128 F.4th 442
2d Cir.2025Background
- Edward Mangano, Nassau County Executive, and his wife Linda received payments and gifts from businessman Harendra Singh (notably a $100,000/year "no‑show" job for Linda) while Singh sought favorable official action.
- Singh sought Town of Oyster Bay loan guarantees to finance required capital improvements; Mangano pressured Town officials and enlisted his former law firm to craft legal cover for the guarantees.
- The Town adopted vaguely worded amendments and assignments that effectively guaranteed several loans; Town officials (Venditto, Genova, Mei) also received benefits from Singh.
- The government tried two schemes (Town loan guarantees and County contracts); the jury convicted Mangano only on the Town loan guarantees counts for honest‑services fraud and related conspiracy, and convicted both Manganos for conspiring to obstruct a grand jury; Linda was also convicted of obstruction and false statements.
- On appeal the Second Circuit affirmed most convictions but held the evidence insufficient to sustain convictions under the federal‑programs‑bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 666) — reversing Counts One and Two — while affirming honest‑services fraud, obstruction, and false‑statement convictions; the case was remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal‑programs bribery (principal/agency under §666) | Gov: Mangano liable under §666 for soliciting/accepting bribes regarding Town business | Mangano: not an agent of Town; government conceded he was not a Town agent at trial | Reversed: insufficient evidence to show Mangano was a Town agent; government waived contrary theory; §666 principal liability fails |
| Federal‑programs bribery (aiding and abetting) | Gov: Mangano aided/abetted Town officials’ acceptance of bribes | Mangano: evidence showed bribes to Town officials benefited those officials, not Mangano | Reversed: evidence did not show Mangano aided/abetted a §666 scheme benefiting him |
| Federal‑programs bribery (conspiracy) | Gov: conspiracy charged to influence Town business for Mangano’s benefit | Mangano: no agreement with Town agents to corrupt Town business for his benefit | Reversed: no sufficient evidence of conspiracy to violate §666 re: Town |
| Honest‑services fraud (fiduciary duty under §1346) | Gov: Mangano, as County Executive, owed fiduciary duty to public/constituents affected by Town decisions | Mangano: fiduciary duty limited to employer government; he wasn’t a Town official | Affirmed: fiduciary duty runs to the public/constituents; conduct deprived public of honest services |
| Honest‑services fraud (quid pro quo timing/specificity and "official act") | Gov: payments to Linda were part of an as‑opportunities‑arise quid pro quo; Mangano used official position to secure guarantees | Mangano: jury instructions failed to track McDonnell/Silver II timing and specificity; his pressure/advise was not an "official act" | Affirmed: instructions and evidence satisfied McDonnell/Silver II requirements; Mangano’s pressure/advice qualified as an official act |
| Honest‑services fraud (statute of limitations) | Gov: ongoing payments to Linda and later misleading disclosures kept scheme within limitations | Mangano: initial guarantee in 2010 was time‑barred | Affirmed: payments and later false disclosures continued the scheme into limitations period |
| Obstruction of justice (nexus to grand jury under §1512(c)(2)) | Gov: Manganos conspired to fabricate story for investigators after Linda subpoenaed; grand jury investigation was foreseeable | Manganos: false statements to agents alone insufficient to meet Aguilar nexus | Affirmed: jury correctly instructed on foreseeability/nexus; evidence sufficient |
| False statements (§1001) | Gov: agent notes and corroborating witnesses showed materially false proffer statements by Linda | Linda: no verbatim record; statements may be ambiguous or literally true | Affirmed: transcript not required; agent practices and corroboration supported material falsity |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) (defines "official act" and requires specificity as to the question or matter)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (limits honest‑services fraud to bribery/kickback schemes that breach a fiduciary duty)
- Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023) (recognizes fiduciary duty of public officials to the public they serve)
- United States v. Silver, 948 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2020) (Silver II) (clarifies timing/specificity for as‑opportunities‑arise quid pro quo in this circuit)
- Aguilar v. United States, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) (requires nexus between obstructive act and an official proceeding: foreseeability/relationship in time, causation, or logic)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) (applies Aguilar nexus analysis in §1512(c)(2) context)