U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies "Honest Services" Fraud

By Teresa Anderson

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a lower court must reexamine the conviction of former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling.

Prosecutors had convicted Skilling under a portion of the mail-fraud statute that makes it illegal to deprive someone of “honest services.” The honest services law was meant to tackle fraud cases in which no party suffered a loss. The idea behind the law was certain actions, such as a government official colluding to give a contract to a favored constituent, for example, is still illegal even if the government receives fair terms on that service. However, the law does not set out exactly what sort of actions are illegal under the honest services theory.

Starting in the 1940s, appellate courts applied the honest services doctrine to bribery of public officials. However, over time, the courts began to apply the concept to private industry as well. Usually, the theory was used in cases where a person accepted bribes or kickbacks but the company did not suffer from those actions. But the doctrine also applied to other types of fraud.

Skilling was convicted for wire fraud under the honest services theory for conspiring to defraud Enron’s shareholders by misrepresenting the company’s financial health. However, Skilling could not be charged for this crime under another statute because he never solicited or accepted payment from a third party in exchange for making these misrepresentations. The government argued that Skilling’s actions were illegal because he deprived the company and its shareholders of honest services.

Skilling v. U.S..pdf635.39 KB


View Recent News (by day)


Beyond Print

SM Online

See all the latest links and resources that supplement the current issue of Security Management magazine.