## Facts

- Wedtech Corporation, a New York City manufacturer, obtained and sought to preserve lucrative federal contracts, including Defense Department contracts, and relied on political influence and assistance in dealings with government agencies.
- The government alleged that Wedtech provided money and benefits to public officials and related intermediaries, including a U.S. Congressman and a local executive official, to secure official assistance for Wedtech.
- Several defendants contended that transfers were lawful political contributions or legitimate legal/professional fees rather than corrupt payments.
- The prosecution’s theory focused on the substance of the exchanges: payments and benefits were allegedly provided in return for official interventions and favorable governmental action.
- Six defendants were jointly tried in the Southern District of New York in a five-month jury trial, resulting in multiple convictions for public-corruption and related offenses.
- Defendants appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and aspects of sentencing across numerous counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that payments described as political contributions or professional fees were, in fact, bribes or extortion payments.
2. What legal and factual criteria distinguish lawful political contributions and legitimate fees from criminal bribery and extortion under color of official right.
3. Whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions properly required findings of corrupt intent and a payment-for-official-action connection.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit largely affirmed the judgments of conviction arising from the Wedtech-related prosecution.
- The court held that transactions styled as campaign contributions or legal/professional fees may be treated as bribes or extortion payments when the evidence supports a corrupt exchange for official action.
- The court concluded that, on the central corruption theories, the record permitted a rational jury to find corrupt intent and a connection between payments and official assistance.
- The court made limited count-specific adjustments, including vacating or modifying particular convictions and/or sentences based on discrete legal or evidentiary errors, without disturbing the overall outcome.

## Legal Principles

- In public-corruption prosecutions, the legal characterization of a transfer turns on substance, not labels; calling a payment a “contribution” or “fee” does not bar a finding of bribery or extortion.
- A jury may infer criminality where payments or benefits are made in return for official action (a quid pro quo), even if the arrangement is presented as lawful political or professional activity.
- Hobbs Act extortion “under color of official right” encompasses a public official’s obtaining of payments not due to the official or the office in return for official acts; explicit threats are not required.
- Proper jury instructions should focus the factfinder on corrupt intent and the linkage between the thing of value and anticipated or actual official conduct; reviewing courts assess the charge as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit sustained the core Wedtech public-corruption convictions by applying a substance-over-form approach: payments routed through political or professional channels can constitute bribery or extortion when the evidence shows they were made in exchange for official action, while any identified instructional or evidentiary errors warranted only limited, count-specific relief.


United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990)