Supreme Court Puts The Brakes On The "Bridgegate" Scandal And Affirms That Property Must Be The Object Of Federal Fraud Schemes

CG
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Contributor

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP logo
Cleary Gottlieb’s 1,300 lawyers from more than 50 countries work across practices, industries, jurisdictions, and continents to provide clients with simple, actionable approaches to their most complex legal and business challenges. Global corporations, financial institutions, sovereign governments, local businesses, and individuals come to us for consistently practical and forward-looking advice.
On May 7, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Kelly v. United States that the "Bridgegate" political retribution scheme did not violate the wire fraud or federal-program fraud statutes.
United States Criminal Law
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On May 7, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Kelly v. United States that the "Bridgegate" political retribution scheme did not violate the wire fraud or federal-program fraud statutes. Although the government proved that the defendants devised and facilitated the closing of multiple lanes of the George Washington Bridge in September 2013, resulting in days of traffic gridlock, the Court reasoned that the charged conduct was an exercise of regulatory power that did not concern a property interest, and any implementation costs associated with the traffic lane realignment, although government property, were a byproduct of the scheme rather than its object. Because the defendants' scheme did not have property as its object, as the federal fraud statutes require, the Court overturned their convictions. The Kelly decision is yet another chapter in a line of cases in recent years in which the Court has pushed back against what it found to be prosecutorial overreach in criminalizing conduct that, while unscrupulous, nonetheless does not violate federal fraud laws.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

To view original article, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More