In United States v. Linda Mangano and Edward Mangano, 2d Cir. No. 22-861 (L) (Feb. 13, 2025), the Court upheld the defendants’ convictions for honest-services fraud and obstruction of justice, but vacates Edward Mangano’s bribery-related convictions. We focus on that aspect of Judge Livingston’s thorough opinion.
Edward Mangano was the County Executive of Nassau County on Long Island. Linda is his wife. The Town of Oyster Bay is an “internal municipality” of Nassau County. Mangano is not an employee or official of the Town.
Harendra Singh is a businessman and restauranteur on Long Island. He and Mangano have long been friends, but Singh never gave him any money or benefits before Mangano’s 2009 electoral victory. Thereafter, as the evidence showed, Singh showered Mangano with money and gifts, including a $100,000 per year “no show” job for Linda Mangano at one of his restaurants.
In exchange, Singh asked Mangano to help him obtain loan guarantees worth millions of dollars from the Town of Oyster Bay. Although Mangano was not a Town agent or official, he “enjoyed unique political capital,” as County Executive, over Town officials in charge of determining whether to issue the guarantees. Thus, Mangano organized meetings of Town officials to discuss the issue and pressured them to approve the guarantees for Singh. The Town eventually did.
A grand jury indicted Mangano for bribery (and related offenses) under 18 U.S.C. § 666 as well as honest-services fraud (and related offenses) under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 & 1346. After two trials, a jury convicted him of both offenses, each arising from the Town loan-guarantee scheme.
The Circuit vacated Mangano’s bribery convictions but affirmed his honest-services convictions. The bribery convictions could not stand because Mangano was not an “agent” of the affected entity, the Town of Oyster Bay, within the meaning of § 666. But the honest-services convictions are fine, because Mangano owed a fiduciary duty not just to the entity of Nassau County, but to his 300,000-odd constituents who lived in Oyster Bay.
First, the § 666-related convictions fail because “the evidence at trial did not establish that [Mangano] was an agent of the Town.” Op. 41. He was the County Executive of Nassau County but was not an official or employee of the Town of Oyster Bay. And Page 1 of 2 Section 666 specifically prohibits an “agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian government” from soliciting or accepting bribes. Thus, “to be liable for federal program bribery, an agent’s principal must be the ‘organization . . . State, local, or Indian tribal government” that has its business corrupted by the bribe.” Op. 42. And because Mangano was not an agent of the Town, he did not violate § 666 by accepting Singh’s money in connection with the loan guarantees.
However, Mangano’s role did not preclude his convictions for honest-services fraud. These convictions “require evidence demonstrating that: (1) the defendant violated a fiduciary duty to another party in agreeing to a quid pro quo; (2) the defendant understood, at the time of the quid pro quo, on which specific question or matter the briber expected him to act; and (3) the action that the defendant agreed to take in exchange for the bribe was an official act.” Op. 56.
The Court rejected Mangano’s argument, regarding element one, that “an official owes a fiduciary duty only to the governmental entity he represents.” Op. 57. “[W]ithin the honest services doctrine,” the Court ruled, “an official’s fiduciary duty extends not merely to the entity he works for but also, and perhaps more fundamentally, to the people whom that entity serves.” Id. 57.
The Circuit joined “several sister circuits” in holding that “a public official’s fiduciary duty runs to the people he serves, not merely his governmental employer.” Id. 58. And Mangano actions in connection with Singh’s loan guarantees “violated the fiduciary duty he owed, as Nassau County Executive, to the Nassau County citizens who lived within the Town.” Id. 60.
In sum, “while a government official may only be liable for federal programs bribery [under § 666] when he agrees to take action in connection with the federally-funded governmental entity that he represents, that same official may still be liable for honest services fraud [under §§ 1343 & 1346] for actions in connection with distinct governmental entities so long as those actions deprived his constituents of their right to his honest services.” Op. 60.
Comments are closed.