Public Official Bribery

The prosecution must demonstrate corrupt intent—that the item of value was given or accepted with the specific aim to influence an official act, which must be proven for both the giver and the recipient. The offense covers both active bribery (offering/giving a bribe) and passive bribery (soliciting/accepting a bribe) by a public official. A key legal distinction exists between bribery, which requires a "quid pro quo" intent to influence, and illegal gratuities, a lesser offense for giving a gift for or because of an act already performed, without prior corrupt intent, which carry significantly different penalties.

Bribery must involve a direct or indirect link to the official's duties, focusing on an "official act"—any decision, vote, recommendation, or function within the public servant's authority. If a benefit is given with the intent to influence a specific act or omission within the official's realm of authority, this essential element is met. The connection must be direct and corrupt, indicating a fundamental breach of the official's duty of honest services.

The term public official is interpreted broadly under D.C. and federal law to cover almost anyone performing governmental functions. This includes elected officials, appointed officers, employees of any D.C. government agency, and even contractors or consultants performing official duties. The expansive definition is designed to prevent circumvention of the law through the use of intermediaries.

Under D.C. Code $22–712 and 18 U.S. Code $201(b), the base criminal penalty for a bribery conviction is exceptionally harsh and can include imprisonment for up to 15 years. Additionally, a defendant faces a fine of up to $250,000 or three times the bribe's monetary value, whichever amount is greater. Conviction also results in mandatory disqualification from holding any future office of honor, trust, or profit under the U.S. government or the District of Columbia.

Federal sentencing guidelines often apply and recommend enhanced penalties based on several aggravating factors, primarily the value of the bribe or, more critically, the total "loss amount to the government" caused by the corrupt scheme. Higher calculated loss results in a higher recommended prison sentence. For example, a $10,000 bribe that secures a $5 million contract could result in the entire contract value being used to calculate the loss, substantially increasing the sentencing range as shown below. The following table reflects sentencing tendencies in Washington D.C. courts based on value tiers, though outcomes vary by case.

The law explicitly prohibits bribery schemes where the benefit is directed to a person or entity other than the public official themselves. Even if the bribe is transferred to a family member, friend, or unrelated third party, it still constitutes bribery. As long as the transfer is demonstrably linked to an official act and made with corrupt intent, criminal liability remains for all parties involved.

If a public employee is convicted of felony bribery, the employing agency will typically pursue immediate and non-negotiable termination. Sanctions usually include immediate and mandatory removal from public service and forfeiture of all accrued pension and retirement rights earned during the period of corruption. Furthermore, a permanent bar from reemployment in public service positions within the District of Columbia is often imposed. These penalties are typically non-negotiable for serious felony convictions.

Even without a criminal conviction, a formal adverse action proceeding is initiated by the agency upon credible allegations of bribery or related misconduct. This process includes issuing a proposal for an adverse action (like removal), providing the employee an opportunity to respond, and a final decision by the agency's official. If misconduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower standard than the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, disciplinary action will proceed.

Appeals must be filed with the correct administrative body, which is determined by the employee’s category and the nature of the action. Options include appealing to the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) for most adverse personnel actions, or following the Collective Bargaining Unit grievance procedure if the official is covered by a union agreement. Senior executive employees may appeal to the Civil Service Commission, but each route has strict deadlines, generally requiring action within 30 days of the adverse decision.

If the administrative appeal process fails to overturn the decision, the public official may seek a final remedy through judicial review by the District of Columbia Superior Court. This is only possible after the official has exhausted all internal administrative remedies. The court's review typically focuses on whether the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or contrary to law.