Federal Honest Services Fraud - 18 USC 1346

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal here is to give you the reality of honest services fraud under 18 USC 1346 - not the sanitized version you find on government websites, not the Wikipedia summary that makes it sound straightforward, but the actual truth about what happens when federal prosecutors decide your conduct crossed a line you probably did not know existed.

If you are reading this at 11pm because you received a target letter, or because an FBI agent wants to "talk," or because your lawyer mentioned honest services fraud as a possibility, you need to understand something immediately: this statute is not about whether you stole anything. The word "fraud" makes people assume prosecutors need to prove you took money that was not yours. They do not. What they need to prove is that you participated in a scheme to deprive someone of their intangible right to your honest services - and that scheme touched the mail, a phone line, or the internet. Every email in that scheme is a separate federal count carrying up to 20 years in prison. Let that sink in.

What Prosecutors Actually Need to Prove Under 1346

The core of honest services fraud prosecution comes down to four elements that sound simple but contain traps most defendants never see coming. The government must establish that a scheme or artifice existed to defraud others. They must show you willfully participated in this scheme, specifically through offering or accepting a bribe or kickback. They need to demonstrate the scheme had the potential to cause harm - not that it actually caused harm, just the potential. And finally, the scheme must have used mail or wire services, which today means any phone call, any text message, any email, any use of the internet.

Notice what is missing from that list. Prosecutors do not need to prove anyone actually lost money. They do not need to prove the corruption succeeded. They do not need to prove the person you allegedly deprived of honest services even knew they were being deprived. The scheme itself is the crime.

The "thing of value" element trips people up more then anything else. Most defendants assume bribery means cash in an envelope. It dosent. Federal courts have held that a "thing of value" can include meals, travel, event tickets, campaign contributions, promises of future employment, business opportunities, introductions to influential people, and even intangible benefits like enhanced reputation or political support. If something had value to you, prosecutors can argue it was a bribe.

Similarly, "fiduciary duty" is broader then most people realize. Public officials obviously owe duties to the public. But employees owe duties to employers. Agents owe duties to principals. Board members owe duties to shareholders. Union officials owe duties to members. The question isnt whether you had a duty - its whether prosecutors can frame your relationship in fiduciary terms. And they are creative.

The Skilling Decision Changed Everything - But Not How You Think

In 2010, the Supreme Court decided Skilling v. United States and fundamentaly altered honest services fraud prosecutions. Before Skilling, federal prosecutors used 1346 to go after basically any undisclosed conflict of interest. A public official who didnt disclose a business relationship? Honest services fraud. A corporate executive who made decisions benefiting a company he had hidden ties to? Honest services fraud. The statute was a prosecutors dream because it was vague enough to cover almost anything that smelled like corruption.

Justice Ginsburg, writing for a 6-3 majority, narrowed the statute to cover only bribery and kickback schemes. Three justices - Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy - wanted to go further and strike down 1346 entirely as unconstitutionaly vague. Think about that. Nearly half the Supreme Court believed this statute that you might be charged under is so vague it shouldnt exist at all. But it survived.

Heres the thing that trips people up: Skilling helped some defendants and hurt others. If your conduct was undisclosed self-dealing - meaning you made decisions that benefited yourself without telling anyone - post-Skilling you probably cant be charged with honest services fraud. But if prosecutors can characterize your conduct as bribery or kickback, even bribery that didnt involve cash, Skilling actualy made there job easier by clarifying exactly what they need to prove.

Why Every Email Is a 20-Year Federal Count

This is were the math becomes terrifying. Honest services fraud isnt really its own crime - its a definition that expands the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes. When prosecutors charge you under 1346, your actually being charged with mail fraud or wire fraud, with "honest services" defining what the fraud was about.

Mail fraud under 18 USC 1341 and wire fraud under 18 USC 1343 each carry maximum sentences of 20 years per count. If the fraud affects a financial institution, thats 30 years per count and fines up to $1,000,000.

But heres were it gets worse. Every separate use of the mail or wires is a separate count. OK so you sent 50 emails during the timeframe prosecutors say your "scheme" was operating? Thats potentially 50 counts. 50 times 20 years equals 1,000 years of theoretical sentencing exposure. Your lawyer will tell you about sentencing guidelines and concurrent sentences and how judges dont actualy stack things that way - and thats usualy true - but the pressure of facing hundeds of years is exactly how the federal system forces plea deals.

Sentencing guidelines for honest services fraud typically fall in the 53-64 month range per count. Thats still over four years per email prosecutors decide to charge. When Todd Spodek explains this to clients, the blood drains from there faces. Four years. Per email. For conduct they thought was normal business.

When "Normal Business" Becomes Federal Bribery

The question that keeps people up at 2am: what exactly counts as bribery for honest services fraud purposes? After Skilling said only bribery and kickbacks count, you would think there would be a clear answer. There isnt.

