Posts Tagged ‘kickbacks’

SEC’s Final Rule on Pay to Play Restrictions

Monday, July 12th, 2010 by Vbhotla

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued final rules on pay-to-play practices by investment advisors. TheSEC Seal SEC’s commissioners voted unanimously to curtail such actions. SEC Chair Mary Schapiro, in a statement before the Commission, called the practice of pay-to-play actions “corrupt and corrupting.”

Essentially, public pension plan advisors are prohibited from steering campaign funds   in a way that would affect municipal plans.

The decision is in three main parts, according to a press release from the SEC:

  • It prohibits an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation — either directly or through a pooled investment vehicle — for two years, if the adviser or certain of its executives or employees make a political contribution to an elected official who is in a position to influence the selection of the adviser.
  • It prohibits an advisory firm and certain executives and employees from soliciting or coordinating campaign contributions from others — a practice referred to as “bundling” — for an elected official who is in a position to influence the selection of the adviser. It also prohibits solicitation and coordination of payments to political parties in the state or locality where the adviser is seeking business.
  • It prohibits an adviser from paying a third party, such as a solicitor or placement agent, to solicit a government client on behalf of the investment adviser, unless that third party is an SEC-registered investment adviser or broker-dealer subject to similar pay to play restrictions.

The SEC first proposed the rule last year; it is the first federal-level pay to play law in the nation. The rule come into effect 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register. State and locality pay-to-play laws are common.

Read the rule here at the SEC; watch Schapiro’s statement to the commission here.

Honest Services Fraud Statute Diminished by Supreme Court Ruling

Monday, July 12th, 2010 by Vbhotla

The public corruption statute, which has been used by the federal government to prosecute lobbyists in the JackScales of justiceAbramoff case (among myriad other bribery and kickback cases), was narrowed in definition by the Supreme Court on June 24.

The decision, according to Roll Call, “limit[s] the use of a public corruption statute known as the ‘honest services’ law to only those cases involving bribery or kickback schemes.”  The Court decided on three separate cases: Skilling v. United States, Black v. United States, and Weyhrauch v. United States. According to Covington & Burling, a DC law firm, the fraud statute is now “co-extensive with existing bribery and kickback statutes, meaning that the Government will need to prove that gifts, political contributions, or other things of value were provided to federal officials as a quid pro quo for specific official acts.”

Judge Ellen Huvelle, US District Court for the District of Columbia, ordered the re-trial of former Abramoff associate Kevin Ring to be delayed until October, citing the Supreme Court decision in Skilling as narrowing the scope of the applicable statute under which Ring was charged.  But the Department of Justice isn’t changing their approach to prosecuting Ring, who was mis-tried in the fall and re-scheduled for trial this summer.  Ring’s prosecution is for a bribery scheme. Federal prosecutor Peter Koski said the high court’s ruling in Skilling v. United States has “no impact whatsoever” on Ring’s prosecution.

Because the prosecutor must now prove specific quid pro quo actions in order to correctly use the Honest Services Fraud statute, Huvelle told prosecutors that they must outline specific official actions and their intended outcomes in the next few weeks; she also ordered Ring’s attorneys to file a new motion to acquit.

Roll Call article is here; Covington & Burling update is here. (PDF)  See our previous post on Skilling, et. al, here.

Skilling, Black, Weyhrauch, and You

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 by Vbhotla

On June 24, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal honest services fraud statute only covers bribery and kickback schemes. What does this mean for lobbyists? Covington & Burling has the (qualified) answer:

“With respect to federal officials and federal lobbyists, Skilling essentially renders the honest services fraud statute co-extensive with existing bribery and kickback statutes, meaning that the Government will need to prove that gifts, political contributions, or other things of value were provided to federal officials as a quid pro quo for specific official acts.” (From Covington & Burling’s Client Alert)

According to the political law team over at Covington, this is a more narrow interpretation of the statute than has recently been used by prosecutors.

But the Blog of Legal Times reports that the Department of Justice isn’t changing their approach to prosecuting Abramoff associate Kevin Ring, who was mis-tried in the fall and re-scheduled for trial this summer.  Ring’s prosecution is for a bribery scheme. The blog reports that: “At a hearing today in Washington federal district court, Public Integrity Section trial attorney Peter Koski said the high court’s June 24 ruling in Skilling v. United States has “no impact whatsoever” on the prosecution of Ring.” (Read the full story on Ring’s trial here).