Corruption in Indian Country: The Charges Prosecutors Use
Day 3 of a 5-Part Series
When a corruption investigation turns into a federal case, the charges are usually drawn from a small set of statutes. These laws are written broadly, which gives prosecutors wide latitude to fit many different situations under the label of “corruption.”
When I was an Assistant United States Attorney, I used these statutes in prosecutions involving tribal programs and officials. Now that I am on the defense side, I see how those same laws can be stretched too far.
Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds
The most common charge is 18 U.S.C. § 666. This law makes it a crime to steal, embezzle, or accept bribes if the organization receives more than $10,000 a year in federal funding.
For tribes, that threshold is almost always met because so many programs are supported by federal grants. This means nearly any allegation of financial wrongdoing can be brought into federal court under § 666.
Wire Fraud and Honest Services Fraud
Another favorite tool for prosecutors is wire fraud. If money or communication moved electronically — which it almost always does — the government can use that as a hook for federal charges.
Closely related is honest services fraud, which is used when prosecutors claim an official deprived the tribe of their right to honest services through bribery or kickbacks. These cases often depend heavily on how the government frames intent and relationships.
Conspiracy and False Statements
Prosecutors also lean on conspiracy charges. If two or more people are alleged to have worked together, even informally, the government may try to add conspiracy counts. These are attractive to prosecutors because they do not require proof that the underlying crime was completed, only that there was an agreement to commit it.
False statement charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 are another add-on. If someone is accused of lying to federal investigators or during an audit, even about a minor detail, the government often stacks those charges onto the case.
Why This Matters
The combination of broad statutes and aggressive charging strategies means that many cases in Indian Country end up in federal court even when the underlying conduct might better fit a tribal or administrative process.
As a prosecutor, I knew these laws gave me a powerful toolkit. As a defense attorney today, I see how important it is to push back on whether the facts truly meet the elements of the statute. Jurisdiction, intent, and context all matter, and they can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Key Takeaway
The charges in corruption cases are not random. They usually come from a handful of broad federal statutes. Knowing which ones are used and how prosecutors build them is the first step in mounting a strong defense.
Tomorrow’s post will turn to the defense side of the story — how these cases can be challenged and how cultural and political context in Indian Country plays a role in the courtroom.