How does the Hobbs Act compare to other federal extortion laws?

How Does the Hobbs Act Compare to Other Federal Extortion Laws?

Extortion is a serious crime that involves obtaining money, property, or services through coercion, threats, or intimidation. While extortion is prohibited under state laws, there are also federal statutes that criminalize certain types of extortion that impact interstate commerce.

One of the most commonly used federal extortion laws is the Hobbs Act, which was enacted in 1946. The Hobbs Act prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion that affects interstate or foreign commerce. The statute has been used to prosecute public corruption, commercial disputes, and cases involving organized crime.

But how exactly does the Hobbs Act compare to other federal extortion and anti-corruption laws? Here is an overview of key differences and similarities between the Hobbs Act and other relevant statutes:

Key Aspects of the Hobbs Act

The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, provides that:

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

There are a few key aspects of this statute:

• It prohibits both robbery and extortion.
• The extortion or robbery must affect interstate or foreign commerce in some way, but even a minor or potential impact is sufficient.
• It applies to both public officials and private individuals.
• It covers both completed acts and attempts or conspiracies to commit robbery or extortion.
• Violations are punishable by up to 20 years in prison and/or fines.

The Hobbs Act defines extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” This covers not only extortion by private individuals through force or threats, but also extortion “under color of official right” by public officials, such as demanding bribes in exchange for official acts.

Comparison to Other Federal Extortion Laws

The Travel Act

Another federal statute used to prosecute extortion is the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which prohibits interstate or foreign travel or use of interstate facilities like mail or telephone to:

…promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity

The Travel Act covers a broader range of “unlawful activity” including extortion, bribery, and arson. However, the Hobbs Act applies more broadly to any robbery or extortion affecting interstate commerce, even if it does not involve interstate travel or facilities. The Hobbs Act also does not require proof of intent to promote unlawful activity.

The Anti-Kickback Act

The Anti-Kickback Act prohibits kickbacks in federal contracting. It makes it a crime to provide, accept, or attempt to accept any money, fee, commission, credit, gift, gratuity, thing of value, or compensation to improperly obtain or reward favorable treatment in connection with a federal prime contract or subcontract.

This law overlaps with the Hobbs Act in cases where a federal contractor pays a bribe or kickback that affects federal commerce. However, the Hobbs Act applies more broadly to extortion schemes beyond just federal contracting and without the need to prove a link to any prime or subcontract.

Federal Program Bribery

Under 18 U.S.C. § 666, it is illegal to solicit, accept, or agree to accept bribes and kickbacks involving federal programs and organizations receiving significant federal funds. This covers bribes related to any business, transaction, or series of transactions of an organization or government agency receiving more than $10,000 in federal assistance.

Like the Hobbs Act, this statute prohibits both public officials and private individuals from seeking or receiving bribes affecting federal interests. But the Hobbs Act applies more broadly to robbery and extortion schemes beyond just federal program bribery.

Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds

Under 18 U.S.C. § 666, it is illegal to solicit, accept, or agree to accept bribes and kickbacks involving federal programs and organizations receiving significant federal funds. This covers bribes related to any business, transaction, or series of transactions of an organization or government agency receiving more than $10,000 in federal assistance.

Like the Hobbs Act, this statute prohibits both public officials and private individuals from seeking or receiving bribes affecting federal interests. But the Hobbs Act applies more broadly to robbery and extortion schemes beyond just federal program bribery.

Deprivation of Honest Services

The federal “honest services fraud” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, criminalizes “schemes to defraud another of honest services” through bribes or kickbacks. This law is used to prosecute public corruption cases involving officials who fail to provide citizens with their honest services as public servants due to corruption.

While deprivation of honest services can be charged along with Hobbs Act extortion, honest services fraud requires proof that the defendant intended to defraud citizens of honest services. The Hobbs Act does not have this added requirement.

Using the Hobbs Act to Prosecute Public Corruption

One of the major uses of the Hobbs Act is to prosecute public officials for extortion “under color of official right.” This allows the DOJ to charge officials who use their public office to obtain bribes, even without threats or coercion.

The Hobbs Act gives federal prosecutors broad jurisdiction over state and local corruption that impacts interstate commerce. It provides an additional tool beyond federal program bribery laws to target abuses of public office involving robbery or extortion.

