Background
Andre De Moya and Anthony Merritt conspired with Vincent Slater, a supervisor at the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue, to reduce tax liabilities for local businesses in exchange for cash bribes. The scheme involved Slater tampering with tax records and creating false documentation, costing the District approximately two point three million dollars in lost revenue. De Moya and Merritt were convicted of conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud, and sentenced to prison terms and supervised release.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove De Moya knew the payments were bribes, citing testimony and documents showing his intent. Regarding jury instructions, the court acknowledged the district court erred by allowing a pattern-of-conduct theory but found the error harmless as the evidence clearly showed specific quid pro quo exchanges. The court denied Merritt’s ineffective assistance claim because he failed to show prejudice, noting his counsel had already secured a substantial downward variance. Finally, the court rejected the trial penalty argument, explaining that the higher post-trial sentence resulted from the loss of plea agreement concessions, not punishment for exercising the right to trial.
Heavy is the crime when a government official trades on his office for personal gain. And no less heavy is the offense of the bribe giver.
United States v. De Moya, 24-3013 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that specific quid pro quo exchanges satisfy federal bribery statutes even if jury instructions broadly reference patterns of conduct, and it clarifies that increased sentences after trial are not unconstitutional penalties when plea concessions are forfeited.