NCJ Number
254766
Date Published
June 2020
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The purpose of the study, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was to fill a literature gap with empirically based knowledge of prosecution practices, corruption-fighting statutes, and types of behavior underlying prosecutions in federal courts.
Abstract
Every public corruption case is different in the details, but the thousands of corruption convictions in federal courts since the mid-1980s have largely boiled down to four categories of criminal conduct: fraud, bribery, extortion, and conspiracy. A comprehensive analysis of nearly 57,000 federal court corruption cases spanning 30 years revealed that fraud and bribery dominated the types of conduct underlying criminal cases, accounting for 76 percent of the lead charges in cases resulting in convictions. Those two unlawful behavior types, combined with extortion and conspiracy, broadly informed the lead charges in virtually all examined corruption convictions in federal courts from 1985 to 2015. That was a key finding of a case records study by a research team led by Jay S. Albanese of Virginia Commonwealth University. The purpose of the study, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was to fill a literature gap with empirically based knowledge of prosecution practices, corruption-fighting statutes, and types of behavior underlying prosecutions, the researchers said. New insights on corrupt behavior could inform new policies to prevent some corrupt conduct and discover some corrupt acts earlier, the team reported in a published paper developed through an NIJ grant.
Date Published: June 1, 2020
Downloads
Similar Publications
- The Effects of Community-infused Problem-oriented Policing in Crime Hot Spots Based on Police Data: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- Emotional Wellbeing and Cognitive Appraisals among Law Enforcement Exposed to Child Sexual Abuse Material: A Mixed Methods Study
- Factors that Facilitate and Hinder Implementation of a Problem Oriented Policing Intervention in Crime Hot Spots: Suggestions to Improve Implementation Based on a Field Experiment