What this charge is
Federal program bribery is the charge prosecutors use when bribery or theft touches a state government, a local government, a tribal government, or an organization that runs on federal support. The statute is 18 U.S.C. § 666. It sits in the chapter on embezzlement and theft, not in the chapter on bribery of federal officials.
Keep the title intent from the stub page in mind. This page is about federal program bribery and theft under 18 U.S.C. § 666. It covers both sides of the deal: the insider who takes, and the outsider who pays.
A typical case looks like this. A city gets federal grant money. A council member, a county employee, a school district buyer, or a contractor takes a payment tied to a contract, a permit, or a purchase. Or a vendor offers that payment to win the work. If the federal funds link and the dollar thresholds line up, the case can be charged as a federal crime even though everyone involved works at the state or local level.
This page is general information, not legal advice. If you are under investigation or have been charged, the details of your case matter more than anything written here.
The elements the government must prove
The government must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 666 has two paths, theft and bribery, but both paths share the same federal funds link. Take each piece in turn.
You were an agent, or you paid one
For the insider path, the person charged must have been "being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof". The statute defines agent in broad terms. It means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government, and for an organization or government it includes officers, employees, managers, directors, partners, and representatives.
That reach matters. The charge is not limited to elected officials. Staff, buyers, program managers, and contractors with authority to act for the agency can qualify. The question is authority, not job title.
For the outsider path, the person charged is the one who paid or offered the payment. The government must still prove the person on the receiving end was such an agent, and that the payer acted with corrupt intent to influence or reward that agent.
The agency got over $10,000 in federal help in a one-year period
Neither path works unless "receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance." That is the circumstance that gives the federal government its hook.
Two points about this test come straight from the text. First, it is about benefits to the agency, not about the bribe. A $2,000 payment can support a charge if the agency itself got over $10,000 in federal help. Second, the one-year period is flexible. The statute says it means a continuous period that starts no earlier than twelve months before the offense or ends no later than twelve months after it, and it can span across the date of the offense.
Prosecutors prove this with grant records, contracts, and testimony from finance staff. Defense counsel test it the same way, by asking which program the money came through, when it arrived, and whether it really counts as federal assistance to that agency.
The theft path: property worth $5,000 or more
The theft and fraud path covers an agent who "embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies", property that is worth $5,000 or more and is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of, the agency.
Note the two dollar tests are different. Here the $5,000 attaches to the property taken. A series of small takings can add up if the government charges them as a course of conduct, but each count still needs proof of value. Ownership is also broad. Property under the care, custody, or control of the agency counts even if the agency does not hold formal title.
The bribery path: a corrupt deal tied to business worth $5,000 or more
The insider bribery path covers an agent who "corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" in connection with business, a transaction, or a series of transactions of the agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more.
The outsider path mirrors it. It covers anyone who "corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent" in connection with the same kind of agency business.
Three words carry most of the weight here. Corruptly means the deal was wrongful at its core, not a mistake or a lawful fee. Intending to be influenced or rewarded points to a bargain, a this for that understanding. And the $5,000 figure attaches to the business affected, not to the payment. A $1,000 envelope tied to a $40,000 contract meets the threshold. A $6,000 gift tied to nothing meets none of it.
Penalties under § 666: maximums, not predictions
A violation "shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." That sentence sets the ceiling per count. It does not set a floor. The text states no mandatory minimum prison term for Section 666.
Fines under Title 18 follow the general fine statute. For a felony, an individual faces a fine of up to $250,000 and an organization faces up to $500,000, or up to twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss from the offense, whichever measure is greatest, unless figuring gain or loss would unduly complicate or prolong sentencing. A court may also impose a term of supervised release after prison under the supervised release statute. A 10-year maximum makes the offense a Class C felony, which carries supervised release of up to three years.
Read those numbers as the outer limits, not as a forecast. The guideline range in a real case can sit far below the maximum, and the facts of a case change everything. Prior record, dollar value, role in the offense, acceptance of responsibility, and related counts all move the number. No page can predict your range.
The governing guideline
Bribery and theft under the same statute are sentenced under different guidelines. The Statutory Index in Appendix A of the 2025 Guidelines Manual points Section 666 theft, subsection (a)(1)(A), to guideline §2B1.1, and Section 666 bribery, subsections (a)(1)(B) and (a)(2), to guidelines §2C1.1 and §2C1.2. In practice after Snyder, the bribery cases run through §2C1.1, the bribery guideline, while theft cases run through §2B1.1, the theft and fraud guideline. Confirm every citation against the 2025 Manual before reliance, because amendments take effect each November 1.
