Threats to reveal embarrassing, salacious or otherwise lurid (but non-criminal) conduct will not, by themselves, trigger a violation of the federal blackmail statute. The key, and limiting, element of this crime is that it only applies to threats involving the disclosure or non-disclosure of violations of federal law. (3) The defendant had knowledge relating to illegal activity and offered to withhold it. (2) That defendant acted under the threat of informing or as consideration for not informing against a violation of any law of the United States, and This situation makes it difficult to assess the true voluntariness of the exchange.(1) The defendant demanded money or a thing of value from the victim, Surveys in different countries have found that businesses and citizens often have little choice but to pay what is asked (UNODC, 2013 UNODC, 2017). The line between bribery and extortion is rather blurred when a public official expects a bribe for an action they are paid to carry out. Figure 4.1 Characteristics of Bribery and Extortion Extortion characterizes the infiltration of legitimate business when organized criminal groups try to force payments from individuals or businesses using threats to avoid worse than fair treatment. For instance, members of organized criminal groups may do illicit favours or pay judges, jurors, police or other public officials in exchange for them to "look the other way". Organized criminal groups commonly use bribery to protect their illicit activities.
In other words, bribery and extortion present several significant commonalities and differences, which are illustrated in Figure 4.1 below. The payee is guilty of extortion the payer is the victim of extortion. On the other hand, coercive extortion by a public official is the seeking or receiving of a corrupt benefit paid under an implicit or explicit threat to give the payer worse than fair treatment or to make the payer worse off. Both the person giving and the recipient are guilty of bribery. On the other hand, in cases of bribery, the bribed party will do something in favour of the bribing party.īribery relates to a corrupt benefit given or received to influence official action so as to afford the giver better than fair treatment. In extortion, the receiver is making a threat towards the extorted party, threatening to perform a certain action that will harm the extorted party unless the extorted party gives the receiver whatever the receiver requests. Both offences involve the exchange of money, property, or services, but the manner in which the exchange occurs and the parties involved often vary depending upon the nature of the crime. There is a degree of overlap between the two concepts and "extortion 'under colour of official right' equals the knowing receipt of bribes" (United States v. The debate over the bribery-extortion distinction has centred on the second type of extortion, namely the extortion under colour of official right. The legal distinction between bribery and extortion is not straightforward, it varies between jurisdictions and a person can be guilty of both in many instances. Similarly, article 16 deals with bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations. Article 15 of the Convention against Corruption defines bribery of national public officials as both the promise, offering or giving of an undue advantage and the solicitation or acceptance of an undue advantage by a national public official.