solo, where Mr. Joko began his political career and where until recently the mayor was his older son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka.“If Kaesang wasn’t the mayor’s brother who had signed an agreement with Shopee, would he really have been able to fly on Shopee’s private jet?” said Boyamin Saiman, the coordinator of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Community, a watchdog group, which filed a complaint over the matter.Mr. Kaesang has denied wrongdoing, saying he “hitchhiked” on a friend’s plane while not disclosing who the friend is.The nation’s graft-fighting body, the Corruption Eradication Commission, is now investigating whether the flight constituted a bribe. The probe is still undergoing an “internal administration process,” according to a spokesman from the commission. It’s unclear who owns the jet now, but it was once the property of Garena Online, which has the same corporate parent as Shopee: Singapore-based SEA Limited. Garena did not respond to a request for comment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More