Corruption in the United States Introduction Federal Bureau of Investigation Public Integrity Section of Dept. of Justice Overview –Jack Abramoff –U.S

Corruption in the United States

• Introduction• Federal Bureau of

Investigation• Public Integrity

Section of Dept. of Justice

• Overview– Jack Abramoff – U.S. Congressman

Bob Ney

Start of Investigation

• February 2004 – Washington Post Article– Abramoff & Scanlon defrauded Native

American Indian Tribal Clients

• Common ways FBI initiates investigations– Public Source Documents– Confidential Human Sources

Start of Investigation – Jack Abramoff

Start of Investigation - Lobbying

• A Lobbyist = hired to influence legislators on behalf of a particular industry, group, or individual

• Lobbying Disclosure Act = lobbyists must register with Congress

Start of Investigation - Lobbying

• Native American Tribal Clients

• Law allows Native American Tribes to operate casinos

• Clients wanted to open their own casinos or prevent competitor casinos from opening

Start of Investigation - Allegations• Abramoff committed fraud on his clients• Abramoff corrupted public officials by giving things of value (trips,

tickets, meals, and drinks) in return for official action

Start of Investigation – Public Officials

Investigative Team

• Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Plenary Jurisdiction• Lead Agency

• Department of Interior Inspector General

• Jurisdiction over corruption of Interior Department Officials

• Access to witnesses on Native American Indian Reservations

Investigative Team(continued)

• IRS Criminal Investigation

• Jurisdiction over Tax Crimes

• IRS agents follow the money

Building the Case

• Public Source Documents

Building the Case


• Non-public source documents– Emails

Building the Case


• Non-public source documents– Emails– Financial records maintained by business

Building the Case


• Non-public source documents– Emails– Financial records maintained by business– Restaurant Point of Sale System– Airline and Frequent Flyer Records

Building the Case(continued)

• Witness Interviews

• Other techniques: wiretaps and search warrants

• Cooperating Witnesses and consensual recordings– Staffer– Prosecutorial discretion

Building the Case(continued – recordings)

• Building trust with cooperating witness

• Convincing cooperating witness to make recordings

• Getting cooperating witness invested in success of recordings


• Script or no script.

• Decision Trees.

• Don’t trust the equipment – redundancy, “belt and suspenders.”

• Square Peg vs Round Hole test.


• Results

Building the Case(witness interviews – plea agreements)

• Plea Agreements - Will Heaton• Pros for the Government:

– quick resolution without a trial; – Heaton must cooperate

• Pros for Heaton:– avoid costly defense; – lower jail sentence through cooperation

• Coordination required– Attorneys evaluate whether the government has enough

evidence to pursue plea agreement– Agents work to firm up weak areas of proof to ensure that

government can pursue plea agreement– Attorneys negotiate agreement and Agents debrief Heaton

Building the Case(witness interviews - plea agreements)

• Corruption Charges: Bribery (15 years) or Honest Services Fraud (20 years)

• False Statements (5 years)– False Financial Disclosure Forms

• Conspiracy (5 years)

• Conflict of Interest Charges– Aiding and abetting one-year ban violations (5

years)

Building the Case(witness interviews - continued)

• Actual Charges

Building the Case(plea agreements - benefits)

• Made a consensual recording of Ney

• Provided information known only to Heaton and Ney

• Broke Ney’s will to fight charges

• Other targets have pled guilty and are cooperating

Building the Case(plea agreements - benefits)

• Other witnesses more likely to tell the truth

• Public has confidence that investigation is being handled appropriately

• Behavior of others changes– Trips– Ethics Rules