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

18 U.S.C. § 224

Bribery in sporting contests

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.(c) As used in this section—(1) The term “scheme in commerce” means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication;(2) The term “sporting contest” means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence;(3) The term “person” means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.(Added Pub. L. 88–316, § 1(a), June 6, 1964, 78 Stat. 203; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation (1992) scotus · cites it 2× “The degree of proximate causality required to recover damages caused by predicate acts of sports bribery, for example, see 18 U. S. C. § 224 , will be quite different from the degree required for damages caused by predicate acts of transporting stolen property, see 18 U.”
United States v. Winter (1994) ca1 · cites it 3× “§ 1962 (d), sports bribery, see 18 U.S.C. § 224 , and travel in aid of racketeering (horse race fixing), see 18 *18 U.”
United States v. James Burke, Anthony Perla, Rocco Perla, and Richard Kuhn (1983) ca2 · cites it 2× “Y 1981) (RICO), conspiracy to commit sports bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 224 (1976), and interstate travel with the intent to commit bribery, 18 U.”
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey (2013) ca3 · cites it 2× “Congress has, for example, criminalized attempts to fix the outcome of a sporting event, 18 U.S.C. § 224 , barred the placement of a sports gambling bet through wire it was not raised by the United States below.”
United States v. Paul Mazzei (1983) ca2 · cites it 2× “V 1981) (RICO), conspiracy to commit sports bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 224 (1976), and interstate travel with the intent to commit bribery, 18 U.”
United States v. Anthony Indelicato (1989) ca2 “2d 1304 (1983), we upheld a conviction under § 1962(c) in which the enterprise was a group of persons associated in fact who traveled in interstate commerce in order to bribe contestants in various college basketball games, and the RICO pattern was defendants’ attempts to…”
United States v. Joseph F. Pinto (1974) ca2 · cites it 5× “§ 1623 when he testified before a federal grand jury investigating bribery affecting harness racing as a possible violation of the sports bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 224 , that he was the owner of a winning “su-perfecta” ticket which he had cashed for $1,272.”
United States v. Errol D., Jr., a Juvenile (2002) ca9 “(citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 224 (c)(3), 921(a)(1), 841(a) and 2510(6)).”
United States v. Winter (1981) ca1 · cites it 2× “9 This pattern included racketeering acts as charged in Counts Three through Forty-Two and Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 224 , 10 1952, 11 *1127 and 2.”
United States v. Vincent R. Perrin, Jr., David L. Levy and Duffy J. Lafont, Jr. (1978) ca5 “18 U.S.C. §224 . 18 U.S.C. § 215 . 49 U.S.”
In Re Ellen Brogna (1978) ca1 “18 U.S.C. § 224 and § 1961 et seq. While not granted immunity, she was told she was not a “target” and that the government did not intend to indict her.”
United States v. Donald Lavern Culbert (1977) ca9 “Importation of mammals, birds and fish; 18 U.S.C. § 224 . Bribery in sporting events; 18 U.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
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.