68 A.3d 375
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Petitioner Scarantino admitted in federal court to corrupt receipt of reward under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) related to awarding Pittston Area School District contracts.
- Plea agreement specified one gratuity of $5,000 for sentencing guidelines purposes.
- PSERS notified petitioner that retirement benefits would be forfeited under the Forfeiture Act due to the guilty plea.
- PSERS treated the federal crime as substantially the same as Pa. bribery in official matters under § 4701.
- Hearing officer found no substantial similarity; Board reversed, holding substantial similarity exists.
- Petitioner appealed, challenging substantial-similarity ruling, the catchall provision, delegation, and constitutional aspects of forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §666(a)(1)(B) is substantially the same as §4701. | Scarantino argues no substantial sameness. | Board argues substantial sameness based on elements, burdens, and mens rea. | Yes; substantial sameness found. |
| Whether the Forfeiture Act’s catchall is vague. | Catchall vague under due process. | Catchall adequately defines unlawful conduct via substantial-similarity standard. | Not vague; catchall valid. |
| Whether the catchall is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. | Delegation violates Article II, §1. | Legislature provides standards; delegation permissible. | Not an unconstitutional delegation. |
| Whether forfeiture of $1.5 million violates due process and Eighth/Pa. Constitution constraints. | Excessive or punitive; gross disproportionality applies. | Forfeiture is contract-based, not punitive; not disproportionate. | Not punitive; not subject to gross-disproportionality analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roche v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 731 A.2d 640 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (compare federal false declarations vs. state perjury for substantial-similarity analysis)
- Merlino v. Philadelphia Board of Pensions & Retirement, 916 A.2d 1231 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (federal false statements substantially the same as false reports to law enforcement)
- Brace v. County of Luzerne, 873 F.Supp.2d 616 (M.D.Pa.2012) (substantial-similarity analysis for §4701 and §666(a)(1)(B))
- Commonwealth v. Moran, 5 A.3d 273 (Pa.Super.2010) (interpretation of 'as consideration for the decision' in §4701)
- Commonwealth v. Cherpes, 520 A.2d 439 (Pa.Super.1987) (interpretation of quid pro quo in bribery context)
- Apgar v. State Employes’ Ret. Sys., 655 A.2d 185 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (contractual nature of public pension rights and forfeiture)