Bribery on the Bench: A Look at Judicial Corruption

The two most common types of judicial corruption are political interference and bribery. Political interference is when politicians or staff from the legislative or executive branch meddle in judicial affairs or collude with judges in fraudulent schemes. Despite efforts in many countries to isolate the judiciary from politics, judges and other court personnel still face significant pressure to rule in favor of powerful political or business entities rather than in accordance with the law. A malleable judiciary can be used by those in power to provide protection for and lend legitimacy to fraudulent acts. Judges might also collude with politicians in a variety of different white-collar crimes, such as extortion, money laundering and embezzlement.

Jordan Underhill, J.D.                    
Research Specialist, ACFE

In September 2009, a federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, returned a 48-count indictment against two judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan. The indictment included conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, conspiracy to commit tax fraud, honest services fraud, racketeering, bribery, money laundering and extortion. The basis of these charges was an alleged kickback arrangement with private prison operators that netted the Luzerne County judges more than $2.6 million over at least seven years. Conahan colluded with private prison operators to shut down the county-run juvenile detention center in favor of privately run facilities and Ciavarella did much of the sentencing that filled the new detention centers’ beds. The private juvenile detention centers received state funding proportionate to the number of offenders that they housed; thus, they were incentivized to house as many individuals as feasible. 

 The judges deliberately funneled juvenile offenders (who were often advised by the judges that they did not need legal counsel) into the private juvenile detention centers, regardless of whether the charges merited the punishment. One 16-year-old was arrested for gesturing with her middle finger at a police officer responding to a custody dispute involving her parents and sister. Ciavarella sentenced her to six months in juvenile detention. A 14-year-old was sentenced to three months in juvenile detention for mocking a school principal on Myspace. At least 5,000 juveniles appeared before Ciavarella in the five years preceding the discovery of the scheme, many unrepresented and severely punished for minor infractions.

The FBI and IRS began investigating the judges after another Luzerne County judge, Anne H. Lokuta, accused Conahan of conspiring to remove her from the bench (she was, in fact, removed from the bench in November 2008). Lokuta aided federal investigators in discovering the kickback arrangement. After the full extent of the scheme was discovered, hundreds of juvenile adjudications were ordered overturned.

 The so-called “kids-for-cash” scheme is an alarming reminder of the amount of damage that a dishonest judiciary can cause. The scheme not only defrauded taxpayers of millions of dollars, but also violated the constitutional rights and severely disrupted the lives of thousands of children. While the level of fraud committed by Ciavarella and Conahan is generally a rare occurrence, even a small measure of corruption in the judicial system is cause for great concern. The judiciary exercises great influence over individual lives and the notion that a judiciary is untainted by corruption is critical to society’s acceptance of a system of law as legitimate.

Types of Judicial Corruption

The two most common types of judicial corruption are political interference and bribery. Political interference is when politicians or staff from the legislative or executive branch meddle in judicial affairs or collude with judges in fraudulent schemes. Despite efforts in many countries to isolate the judiciary from politics, judges and other court personnel still face significant pressure to rule in favor of powerful political or business entities rather than in accordance with the law. A malleable judiciary can be used by those in power to provide protection for and lend legitimacy to fraudulent acts. Judges might also collude with politicians in a variety of different white-collar crimes, such as extortion, money laundering and embezzlement.

For example, a recently uncovered $1.5 billion fraud and money laundering scheme by the executive branch of the Maldives heavily involved the judiciary. Senior members of the judiciary allegedly received money and luxury apartments as part of the scheme. The judiciary was also allegedly used as a tool by the executive branch to intimidate opponents with politically motivated cases. The former president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, described the judiciary as “the most corrupt institution in the country.”

The second most common form of judicial corruption is bribery. Judges or other court officials might accept bribes to exercise their influence over a case in a way that benefits the briber. For example, a judge might delay or accelerate cases, accept or deny appeals, or simply rule in a particular way in exchange for kickbacks. In June 2016, New York State Supreme Court Judge John A. Michaelek pleaded guilty to receiving bribes and offering a false instrument for filing in a court case involving a political operative named G. Steven Pigeon (who was also indicted for nine charges including bribery, extortion and grand larceny). Prosecutors alleged that Michaelek reached an understanding with Pigeon that the judge would engage in “official misconduct which advanced Pigeon’s interests.” As part of the arrangement, Pigeon helped relatives of Michaelek find employment and provided Michaelek with tickets to hockey games and a political fundraiser.