Look at the case of Joseph Percoco. He was Executive Deputy Secretary to New York Governor Cuomo. During an eight-month period in 2014, Percoco resigned from goverment to manage the Governors reelection campaign. During this hiatus - while he was a private citizen, not a goverment employee - Percoco accepted $35,000 to help a real-estate company with its dealings with a state agency.

Prosecutors argued Percoco still owed a fiduciary duty to the public becuase of his "dominance" over goverment affairs even while technicaly private. He was convicted. The case went to the Supreme Court.

In 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed. Justice Alito wrote that the jury instructions were "too vague" - they didnt define when a private citizen crosses the line into owing public fiduciary duties. But heres what everyone misses about Percoco: by the time the Supreme Court reversed his conviction, he had already spent years in litigation, hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and his career was completly destroyed. Winning on appeal didnt undo any of that.

What McDonnell and Percoco Mean for Your Defense

If your facing honest services fraud charges, two Supreme Court cases should be your lawyers best friends: McDonnell v. United States (2016) and Percoco v. United States (2023).

McDonnell narrowed what counts as an "official act" - the thing a bribe is supposedly buying. Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was convicted of honest services fraud for accepting gifts from a businessman while providing access and arranging meetings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that setting up meetings and asking questions wasnt enough. An "official act" requires actually making a government decision or pressuring other officials to do so.

Heres were this helps: if you recieved something of value but your accused conduct was just providing access, making introductions, or asking colleagues to consider something, McDonnell might be your defense. Generalized appreciation and political access are not the same as bribery.

Percoco helps if your a private citizen being charged. Prosecutors have to prove you owed a fiduciary duty - and after Percoco, they cant just say you had "clout" over goverment. There needs to be a defined relationship creating that duty.

But heres the kicker - prosecutors know about McDonnell and Percoco too. If there bringing charges, they beleive they can prove actual official acts and actual fiduciary duties. They dont indict cases they think theyll loose.

The Consequence Cascade Nobody Warns You About

At Spodek Law Group, we tell clients the truth about what happens the moment honest services fraud becomes part of your life. The legal process is almost the least of it.

It starts with investigation. FBI agents interview your colleagues, your friends, people you did business with. Word spreads. If your in government or a prominent position, media gets wind of it. Your employer puts you on administrative leave. By the time your actualy indicted - which can take months or years - your career is already destroyed.

Then comes indictment. Multiple counts. Headlines. Every news outlet in your area runs the story. Your professional licenses are at risk. Your spouse is dealing with neighbors asking questions. Your kids are hearing things at school.

Then comes the wait. Federal cases move slowly. Two years from indictment to trial is normal. The whole time, your not working in your field, your legal fees are mounting, your life is on hold.

Then trial. With a 93% federal conviction rate.

Then sentencing. Don Siegelman, former Governor of Alabama - 7 years. George Ryan, former Governor of Illinois - 5 years plus 7 months home confinement. Scott Jenkins, former Virginia Sheriff convicted in a "cash-for-badges" scheme - 10 years (though he was later pardoned).

Then the aftermath. Voting rights lost in many states. Professional licenses gone. The conviction follows you forever.

The financial devastation is its own category. Federal defense attorneys dont come cheap - were talking $50,000 to $500,000 or more depending on the complexity and length of your case. Trials can last weeks. Expert witnesses cost thousands per day. And the whole time your not earning income because your professional life is on hold or terminated. Weve seen people lose there homes, there retirement savings, there marriages - before they even get to trial.

For public officials, the reputational damage is instant and permanent. Every news story about your indictment lives forever on the internet. Even if your eventualy acquitted or your conviction is overturned, Google will show those headlines for the rest of your life. Employers, clients, business partners - they all search your name. The Percoco reversal was a legal victory. It wasnt a reputational one.

This is why early intervention matters. This is why the moment you think honest services fraud might be in your future, you need to be talking to attorneys who handle federal cases daily.

What About Private Sector Honest Services Fraud?

Most people associate honest services fraud with corrupt politicians, but the statute applies to private sector cases too. If you owe a fiduciary duty to an employer, a client, or a principal, and you accept bribes or kickbacks in violation of that duty, you can face 1346 charges.

Think about a purchasing manager who accepts payments from a vendor in exchange for steering contracts. An employee who takes money to provide inside information. A trustee who gets kickbacks from investments theyre directing. All of these can be honest services fraud.

The private sector prosecutions are actualy harder for the goverment in some ways - the fiduciary duty is clearer in public official cases - but there not unheard of. The FIFA scandal involved private sector honest services fraud charges related to foreign commercial bribery. In July 2025, the Second Circuit upheld that foreign commercial bribery schemes fall within the honest services wire fraud statute - expanding the potential reach of 1346 significantly.

