This section contains a searchable index of key judicial opinions about the conflict of interest statutes from the Federal courts.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an interim Associate Administrator of NASA violated 18 U.S.C. §208 where he persuaded a NASA official to allocate funds to a client of a consulting firm in which he maintained sole proprietorship and he knew he held a financial interest in the matter.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a government employee who actively participates in procuring sales that result in increased commissions for her husband violated 18 U.S.C. §208, especially where the employee knew of the likely financial outcome and acted willfully.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 18 U.S.C. § 208 was not unconstitutionally vague.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the definition of "negotiation" under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) and "agent" under 18 U.S.C. § 207(a). The Court held that "negotiation" covered communications where both parties had an active interest and that there was insufficient evidence to prove that defendant acted as an “agent.”
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that 18 U.S.C. §208(a) was a strict liability offense and that a government official only needed to have knowledge of a conflicting financial interest when negotiating for employment.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Government official violated 18 U.S.C § 208 for defrauding the U.S. of money and property and 18 U.S.C. § 209 for knowingly receiving supplementation of his salary where the official was involved in a scheme that benefited him financially due to his position in the government.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) applied to a federal employee's participation, on behalf of the government, in any application or contract in which he has a conflict of interest, not just those that involved outside suppliers of goods and services to the government.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Assistant Attorney General (AG) violated 18 U.S.C. § 208 where the AG was the lead prosecutor in a check-kiting case and demanded money and employment from the bank’s representative in return for writing his report in a manner that discouraged prosecution of the creditors that hired that specific representative.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the language of 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) included acts that carried a contract to completion and not just pre-contract activities.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that that the trial court erred in narrowly construing 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) to save it from being unconstitutionally vague where neither the statutory terms or legislative history mandated that interpretation. The statute must be construed to show legislative intent and even interpreted with the correct legislative intent, section 208(a) was not unconstitutionally vague.