## Facts

- The FBI ran ABSCAM, an undercover corruption investigation in which agents posed as representatives of wealthy Arab businessmen using a fictitious company, Abdul Enterprises, Ltd.
- Harrison A. Williams, Jr., a U.S. Senator from New Jersey, and Alexander Feinberg, an attorney and close friend, held interests in a titanium-mining venture.
- Undercover operatives proposed transactions connected to the venture, including an apparent $100 million loan and a potential sale that would have generated large profits for the venture’s owners.
- The government alleged Williams, aided and abetted by Feinberg, agreed to use his senatorial influence to help obtain government contracts for titanium from the venture.
- In exchange, Williams received shares of stock in corporations associated with the venture; the shares later proved to have no commercial market value.
- Williams and Feinberg were indicted in the Eastern District of New York on conspiracy and substantive bribery-related counts and were convicted after a jury trial.
- On appeal, they challenged ABSCAM-related aspects of the prosecution and argued that worthless stock could not satisfy the statutory requirement of a “thing of value.”

## Issues

1. Whether stock lacking actual commercial market value may nonetheless qualify as a “thing of value” under federal bribery and related statutes when accepted as consideration for official action.
2. Whether ABSCAM investigative methods required reversal based on entrapment or due process limits on government conduct.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show a corrupt quid pro quo agreement involving the use of official influence.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The court upheld the jury instruction permitting the jury to treat the stock as a “thing of value” even if it was commercially worthless.
- The court rejected renewed ABSCAM challenges, applying its prior rulings sustaining similar convictions arising from the same undercover operation.
- The court found the proof sufficient for the jury to conclude Williams corruptly agreed to trade official influence for the offered interest, with Feinberg facilitating the arrangement.

## Legal Principles

- “Thing of value” in federal bribery statutes is construed broadly and is not limited to items with an established market price.
- An item may constitute a “thing of value” if it is intended and understood to confer a benefit and is accepted by the official as the quid pro quo, even if it later proves worthless.
- For bribery-related offenses, the government need not prove the official successfully performed the promised act; it is enough to prove a corrupt agreement to accept something of value in exchange for official action or influence.
- Undercover inducement does not require reversal where the evidence permits a finding that the defendant voluntarily entered a corrupt bargain and the government conduct does not violate due process.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed the ABSCAM convictions, holding that stock can satisfy the “thing of value” element even without objective market value when it is accepted as consideration for corruptly offering official influence, and rejecting challenges to the undercover operation and the sufficiency of the evidence.


United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983)