United States v. Benjamin Bonito, Jr. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A developer bribed a city official to influence a housing authority’s purchase of his property. The court affirmed his conviction under the federal bribery statute, holding that the bribe was connected to the city’s “business” even though the city’s own funds were not directly at stake.
Legal Significance: This case expands the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 666, holding that bribing a local official is a federal crime if it is “in connection with” the business of a federally-funded entity, even if that entity’s own funds are not directly implicated in the corrupt transaction.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Benjamin Bonito, a real estate developer, was convicted of bribing Joseph DeMatteo, the Director of Real Estate Services for the City of New Haven. Bonito gave DeMatteo a car valued at $9,500. The government alleged this was to influence DeMatteo in two matters. The primary purpose was to secure the New Haven Housing Authority’s (NHHA) purchase of Bonito’s property for over $1.1 million. The NHHA was a state-created entity that administered federal HUD funds and operated independently of the City of New Haven. However, DeMatteo served as the City’s representative on a joint City-NHHA committee established to approve sites for low-income housing. The mayor of New Haven had directed that his approval was required for any site selection. The City of New Haven received more than $10,000 in federal benefits annually, but its own funds were not to be used for the property purchase. After the property deal failed, DeMatteo, in his city capacity, steered tenants from a federally funded relocation program to Bonito’s properties, authorizing a $12,800 payment to Bonito. Bonito argued that the bribe did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 666 because it was not in connection with a transaction involving the City of New Haven’s own funds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a bribe given to an agent of a local government that receives federal funds violate 18 U.S.C. § 666 if the corrupt transaction involves federal funds administered by a separate entity, rather than the funds of the agent’s own government employer?
Yes. The conviction was affirmed. The court held that the bribe was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a bribe given to an agent of a local government that receives federal funds violate 18 U.S.C. § 666 if the corrupt transaction involves federal funds administered by a separate entity, rather than the funds of the agent’s own government employer?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that the jurisdictional scope of 18 U.S.C. § 666 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
Legal Rule
Under 18 U.S.C. § 666, a bribe to an agent of a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- 18 U.S.C. § 666’s language covering payments “to influence or reward”