Critics argue the Hobbs Act gives the federal government too much power over state and local officials. But the Supreme Court has upheld convictions of public officials under the Hobbs Act even when the bribes were voluntary and did not involve threats or violence.

The Hobbs Act provides an important deterrent against public corruption. Federal prosecutors have used the statute in high-profile cases against governors, mayors, legislators, and other officials who use their office for personal enrichment through bribery and extortion schemes.

Using the Hobbs Act to Prosecute Organized Crime

In addition to public corruption, federal prosecutors frequently use the Hobbs Act to combat organized crime. The broad scope of the law allows charges even when the robbery or extortion has a minor or indirect effect on interstate commerce.

This has enabled convictions of mobsters involved in loan sharking, illegal gambling, and protection rackets. By showing the criminal activity impacted broad economic markets, prosecutors can charge Hobbs Act extortion without having to prove a link to a specific interstate transaction.

Critics argue this stretches the Hobbs Act too far from its original focus on interstate robbery and extortion. But the courts have largely upheld the application of the statute to organized crime rings that impact commerce through their patterns of coercive and illegal activities.

Using the Hobbs Act in Commercial Disputes

More controversially, federal prosecutors have increasingly used the Hobbs Act in commercial disputes traditionally handled under state law. Charges have been brought against businesspeople accused of extortion, even when the conduct could also be civil torts or breaches of contract.

For example, in United States v. Sturm, prosecutors charged extortion under the Hobbs Act over a contractual dispute between business partners. Critics argue these types of cases turn business disputes into federal crimes, exceeding the intended scope of the Hobbs Act.

But the courts have largely upheld Hobbs Act charges based on even potential or minor impacts on commerce. This gives federal prosecutors wide latitude to pursue commercial extortion cases under the statute.

Limits on Using the Hobbs Act

Despite the broad scope of the Hobbs Act, courts have imposed some limits on federal extortion prosecutions:

• The extorted property must have some nexus to interstate commerce, even if minor or merely potential.
• The statute only covers obtaining property, not sexual misconduct or intangible rights.
• Extortion requires illegal coercion, not just hard bargaining.
• For public officials, the bribe must be linked to official acts, not just general influence.

These limitations prevent prosecutorial overreach and ensure the Hobbs Act targets crimes with a substantial federal interest. But the required effect on commerce is still minimal, giving the statute broad application.

Sentencing for Hobbs Act Violations

A conviction under the Hobbs Act carries severe penalties. The maximum sentence is 20 years imprisonment and a fine. The base offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines depends on the type of extortion:

• 18 for robbery by force or fear.
• 14 for extortion by force or fear.
• 12 for extortion under color of official right.

Enhancements may apply depending on specific offense characteristics, such as the loss amount, use of weapons, injuries sustained, or being a public official. These enhancements can add years to the recommended sentence under the guidelines.

Defenses to Hobbs Act Charges

There are several potential defenses to Hobbs Act charges, including:

• Lack of effect on commerce – the activity did not actually or potentially affect interstate commerce.
• No wrongful conduct – the actions were legitimate business dealings, not extortion or illegal coercion.
• No quid pro quo – the payment was not exchanged specifically for an official act by a public official.
• Duress – the defendant only acted under threats or coercion.
• Entrapment – the crime was induced or encouraged by government agents.

Given the broad scope of the Hobbs Act, however, these defenses often face an uphill battle unless the facts strongly support them. Many seemingly local crimes can have at least a minimal effect on broader markets.

Conclusion

The Hobbs Act provides federal prosecutors with extensive jurisdiction over robbery, extortion, and public corruption affecting interstate commerce. The required impact on commerce is low, allowing charges even when the activity may seem local in nature.

While the Hobbs Act overlaps with other bribery and extortion statutes, it remains a unique and potent tool to combat public corruption, organized crime, and even commercial extortion. The broad reach of the statute enables federal prosecution of these crimes across jurisdictions.

However, critics argue for restraint in applying the Hobbs Act to marginal cases with limited federal implications. Courts have imposed some limits, but continue to uphold the statute’s application to a wide array of criminal activity impacting commerce.

Ultimately, the Hobbs Act reflects the expanded role of federal law enforcement in prosecuting local corruption and organized crime. This expanded federal policing power under the Commerce Clause continues to generate controversy and debate.