Talk:Honest services fraud/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Second Review

I will offer a second opinion here since: 1)The original review was not properly conducted (left on GAN, review open, little serious attempt made). 2) The original reviewer called for a second opinion. 3) Nominator confirmed that the review was unhelpful.

It should take a day or two, but I'll post things here as I notice them.

1. Lead section too short. It does not summarise the article.

 Fixed I've expanded the lead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2. The list of recent notable prosecutions does not fully conform to MOS, embedded lists. Each case should be explained briefly in proper prose and a short introduction to the section made. Each should also be cited.

 Fixed I've converted the section to prose and referenced it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Necessity, or lack thereof, of state law violations

This section is clear enough, but, as in all sub-sections, it might be better to directly state the legal principle clearly first.

E.g. "The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit held in US Vs Brumley (1997) that, to be convicted of Honest Services Fraud, an official must have breached the state statutes which define the services he owes to his employer."

 Question: Sorry, I'm not sure how you want this to be changed. The current version reads, "In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided in United States v. Brumley that in order for a state official to have committed honest services fraud, they must have violated the state statute defining the services which they owed to their employer (the state)." You don't think that's clear enough? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be clarified what happens as a result of the two different interpretations. Is the law different in different circuits? Will this be at issue in Mr Weurauch's appeal to the Supreme Court appeal?

I don't think this needs clarification; the fundamental issue is that the courts have differing interpretations and decide which precedent to follow on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the law isn't different in different circuits, it's interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. The Supreme Court cases are expected to consider the entire honest services law and set a binding precedent on these issues. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Intent to defraud and personal benefit

Again state the rule before giving the case history.

"The Court held that there must be some intent to defraud or seek personal gain for the offence to constitue HSF". The case illustrates the princple well though.

The first few and last line of that paragraph also need to be cited.

 Fixed Both issues should be resolved now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

--Ktlynch (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over this review, Ktlynch! I'll address your concerns over the next few days. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied to all of the above after working on the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think the article's in pretty good shape now. I would appreciate responses/clarifications to the above, of course, so we can proceed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)