What makes private sector cases tricky is proving the fiduciary duty. In public corruption, the duty to the public is obvious. But in a private company, prosecutors have to establish that you owed a specific duty to a specific principal and that your acceptance of a bribe or kickback violated that duty. Defense attorneys often focus here because the relationships in private business are more complex and less clearly defined then public office.

The college admissions scandal of 2019 showed how prosecutors use honest services fraud creatively. Dozens of wealthy parents were charged with honest services fraud for bribing their way into elite universities. The theory? They deprived universities of the honest services of admissions officials who accepted the bribes. Some parents faced years in federal prison for what they probly thought was just "playing the game" that everyone with money plays.

Defense Strategies That Actually Work

So what do you do if your facing honest services fraud charges? Based on what Todd Spodek and federal defense attorneys nationwide know works, there are several strategic angles.

First, challenge the fiduciary duty element. Did you actualy owe anyone a duty of honest service? Private citizens going about there business dont automaticaly owe the public honest services. Even public officials have limits - Percoco showed the Court wont accept vague theories about who owes duties to whom.

Second, attack the quid pro quo. After McDonnell, prosecutors must prove more then just gifts exchanged for access. They need to prove an explicit agreement where payment was exchanged for a specific official act. If what your accused of was generalized relationship-building, political support, or even advocacy that didnt cross into pressuring decisions, the quid pro quo might not be there.

Third, challenge the "thing of value." What exactly did you recieve that constitutes a bribe? Not every benefit is a thing of value in the legal sense.

Fourth, the good faith defense. If you genuinley believed your conduct was lawful - if you followed what you understood the rules to be - that good faith can negate the intent element prosecutors must prove.

Fifth, examine the mail and wire usage. Without that interstate commerce hook, theres no federal jurisdiction. Sometimes the communications prosecutors identify dont actualy further the scheme in the way required.

Sixth, the "no official act" defense matters more then ever after McDonnell. Prosecutors must prove you performed or promised a specific official act in exchange for whatever you recieved. General favors, introductions, advice, and advocacy arent official acts. If your accused conduct was influence rather then decision-making, this defense can be powerful.

Seventh, investigate the timeline. When did the alleged scheme begin? When did it end? Were the communications prosecutors are charging actualy part of the scheme, or were they routine business that just happened during the same period? Prosecutors sometimes overcharge by including emails that were innocent in context.

Finally, look at whether you genuinley relied on counsel or compliance advice. If you consulted lawyers or ethics officials and followed there guidance, that reliance can demonstrate lack of corrupt intent. The goverment has to prove you knew what you were doing was wrong. If you sought and followed professional advice, proving that knowledge becomes harder.

The 93% Reality

Federal prosecutors dont bring charges they arent confident they can prove. The 93% conviction rate in federal court reflects this - DOJ screens cases heaviliy before indictment. If your reading this becuase you think charges might be coming, you need to understand that early intervention, before indictment, is the most important thing you can do.

Attorneys working at the investigation stage can sometimes prevent charges entirely. They can present exculpatory evidence. They can make the case that what looks like bribery was actualy legal political activity. They can argue that fiduciary duties didnt exist. Once indictment happens, the fight becomes much harder.

Think about it this way. Before indictment, you have leverage. Prosecutors havent publicly committed to the case. They havent assigned full trial teams. They havent gone before a grand jury. A skilled federal defense attorney can sometimes convince DOJ that the case has problems - missing elements, witness credibility issues, legal defenses that would make trial risky. Some investigations end with declined prosecution when early defense intervention highlights these issues.

After indictment? The goverment has publicly declared you a criminal. They have grand jury testimony locked in. They have witnesses on record. Walking away means admitting they were wrong - something federal prosecutors almost never do. The 93% conviction rate isnt just about good case selection. Its about the institutional momentum that kicks in once indictment happens.

The window for effective intervention closes faster then you think. If your waiting until you see handcuffs, your waiting too long.

When Federal Prosecutors Come Calling

Heres what you need to know right now. If FBI agents want to interview you about something that might involve honest services fraud, you have the right to have an attorney present. Use it. If youve recieved a target letter indicating your the subject of a grand jury investigation, get counsel immediately. If youve been asked to produce documents related to your goverment work or business dealings, talk to a lawyer before you respond.

The clock matters in these cases. Evidence preservation, witness interviews, document review - all of this needs to start early. Waiting until indictment means playing catch-up against prosecutors who have already spent months building there case.

Sound familiar? If your situation looks anything like what weve described here, the next 48 hours matter more then you realize. Federal honest services fraud investigations dont go away on there own. They escalate.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. The call costs nothing. Not making it could cost everything.