U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 11— BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

18 U.S.C. § 215

Receipt of commissions or gifts for procuring loans

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever—(1) corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution in connection with any business or transaction of such institution; or(2) as an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution, corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or corruptly accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction of such institution;shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or three times the value of the thing given, offered, promised, solicited, demanded, accepted, or agreed to be accepted, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both, but if the value of the thing given, offered, promised, solicited, demanded, accepted, or agreed to be accepted does not exceed $1,000, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.[(b) Transferred](c) This section shall not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.(d) Federal agencies with responsibility for regulating a financial institution shall jointly establish such guidelines as are appropriate to assist an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution to comply with this section. Such agencies shall make such guidelines available to the public.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 695, § 215, formerly § 220; Sept. 21, 1950, ch. 967, § 4, 64 Stat. 894; renumbered § 215, Pub. L. 87–849, § 1(d), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1125; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1107(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2145; Pub. L. 99–370, § 2, Aug. 4, 1986, 100 Stat. 779; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, §§ 961(a), 962(e)(1), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 499, 503; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, § 2504(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4861; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on sections 595, 1125, and 1315 of title 12, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Banks and Banking (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 22, first sentence of second paragraph, 38 Stat. 272; July 17, 1916, ch. 245, § 211(e), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, § 2, 42 Stat. 1460; June 21, 1917, ch. 32, § 11, 40 Stat. 240; Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, § 5, part 22(c), 40 Stat. 970; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, § 216(e), 42 Stat. 1472).

The punishment provisions of the three sections were identical, and all other provisions thereof were similar, except that section 595 of title 12, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Banks and Banking, relating to officers, directors, employees, or attorneys of member banks of the Federal Reserve System, did not include the terms “agent” and “acceptance” and did not include the phrase “or extension or renewal of loan or substitution of security”.

Words “shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” were omitted because of definition of misdemeanor in section 1 of this title.

Words “and upon conviction” and “and shall upon conviction thereof” were omitted as surplusage because punishment cannot be imposed until after conviction.

Verbal changes were made for style purposes.

Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 215 of this title was renumbered section 211.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–294 substituted “$1,000” for “$100” in concluding provisions.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” in concluding provisions.

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “30” for “20” before “years” in concluding provisions.

1989—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–73, § 961(a), in closing provisions, substituted “$1,000,000” for “$5,000” and “20 years” for “five years”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–73, § 962(e)(1), transferred subsec. (b) to section 20 of this title.

1986—Pub. L. 99–370 amended section generally, combining in subsec. (a) the statement of prohibited activities formerly set out in subsecs. (a) and (b), transferring to subsec. (b) and expanding provisions formerly set out in subsec. (c) which defined “financial institution”, transferring to subsec. (c) and amending provisions formerly set out in subsec. (d) relating to applicability of section, and adding new subsec. (d) relating to establishment of guidelines to assist financial institutions in complying with this section.

1984—Pub. L. 98–473 amended section generally. Prior to amendment section read as follows: “Whoever, being an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of any bank, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, of a Federal intermediate credit bank, or of a National Agricultural Credit Corporation, except as provided by law, stipulates for or receives or consents or agrees to receive any fee, commission, gift, or thing of value, from any person, firm, or corporation, for procuring or endeavoring to procure for such person, firm, or corporation, or for any other person, firm, or corporation, from any such bank or corporation, any loan or extension or renewal of loan or substitution of security, or the purchase or discount or acceptance of any paper, note, draft, check, or bill of exchange by any such bank or corporation, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”

1950—Act Sept. 21, 1950, substituted “any bank, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation” for “a member bank of the Federal Reserve System”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–370, § 3, Aug. 4, 1986, 100 Stat. 780, provided that: “This Act and the amendments made by this Act [amending this section and enacting a provision set out as a note under section 201 of this title] shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 4, 1986].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 196 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: United States v. John Sinclair, 74 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. John Sinclair, 74 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 8× “John Sinclair appeals his conviction and sentence for three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(2), which prohibits the officers of financial institutions from soliciting or accepting anything of value in connection with the business of their institutions.”
United States v. James B. Frost (89-5144/5145) & Charles L. Griffin (89-5146/5147), 914 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “§ 371 , bribery of a bank officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 215 and 2, and misapplication of bank funds in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Robert O. Denny, 939 F.2d 1449 (10th Cir. 1991). · cites it 8× “Denny appeals his conviction of fourteen counts of violating the bank bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 215 . He asserts: (1) insufficiency of evidence; (2) improper admission of expert testimony; and (3) improper instruction.”
United States v. Thomas J. McElroy Jr., & Robert H. Stedman, 910 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “§ 656 , and several counts of giving and receiving bribes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 215 (a)(1) and (2) (1988). Each defendant was sentenced to, inter alia, 37 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by two years’ supervised release, and ordered to make restitution to the…”
United States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “Ohanian admitted accepting $75,000 from Dupre and pleaded guilty to the felony of accepting a gift to procure a loan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 215 . Dupre and Sellers claim that Vossler arranged a “bonus” for Ohanian to be paid directly by Sellers and Dupre to avoid making…”
Long Island Sav. Bank, FSB v. United States, 503 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “In February 1998, Conway pled guilty to a criminal misdemeanor information charging him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 215 . 1 Specifically, Conway agreed with the following facts: “[i]n his capacity as chief executive officer and Chairman of LISB, .”
United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “§ 1349 , and making corrupt payments with the intent to influence an officer of a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(1). Trevon Gross was convicted of receiving corrupt payments as an officer of a financial institution in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Larry E. Jennings, Sr., 160 F.3d 1006 (4th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “The court noted that this amendment made § 666 "parallel" to 18 U.S.C. § 215 (the bank bribery statute), which itself was amended in 1986.”
United States v. Donnie G. Brunson, 882 F.2d 151 (5th Cir. 1989). · cites it 12× “EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence following a conviction for corruptly soliciting or demanding something of value to influence his behavior as a bank director and attorney in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 215 . 1 We affirm the conviction…”
United States v. Ernest J. Badaracco, Jr., 954 F.2d 928 (3rd Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “On August 2, 1990, Badaracco was charged by a grand jury with five counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 215 (West Supp.1991) and 18 U.”
United States v. Seaborn R. Wicker, 933 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 6× “§ 371 by conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 215 and 1344; engaging in bank fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. David Lonich, 23 F.4th 881 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “Melland argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for bribery by a bank employee ( 18 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(2)), which was based on his securing a $50,000 investment in Melland’s energy-drink start-up.”
Show all 196 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 215(c) — 1 case
Marriott Bros. v. Gage, 704 F. Supp. 731 (N.D. Tex. 1988).
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.