18 U.S.C. § 201
SHORT TITLE.
“This title may be cited as the ‘Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,699
cases (131 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019).
United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019). “Notably, the statute does not apply to bribery within branches, departments, or agencies of the federal government, a matter proscribed, both as to solicitation and payment, by 18 U.S.C. § 201 ; see infra at note 21 (quoting statutory text).”
United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972). “This direct appeal from the District Court presents the question whether a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under 18 U. S. C. §§ 201 (c) (1), 201 (g), for accepting a bribe in exchange for a promise relating to an official act.”
United States v. Cecil Dwayne Evans, Arnold Gene Tate, & Charles Edward Gent, Jr., 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1978). “On count eleven, he was found not guilty of accepting a bribe under 18 U.S.C.A. § 201 (c); but, he was found guilty of the lesser included offense of accepting a gratuity under 18 U.”
Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006). “allege the Developers fraudulently procured the Bricktown redevelopment contract by misrepresenting to the Renewal Authority and the city council that they were backed by Torchmark Corporation.”
United States v. Martinez-Maldonado, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013). “at 404-05 (third emphasis added) (construing the general federal bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201 ); see also United States v.”
United States v. Sonya Evette Singleton, Nat'l Ass'n of Crim. Def. Lawyers, Amicus Curiae, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999). “A panel of this court reversed that conviction on the ground the prosecuting attorney violated 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2) when he offered leniency to a co-defendant in exchange for truthful testimony.”
United States v. Mark Alfisi, 308 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2002). “Mark Alfisi appeals from a conviction by a jury before Judge Hellerstein on counts of: (i) bribery of a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b)(1)(A); (ii) paying an unlawful gratuity to a public official in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Robert McDonnell, 792 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2015). “from federal statutes proscribing — and defining— similar crimes,” including the general federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b), and the statute prohibiting theft and bribery involving federal funds, 18 U.”
Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984). “18 U. S. C. § 201 (a). I In 1979, the city of Peoria received two federal block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).”
United States v. Fraser Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “Count Two alleged that Verrusio violated the gratuities statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c), by accepting items of value “for and because of his official assistance provided and to be provided to [United Rentals’] efforts to secure favorable amendments to the Federal Highway Bill.”
United States v. William Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012). “§ 371; • Counts 3 and 4 — Solicitation of bribes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b)(2)(A); *336 • Counts 5 through 10 — Self-dealing and bribery-related honest services wire fraud, in contravention of 18 U.”
United States v. Robert Cooper Smith, 196 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1999). “In this opinion, we resolve a sentencing issue, an evidentiary matter, and whether 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2) prohibits the government from granting immunity to cooperating witnesses.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(a) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3) — 2 cases
United States v. Silver, 864 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2017).
United States v. Silver, 954 F.3d 455 (2d Cir. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) — 2 cases
Marion Francis Fountain & Roosevelt Tremble v. United States of Am., Eugene J. Marshall v. United States, 384 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1968).
United States v. Cesare Viviano, 437 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) — 1 case
Sasonov v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 2d 626 (D.N.J. 2008).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(C) — 2 cases
United States v. Felipe Zamora (7th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Felipe Zamora, 982 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Messenger (D.D.C. 2025).
United States v. Luna (5th Cir. 2001).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Seifullah Muhammad, 120 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 1997).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Winchester, 407 F. Supp. 261 (D. Del. 1975).
United States v. Plummer (4th Cir. 1999).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Mario Biaggi & Meade Esposito, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) — 13 cases
United States v. Richard Thomas Stitt, A/K/A Patrick v. Hardy, A/K/A Tom Tom, 250 F.3d 878 (4th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Robert Cooper Smith, 196 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1999). “In this opinion, we resolve a sentencing issue, an evidentiary matter, and whether 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2) prohibits the government from granting immunity to cooperating witnesses.”
United States v. John E. McGee, 189 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Li Xiang Feng, United States of Am. v. Chen Biao, United States of Am. v. Tu Yu Piao, United States of Am. v. Hui Lin, 277 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Mykola Ihnatenko, United States of Am. v. Mykhailo Yurchenko, 482 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(f) — 1 case
United States v. Sol Cohen, 431 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1970).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(g) — 2 cases
United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
United States v. Kahan, 350 F. Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).
— 18 U.S.C. § 201(i) — 1 case
United States v. Robert H. Blanton, Iii, Jerome Banks & Clyde Daigle, 793 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1986).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.