Corruption in Indian Country: How Cases Begin
Day 2 of a 5-Part Series
Corruption cases in Indian Country rarely start with flashing lights or dramatic arrests. More often, they begin quietly — with an audit, a tip, or a complaint. Understanding how these cases take shape is critical, because the origin of a case often shapes its weaknesses and how it can be defended.
When I served as an Assistant United States Attorney, I handled corruption cases involving tribal governments and federally funded programs. Many of those cases looked very different at the start than they did by the time they reached trial. Knowing how they begin helps explain both how prosecutors build them and how defense counsel can challenge them.
Common Triggers for Investigations
Corruption cases in Indian Country typically start in one of a few ways:
Whistleblower tips: A tribal employee, community member, or even a political rival raises concerns about how money or resources are being handled.
Audits: Federal agencies like the Department of the Interior or the Department of Housing and Urban Development routinely audit grant-funded programs. Even small discrepancies can trigger a criminal investigation.
Federal oversight: Programs funded by the federal government, like housing or healthcare initiatives, are closely monitored. Reports of irregular spending often get referred directly to the FBI or the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Local politics: In some cases, disputes within a tribal government spill over into federal investigations. What begins as an internal political fight can become the basis for a federal corruption charge.
Who Investigates
Several agencies may be involved in building a case:
FBI: Often leads major public corruption investigations in Indian Country.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Office of Justice Services: Provides investigative support, especially when tribal law enforcement is involved.
Department of the Interior OIG: Focuses on misuse of federal program funds.
Tribal police and prosecutors: May initiate investigations under tribal law, but often coordinate with federal agencies if federal funds are implicated.
When I was a prosecutor, I often saw cases built through a patchwork of these agencies, each contributing reports, interviews, or audit findings.
The Role of Jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction usually arises because of federal funds. If a tribal program uses federal grants or contracts, prosecutors argue that misuse of those funds is a federal crime. This is what opens the door to charges under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 666 (theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds).
That jurisdictional hook is powerful for prosecutors, but it also creates a defense opportunity. Defense counsel can ask: Was this really federal? Were the funds in question actually federal dollars, or were they tribal resources outside federal oversight?
Why the Beginning Matters for Defense
The way a case starts often reveals its vulnerabilities:
If it started with a political complaint, there may be bias or selective prosecution.
If it started with an audit, the defense can challenge methodology or interpretation of the numbers.
If multiple agencies investigated, there may be gaps, inconsistencies, or overreach in how evidence was collected.
As a prosecutor, I knew these cases could look airtight on paper but have serious cracks once challenged. As defense counsel today, I look closely at how a case began because it often points to the best defense strategy.
Key Takeaway
Corruption cases in Indian Country often start small — a tip, a report, an audit finding — but can snowball into serious federal charges. Understanding who started the investigation, why it started, and how jurisdiction was asserted is the first step in building a defense.
Tomorrow’s post will focus on the specific federal statutes prosecutors rely on in corruption cases, and why they are often broader than most people realize.