Michael Feldberg Explores Gratuities vs. Bribes in NYC Mayor's Case with WNYC/Gothamist

Michael Feldberg
Partner

Partner Michael Feldberg spoke with WNYC/Gothamist to discuss the intricate distinctions between gratuities and bribes in light of NYC Mayor Eric Adams' allegations. The mayor faces allegations of accepting over $100,000 in gifts from Turkish nationals, including business-class flights and luxurious hotel stays, purportedly in exchange for influencing official actions.

Feldberg explores this fine line with a hypothetical scenario involving teacher Ms. Munee and student Bill:

"But the calculus might change if, in their meeting with Ms. Munee, Bill’s parents asked the teacher to raise their son’s grade and told her: 'We’ll make it worth your while.' If that statement influenced Ms. Munee to change the grade, that would probably make it look more like a bribe." This example highlights the critical role of intent and the presence of a "quid pro quo" in determining whether an act is a bribe or a gratuity.

The Gothamist article expands on this theme, exploring how recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have complicated federal corruption charges by narrowing what constitutes a bribe. Feldberg notes the ongoing confusion:

“It’s a mess. It's complex. The distinctions are hard to follow. Every time a case comes up to the court and the court wrestles with it, let's put it this way: I don't think they're making it more clear.”

In another hypothetical, Feldberg discusses a scenario involving a councilmember and a developer: “That sounds like a quid pro quo to me,” he said, referring to the potential for bribery if perks were offered for support. However, without explicit pressure, such perks could be seen as mere gratuities.

Read the full article here.