Extortion (From White Collar Crimes, P 171-185, 1980, Gary P Naftalis, ed. - See NCJ-78913)

• NCJ Number: 78917
• Author(s): G B Collins
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 15 pages
• Sale Source: American Law Institute-American Bar Assoc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The application of the Hobbs Act, the Federal law on extortion, to labor-related crimes, political crimes, and ordinary business cases is discussed, and several approaches defense attorneys may use regarding extortion charges are outlined.

Abstract

The Hobbs Act was initially considered to be labor legislation related to racketeering, but has been expanded judicially in every field other than that of labor law. It is interpreted to forbid the use of force or violence in connection with a labor dispute only if the violence's purpose is to achieve an end that is not a legitimate collective bargaining goal. Political prosecutions under the law are generally based on the part of the statute referring to actions occurring with the appearance of official right. The statute has routinely been applied to corrupt police officers and political officials. In 1976, in the case of United States v. Brecht, the Hobbs Act was first extended to a situation that would ordinarily be considered as mere commercial bribery. The judge ruled that it was sufficient to prove that the extortionist induced fear of economic loss in the victim. If the Brecht case is followed, Federal jurisdiction over substantially every consensual financial crime is established. It may become easy to create an extortion case from almost any factual situation. Few purely legal defenses exist to an extortion charge, but defenses and possible attacks on the Government's case may pose difficulty for the prosecutor. For example, some payments to public officials may be shown to be based on good will between the public institution and the private citizen rather than on specific favors. In other cases, it may be argued that payment was due to the officeholder in that it may have been a campaign contribution or a payment for work done while moonlighting. In further cases, the defense may try to establish that extortion did not happen by demonstrating that the victim has a motive for lying against the defendant or that other facts establish that the indictment is wrong. Footnotes with references are provided. For related materials, see NCJ 78913.