Bribery: §2C1.1
Guideline §2C1.1 is titled Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe, and it opens with a split base offense level: "14, if the defendant was a public official", and [12, otherwise.] Whether a state or local agent counts as a public official for this purpose turns on the guideline definition, which the commentary construes broadly to include state and local legislators, officers and employees acting in an official function, jurors in state or local trials, people selected for those posts, and certain people in positions of public trust acting under color of law.
From that base, the specific offense characteristics stack as follows in the 2025 Manual:
More than one bribe. "If the offense involved more than one bribe or extortion, increase by 2 levels." Related installment payments for a single action count as one bribe, even if charged in separate counts.
Value. If the greatest of the payment, the benefit received or to be received, the value of anything obtained or to be obtained by a public official or others acting with one, or the loss to the government exceeds $6,500, add levels using the loss table in §2B1.1 for that amount. For sentencings on or after November 1, 2026, Amendment 2 of the Sentencing Commission's 2026 amendments raises that $6,500 trigger to $9,000, unless Congress acts. Benefit means net value, and the value of the bribe itself is not deducted from the benefit.
Elected or high-level officials. "If the offense involved an elected public official or any public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position, increase by 4 levels." If the resulting level is below 18, it is raised to 18. The commentary gives prosecuting attorneys, judges, agency administrators, jurors, law enforcement officers, and election officials as examples.
Identification documents. A two-level increase applies where a public official defendant facilitated entry into the country, passports or immigration documents, or government identification documents.
Cross references. If the bribe was paid to facilitate another crime, to conceal one, to obstruct justice as to one, or with a threat of physical injury or property destruction, the guideline for that other offense can apply instead if it produces a higher level. The commentary works through examples such as a bribe to a law enforcement officer to allow smuggling, or a bribe to conceal espionage.
Do not apply the abuse of trust adjustment in §3B1.3 on top of §2C1.1. The guideline commentary bars it.
Theft: §2B1.1
Theft under Section 666 runs through §2B1.1, the theft, fraud, and embezzlement guideline. The base offense level is 7 only where the offense of conviction is referenced to the guideline and carries a statutory maximum of 20 years or more. Section 666 carries 10 years, so the base offense level is otherwise 6. From there, loss drives the calculation. Loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss, and the table adds levels from no increase at $6,500 or less up through large increases at the higher thresholds, including added levels where loss exceeds $15,000, $40,000, $95,000, $150,000, $250,000, $550,000, and beyond into the millions. Those are the current Manual's figures. For sentencings on or after November 1, 2026, Amendment 2 of the Sentencing Commission's 2026 amendments raises each of them, unless Congress acts: to $9,000, $20,000, $55,000, $150,000, $200,000, $350,000, $750,000, and so on up the table.
Victim, mass-marketing, and related adjustments can apply on their own facts. As with bribery, the guideline range is advisory, and the judge must weigh the statutory sentencing factors alongside it. The full discussion of how judges apply these ranges belongs on our page about the federal sentencing process.
Snyder: bribes yes, gratuities no under § 666
The most important recent limit on Section 666 comes from the Supreme Court. "Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts." That is Snyder v. United States, decided June 26, 2024.
The distinction is about timing and agreement. A bribe is a payment made or agreed to before the official act, to influence it. A gratuity is a payment made after the act, as a reward or thank you, with no earlier deal. The Court read the words intending to be influenced or rewarded as describing a corrupt bargain, and held that Section 666 reaches the bargain but not the after the fact reward standing alone.
This changes how both sides prepare. Prosecutors now build the timeline: messages, meetings, and edits to bid specs or scores that show an understanding before the decision. Defense counsel attack exactly that link, asking whether the payment followed the act with no promise behind it, whether it was lawful compensation, and whether the government is stretching a local ethics problem into a federal bribery case. The opinion turned on six reasons taken together, covering text, history, structure, punishments, federalism, and fair notice, so lower courts apply it as a reading of the statute, not as a technicality.
One caution. Snyder narrowed the bribery prong. It did not legalize gratuities in general, and it did not touch the theft path. A payment called a gratuity can still be charged under a different statute on different facts. Do not assume a label decides the case.
How § 666 differs from federal bribery under § 201
The closest neighbour to this charge is the federal bribery charge under 18 U.S.C. § 201. The two statutes punish similar conduct in different worlds, and mixing them up is a common error.
