Federal Extortion Charges Under the Hobbs Act (18 USC 1951)
So your probably facing federal extortion charges under Hobbs Act and your ABSOLUTELY CONFUSED because you thought extortion was state crime. Maybe you threatened someone to get payment. Maybe there’s allegations you obtained property through fear. Or maybe your a public official accused of taking payments “under color of official right.” Look, we get it. Your COMPLETELY OVERWHELMED by federal charges. And you should be! Because Hobbs Act extortion under 18 USC 1951 carries 20 YEARS in federal prison and prosecutors use statute to charge everything from street robberies to public corruption!
What Is the Hobbs Act Under 18 USC 1951?
Let me explain the federal extortion weapon with incredibly broad reach. Hobbs Act enacted in 1946 to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes but now used for robberies, extortion, public corruption, street gangs! Originally targeted organized crime but evolved into general federal robbery and extortion statute!
The statute prohibits TWO main crimes: extortion and robbery! Both must affect interstate or foreign commerce – but this requirement is INCREDIBLY easy to satisfy! Any effect on commerce, however slight, gives federal jurisdiction!
Here’s what’s really scary – extortion includes obtaining property with consent induced by wrongful use of force, violence, or fear OR under color of official right! Two completely different types of extortion with different elements!
Penalties are HARSH! 20 years maximum per count, fines reaching hundreds of thousands, mandatory restitution! Multiple victims? Multiple 20-year counts! We’ve seen street robbers facing life under Hobbs Act!
What’s the Difference Between Extortion and Robbery?
Hobbs Act defines both crimes with DIFFERENT elements!
Robbery is unlawful taking of property from person or presence of another against their will by force, violence, or fear! Classic stickup – “give me your money or I’ll hurt you”! Victim doesn’t consent! Property taken by force!
Extortion is obtaining property from another WITH THEIR CONSENT induced by wrongful use of force, violence, or fear! Key difference: victim “consents” to give property because of threat! “Pay me $10,000 or I’ll burn your business” – that’s extortion not robbery!
Robbery is immediate – happens during confrontation! Extortion involves future threat – “pay me next week or else”! If threat is of immediate harm during encounter, robbery! If threat is of future harm, extortion!
Need Help With Your Case?
Don't face criminal charges alone. Our experienced defense attorneys are ready to fight for your rights and freedom.
- 100% Confidential
- Response Within 1 Hour
- No Obligation Consultation
Or call us directly:
(212) 300-5196Both carry same 20-year maximum! Prosecutors charge whichever fits facts! Sometimes charge BOTH for same conduct! Defense must distinguish which crime actually occurred!
Attempted robbery and attempted extortion are also crimes under Hobbs Act! Don’t need to succeed in taking property! Just attempting to obtain property through force or fear satisfies statute!
What Is “Extortion Under Color of Official Right”?
Second type of extortion targeting PUBLIC OFFICIALS!
Public official commits extortion under color of official right when obtains payment to which not entitled knowing it was made in exchange for official acts! Don’t need threats or fear – just public official obtaining payment for doing job!
Todd Spodek
Lead Attorney & Founder
Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.
This is MOST common Hobbs Act prosecution of public corruption! Mayor taking bribes? Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right! Police officer demanding payments? Extortion under color of official right! Any public official at any level – federal, state, local – can be prosecuted!
Critical difference from bribery statute! For Hobbs Act, government need NOT prove official induced or solicited payment! Just need to prove official accepted payment knowing it was for official acts! Easier to prove than traditional bribery!
A local politician received campaign contributions from a contractor who was later awarded a county road project, and now a federal grand jury is investigating whether those contributions were actually payments made 'under color of official right' in violation of the Hobbs Act. The politician insists the contributions were legitimate and publicly reported, but FBI agents have already interviewed several witnesses and subpoenaed bank records.
Can I really be charged with federal extortion under the Hobbs Act when I never explicitly threatened anyone or demanded anything?
Under the Hobbs Act (18 USC 1951), federal prosecutors do not need to prove an explicit threat or demand — for public officials, they can pursue charges under the 'color of official right' theory, which the Supreme Court addressed in Evans v. United States (1992), holding that the government only needs to show a public official obtained a payment knowing it was made in return for official acts. This means even accepting what looks like a routine campaign contribution can become a federal extortion charge if prosecutors can establish a quid pro quo arrangement between the payment and your official decisions. The penalties are severe, carrying up to 20 years in federal prison per count, and because Hobbs Act cases involve interstate commerce, federal jurisdiction is extremely broad — courts have found the commerce element satisfied with minimal connection to interstate activity. We would immediately challenge the government's ability to prove the requisite intent and the alleged quid pro quo, scrutinize how the evidence was obtained, and explore whether the contributions fall within protected political activity.
This is general information only. Contact us for advice specific to your situation.
“Stream of benefits” theory allows prosecution without specific quid pro quo! Official accepts ongoing payments with understanding of generally doing favors as opportunities arise! Don’t need to prove specific payment for specific act!
But Supreme Court requires quid pro quo when payment disguised as campaign contribution! If corpus of contribution doesn’t personally benefit official, must prove explicit quid pro quo! Can’t just infer corruption from contributions followed by favorable actions!
