Public Integrity and Corporate Offenses in Washington, DC

In Washington, D.C. the process offense is frequently the case that actually gets charged. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201 and federal-program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 are hard cases to build; a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or an obstruction count under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is not. The result is that people are regularly convicted of what they said or did during an investigation rather than of the conduct that started it — 18 U.S.C. § 1519 alone carries up to 20 years.

Why do process offenses become the real case?

Because they are easier to prove and they happen after the government is already looking. A bribery case requires proof of an agreement to exchange something of value for an official act. A false statement case requires only that someone said something material and untrue to a federal official — and the interview is often recorded or witnessed by two agents.

Offense	Statute	What it reaches	Maximum term stated in the section
Bribery of public officials	18 U.S.C. § 201	Corruptly giving or receiving anything of value to influence an official act	See the section
Federal-program bribery and theft	18 U.S.C. § 666	Agents of organizations and governments receiving federal funds	10 years
False statements	18 U.S.C. § 1001	Materially false statements in any matter within federal jurisdiction	5 years; 8 where terrorism is involved
Records obstruction	18 U.S.C. § 1519	Altering, destroying or concealing a record to impede a federal investigation	20 years
Witness tampering	18 U.S.C. § 1512	Corruptly persuading another to withhold or alter a record or testimony	20 years
Obstruction of agency proceedings	18 U.S.C. § 1505	Obstructing a department, agency or congressional proceeding	5 years; 8 where terrorism is involved
Computer fraud and abuse	18 U.S.C. § 1030	Unauthorised access to a protected computer, and exceeding authorized access	See the section

The practical lesson is the same one that governs the first 48 hours of any federal matter: the interview and the documents are where the exposure is created. See responding to a federal investigation.

Why does this come up so much in Washington, D.C.?

Because of what is here. The District is the seat of the federal government, the home of the agencies, and the venue where a large share of public integrity matters are investigated and tried — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section.

Seth B. Waxman spent 13 years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, handling fraud and public corruption matters for that office. The value of that experience in these cases is not familiarity with the courthouse — it is knowing how a charging decision is actually made, and what a prosecutor needs to see before deciding a case is not worth bringing.

Where do computer-crime charges fit?

18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, reaches unauthorised access to a protected computer and exceeding authorized access. It appears in corporate matters far more often than people expect — in departing-employee cases, in disputes over who was entitled to download what, and alongside trade-secret allegations.

The same facts frequently support a civil trade-secret claim and a criminal referral, which means a company weighing a referral should think about the consequences before making one. See cybersecurity offenses and trade secret misappropriation.

What should a company do when an employee is the target?

Separate the company’s position from the individual’s, early and deliberately. The company’s interests and the employee’s diverge the moment the employee’s conduct is in question, and the same lawyer usually cannot serve both. Getting that structure right at the start is what allows the company to cooperate without waiving more than it intends.

An internal investigation is generally the mechanism — it establishes what happened, preserves privilege where it can be preserved, and gives the company something credible to present. See independent investigations and regulatory and compliance violations.

What this group covers

• Public Corruption — bribery, gratuities and honest-services allegations
• False Statements & Obstruction — § 1001, § 1505, § 1512 and § 1519 — the process offenses
• Cybersecurity Offenses — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act allegations under § 1030

Quick answers

Frequently asked questions

Can I be charged with obstruction if no case has been filed?

Yes. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 reaches knowingly altering, destroying or concealing a record with intent to impede or influence the investigation or proper administration of any federal matter, and it does not require that a proceeding be pending or even contemplated in the way older obstruction statutes did. It carries up to 20 years.

What is the maximum for a false statement to a federal agent?

Five years under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, rising to eight where the offense involves international or domestic terrorism. It applies to a materially false statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government — it does not have to be under oath.

What does 18 U.S.C. § 666 cover?

Federal-program bribery and theft. It reaches agents of organizations, and of state and local governments, that receive federal funds, and carries a maximum of 10 years. It is often charged where a straightforward § 201 bribery theory is unavailable.

Is exceeding my access at work a federal crime?

It can be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which reaches unauthorised access to a protected computer and exceeding authorized access. It arises frequently in departing-employee and trade-secret situations, where the scope of authorisation is disputed.

Our employee is the target. Should the company use the same lawyer?

Generally no. The company’s interests and the employee’s diverge as soon as the employee’s conduct is in question, and joint representation can compromise both. Separating the positions early is what lets a company cooperate without waiving more than it intends.

Where the firm is

Sources and legal authorities

• 18 U.S.C. § 201 — Bribery of public officials and witnesses
• 18 U.S.C. § 666 — Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds
• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — False statements
• 18 U.S.C. § 1505 — Obstruction of proceedings before departments and agencies
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant
• 18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Destruction or falsification of records
• 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

General information about District of Columbia and federal law, not legal advice. Which rule applies depends on the entity, the agreement and the facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Part of Washington DC White-Collar Defense.