Section 201 covers federal public officials: members of Congress, officers and employees acting for or on behalf of the United States, and jurors, plus people selected for those posts. Its bribery prong punishes giving or taking anything of value with intent to influence any official act, or to induce fraud on the United States or violation of lawful duty. Its maximum for bribery is 15 years, higher than the 10-year maximum under Section 666.
Section 666 covers agents of state, local, and tribal governments and their agencies, plus organizations, where the federal funds link is met. It does not require a federal official or an official act of the United States. It requires instead the $10,000 federal assistance link and the $5,000 business or property threshold. The quid pro quo idea is similar, but the jurisdictional path is different.
In plain terms: if the person paid is a federal official acting on federal business, think Section 201. If the person paid is a state or local insider at an agency kept running in part with federal money, think Section 666. Some conduct can implicate both, and prosecutors choose based on proof, venue, and penalty. The distinction matters for defenses, because cases about the meaning of official act under Section 201 do not automatically transfer to cases about agency business under Section 666, and the other way around.
For the broader family of fraud and corruption charges this page belongs to, start at the white collar defense hub.
Defenses that arise under this statute
Every case turns on its own paper trail, but the defenses below are the ones that actually arise under Section 666. None of them is a promise. Each has to be built from documents and testimony.
No corrupt bargain, only a gratuity. After Snyder, the government must prove a corrupt exchange agreed before the act, not a payment that showed up later with no strings discussed beforehand. Emails, texts, calendar entries, and the sequence of bid changes against payment dates decide this fight. A consulting agreement signed after the vote, with no work product behind it, looks different from monthly invoices for real work that predate the decision.
Bona fide pay. The statute says "This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business." Real paychecks, approved fees, and reimbursed expenses are outside the statute. The fight is over the word bona fide and the phrase usual course of business. Approved pay scales, board votes, written contracts, time records, and consistent past practice help. Cash, side letters, inflated invoices, and approvals skipped just this once hurt.
The federal funds link fails. The agency must have received over $10,000 in federal benefits in the qualifying one-year window. Defense counsel trace the dollars: which program, when obligated versus spent, whether the money went to this agency or a different one, and whether the window actually covers the charged conduct. A city department funded only by local taxes, or a grant that arrived outside the window, can take the federal hook out of the case.
The $5,000 threshold fails. On the theft path, the property must be worth $5,000 or more. Valuation fights matter: fair market value, repair cost versus replacement cost, and whether items can be aggregated. On the bribery path, remember the $5,000 attaches to the business or transaction affected. If the contract, grant, or transaction at issue was worth less, the element fails even if the payment was larger.
Not an agent, or no connection to agency business. Authority is the test. A person with no power to act for the agency, or a payment unconnected to any business of the agency, does not fit the statute. Job descriptions, delegation memos, voting records, and who actually decided the matter carry more weight than titles.
Intent and knowledge. Both paths require a corrupt mind. Mistake, sloppy paperwork, and misunderstood reimbursement rules are not the same as a corrupt deal, though the government will argue the paper shows knowledge. Contemporaneous notes, advice sought from counsel or auditors, and consistent treatment of similar transactions can support a lack of corrupt intent. After the fact explanations created once agents appear carry far less weight.
Multiplicity and related charges. Section 666 often arrives with wire fraud, false statements, or money laundering counts built on the same conduct. Each of those has its own elements, and beating one does not automatically beat the others. Sentencing exposure has to be counted across the whole indictment, including grouping and fines, not just the Section 666 count.
What to do if you are under investigation
If agents have called, if a grand jury subpoena arrived, or if colleagues are being interviewed, treat the situation as active. The investigation section on FBI investigations explains how these cases usually surface, through interviews, subpoenas, and search warrants, often months before any charge.
Do not contact witnesses, do not delete messages, and do not create new paperwork to fix old paperwork. Obstruction and destruction charges can eclipse the underlying case. Preserve calendars, bids, scoring sheets, contracts, invoices, bank records, and messages, and keep them where counsel can review them.
Do not agree to an interview without counsel, even to explain that the payment was legitimate. The bona fide pay defense depends on records, and a rushed explanation can lock in a timeline the records do not support. If you already spoke with agents, write down everything you remember about the conversation while it is fresh and bring it to counsel.
If a charge has already been filed, the next forum is sentencing as well as trial. Read the federal sentencing process page to understand presentence reports, loss and value disputes, and how guideline fights are actually litigated. Bring every contract, approval, and payment record to your first meeting. The facts of a case change everything, and early records decide which defenses are real.