18 U.S.C. § 226

Bribery affecting port security

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—Whoever knowingly—(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public or private person, with intent to commit international terrorism or domestic terrorism (as those terms are defined under section 2331), to—(A) influence any action or any person to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud affecting any secure or restricted area or seaport; or(B) induce any official or person to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person that affects any secure or restricted area or seaport; or(2) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for—(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act affecting any secure or restricted area or seaport; and(B) knowing that such influence will be used to commit, or plan to commit, international or domestic terrorism,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.(b)Definition.—In this section, the term “secure or restricted area” means an area of a vessel or facility designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section.(Added Pub. L. 109–177, title III, § 309(a), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 241.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: (PS) Ryan v. Fuentes (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

(PS) Ryan v. Fuentes (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3× “23 The amended complaint purports to bring claims under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 24 Amendments, 18 U.S.C. § 226 , and the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.”

United States v. Bowker (6th Cir. 2004). “An indictment satisfies these constitutional requirements “if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against 1 Count 1 of the indictment charges Bowker with interstate stalking, which he must defend, and, second,…”

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.