## Facts

- Benjamin Bonito was a landlord and real estate developer.
- Joseph DeMatteo was a city official in charge of real estate services and served on a committee involved in selecting sites for low-income housing.
- The city’s housing authority was created by state statute and administered projects funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- Bonito bought a car at a fundraising auction at DeMatteo’s request.
- DeMatteo took possession of the car and the title was transferred to him.
- DeMatteo signed a promissory note with a repayment schedule, but the note did not mention the car, and DeMatteo never made payments on it.
- The government charged Bonito under 18 U.S.C. § 666 with corruptly giving DeMatteo something of value with intent to influence an agent of an entity receiving federal funds.
- At trial, the government presented evidence that the car was tied to Bonito’s effort to sell his property to the housing authority.
- After receiving the car, DeMatteo used his role on the housing-site committee to try to persuade the housing authority to purchase Bonito’s property.
- Bonito was convicted and appealed, challenging the jury instructions on the statute’s mens rea requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s jury instructions improperly allowed the jury to convict under 18 U.S.C. § 666 without finding that Bonito acted with the required bribery intent—i.e., with a wrongful purpose to influence (or reward) an agent in connection with the covered business of the federally funded entity.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated Bonito’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the challenged instructions, taken together, risked permitting conviction based on an overbroad understanding of the statute—allowing the jury to find guilt without the necessary finding that Bonito acted with the specific intent that makes the payment a bribe under § 666.
- The court concluded that the jury needed clearer guidance that § 666 requires bribery-type intent (a wrongful purpose to influence or reward official action connected to the entity’s business), not merely an improper motive in a general sense.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 666 targets bribery of agents of covered state or local entities that receive significant federal benefits, when the payment is made with intent to influence or reward the agent in connection with the entity’s business or transactions.
- A § 666 prosecution requires proof of the statute’s specific mens rea; it is not enough that the defendant acted “improperly” in a general way.
- Jury instructions in a bribery case must make clear that “corruptly” and “intent to influence (or reward)” require a wrongful purpose directed at official action (or action connected to the entity’s business), rather than a generalized attempt to build goodwill or maintain a relationship.
- When a trial court’s charge permits conviction on a theory that omits or blurs the statute’s required intent element, the conviction cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated Bonito’s § 666 conviction and remanded because the jury instructions on the connection to the entity’s business and the meaning of “corruptly” risked allowing conviction without a finding of the specific bribery intent required by the federal-program-fraud statute.


United States v. Bonito, 57 F.3d 167 (1995)