Court officials also accept bribes to exercise their influence over cases. In 2011, Munir Patel, a court clerk in the U.K., became the first person to be imprisoned under the U.K.’s Bribery Act. Patel took bribes from motorists charged with traffic violations to help them avoid prosecution by using his privileged access to the court system. He actively solicited bribes by telling individuals that if they appeared in court, magistrates would be racially prejudiced against them.

Detecting and Preventing Judicial Corruption

When evaluating the integrity of a judicial system, there are two key aspects to consider: independence and public accountability. One of the difficulties jurisdictions face in tackling judicial corruption is striking a balance between the necessary independence of the judiciary and some degree of non-political oversight and accountability. This is generally accomplished by arranging the judicial system so that it can effectively police itself and ensuring that it operates in a transparent manner.

Judicial Independence

There are several things to look for to get a sense of a judiciary’s independence. The first is job security. Judges and other court officials must feel secure enough in their positions that they are not concerned about retribution from politicians or politically connected business entities based on the way they handle a case. This means that removing judges for misconduct should be a heavily documented, nonpartisan process.

In addition, the manner in which judges are appointed should be closely examined. If appointments occur in a politically charged way, they can compromise the independence of the judiciary. The international NGO Transparency International, Inc. recommends the use of independent appointment bodies or merit-based nonpartisan appointments. Legal organizations such as the International Bar Association and the American Bar Association echo this recommendation. There is a prevalent worry that elected judges are more likely to act inappropriately because they feel indebted to those who contributed to their campaign.

In 2014, the FBI conducted an in-court sting operation that underscored this fear. They targeted a municipal court judge named Joseph C. Waters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by staging a fake case involving an undercover agent arrested on a gun charge. The FBI arranged for one of Waters’ campaign donors to ask the judge for assistance with the fake defendant’s case. Waters contacted the judge overseeing the case, Dawn A. Segal, and asked her to help his “friend” (the undercover agent). Segal reduced the fake arrestee’s charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. Waters also admitted to intervening in an earlier judicial proceeding to help a different campaign contributor get a case dismissed.

Public Accountability

Fraud is more likely to be detected in a judicial system that uses transparent procedures and is held accountable to the public. One of the first things to look for is whether judges are required to issue well-reasoned, written opinions and whether those opinions are made freely available to the public. Additionally, court decisions should be readily appealable. The appellate process represents an important check on the judiciary, but in many countries it is prohibitively expensive.

The way a jurisdiction approaches judicial immunity should also be examined. It is important that judges enjoy a large degree of immunity relating to their conduct in specific cases because this ensures that they will be able to act independently without the threat of a lawsuit over their heads. However, a judge who has engaged in corruption should not be immune to prosecution.

Court procedures tend to be labyrinthine in a way that disadvantages the vast majority of people who have neither the training nor time to make sense of the system. Court officials can more easily engage in misconduct by manipulating these complex procedures. Thus, the way that a judiciary conveys its various procedures and rules to the public should be examined. The individuals victimized by misconduct constitute one of the most valuable assets in discovering fraud.

For example, the investigation into the kids-for-cash scandal began after several juveniles requested assistance from the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center. Lawyers from the organization determined that hundreds of cases were tried with defendants who did not have legal representation, leading to a larger investigation. A judiciary that educates the public is more likely to uncover instances of fraud. There should also be an obvious, trustworthy way for court employees and members of the public to report their suspicions. To ensure the integrity of the process, the body investigating reported misconduct should be largely independent from the rest of the judiciary.

Judicial corruption might not be as prevalent as other types of white-collar crime, but it has the unique potential to cause profound financial and personal harm. In addition, we must rely on our judiciaries to prosecute all white-collar criminals. Thus, ensuring the integrity of a judicial system is of paramount importance in the fight against fraud.