Criminal Justice: The Foreign Corrupt Policies Act

Written by: Yaquelin Hinojosa- Fuentes, Aaliyah Thompson, Abia Siddiqui, Abby Hernandez

Edited by Moksha Davaloor

In the early 2000s, Michael Madigan, then Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, successfully thwarted several legislative initiatives supported by the Commonwealth Edison company. In an effort to improve the relationship with the House Speaker, ComEd began to hire Madigan's allies, as well as a law firm with ties to the Speaker. From 2011 through 2019, the defendants' coordinated to influence and reward Madigan. In 2019, ComEd hoped to capitalize on their flow of bribes to Madigan's associates. The company championed the Future Energy Jobs Act which eventually made its way through the state's legislative chambers. Anne Pramagiorre made a statement to investors that concealed ComEd's bribery scheme to advance its legislative interests. Soon after the passage of FEJA, Madigan contacted Pramagiorre through a third party, to ask if ComEd would "hire one of his political allies, who was retiring from the Chicago City Council for $5,000 a month. Pramagiorre delivered and facilitated ComEd's payments to the alderman by using Jay Doherty's consulting firm. In an effort to conceal the scheme, ComEd paid Doherty an additional 5,000 a month and "assigned additional responsibilities. (United States of America v Michael McClain, Anne Pramaggiore, John Hooker, and Jay Dohery 2020).

The four executives and associates involved were indicted on charges including conspiring to influence and reward the former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives- Michael Madigan. According to federal prosecutors, the group arranged jobs, contracts, and monetary payments for Madigan and his associates as part of a scheme to influence the Speaker in support of favorable regulations and statutes beneficial to ComEd (United States Attorney's Office Northern Illinois 2020). They were all convicted by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in May 2023 on every count of a nine-count indictment accusing them of conspiracy, bribery, and falsifying documents. The sentencing had been delayed largely due to a Supreme Court ruling (Snyder v United States) in which the Court decided that a federal bribery statute does not criminalize gratuities. The defendants' attorneys used the decision to their advantage to ask for convictions to be thrown out and the case to be retried. The presiding judge on the case, agreed to dismiss four of the nine convictions, due to a jury technicality, but the other charges remain intact. To make matters more complicated, the remaining charges involve violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, in which President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for a review of how the Justice Department reviews and enforces this law. In light of the chain of events, the presiding judge is determined to move the case along through means of a retrial or by setting a sentencing date on the schedule, and in late March, almost two- years post-conviction, their sentencing has finally been set to July of 2025 (Masterson 2025).

Precedent:

Snyder v United States: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 666, only criminalizes bribes to state and local officials, not gratuities. This means payments made to state and local officials after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation are not subject to federal prosecution under this law.

McDonnell v. United States: Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was convicted for accepting gifts and loans from a businessman in exchange for promoting his dietary supplement company. The US Supreme court unanimously overturned the conviction, ruling that setting up meetings or hosting events (even if done in return for favors) did not qualify as "official acts" under federal bribery law. The decision significantly narrowed what counts as quid pro quo corruption. The decision-makers in this case were the justices of the Supreme Court, whereas the decision maker for the ComEd 4 case was the northern district court of Illinois. While the Supreme court was not directly involved with the ComEd 4 case, their ruling heavily influences how lower courts interpret bribery statutes. In the current ComEd Four case, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah is applying this precedent, which likely contributed to his decision to grant a partial retrial. His rulings suggest that he is following the Supreme Court's precedent by requiring more explicit evidence of bribery rather than vague political favors.

The Foreign Corrupt Policies Act:

The Foreign Corrupt Policies Act is an anti-bribery provision that prohibits United States residents, companies, and foreign issues from bribing government officials to progress their business. Prohibitions affect both U.S and foreign corporations and nationals from making corrupt payments to foreign government officials and anyone considered to act on behalf of others for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business. The Act contains an anti-bribery provision to prevent bribes and other payments, and an accounting provision requires United States companies to keep books and records that accurately reflect the company assets and a system of accounting controls pursuant to the standards of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

It was put into place in the mid- 1970s when over 400 U.S companies were caught bribing officials. The payments of these bribes totaled over 300 million US dollars. With the Watergate scandal in the 70's, the widely shared concern among the public only grew, ultimately forcing congress to pass the FCPA in 1977 under President Carter. This act has been around for a while, thus other companies have found loopholes with the act, causing several amendments to be made such as enforcement enhancements for whistleblower protections and provisions to foreign subsidiaries which affect the ComEd Madigan case. Overall the act reflects the importance of corporate compliance programs that meet ethical expectations within the light of domestic corruption.

The reopening of the ComED 4 case in 2025 is not just a legal technicality, it is a reflection of how our justice system is still redefining accountability, especially when powerful people and corporations are involved. This retrial calls attention to how evolving interpretations of laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act can shift the ground beneath our feet. This case has already stirred public concern and made companies rethink how they engage with political figures. It also highlights a bigger issue: when legal definitions of corruption become too narrow, it becomes harder to hold people in power responsible. By going back and examining the facts of the original case, this retrial forces us to reflect not just on what happened, but also on how we define justice moving forward. Where or not the outcome changes, the fact that the case was reopened shows that these conversations need to be had.