This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/mayor-bill-de-blasio-investigation-no-criminal-charges.html

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Prosecutors Will Not Charge Mayor de Blasio in Fund-Raising Inquiries Prosecutors: No Charges, but Criticism for Mayor de Blasio
(about 1 hour later)
Federal and state prosecutors who have been conducting separate investigations into Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign fund-raising practices said on Thursday that they would not be bringing criminal charges against him or his aides. Federal and state prosecutors said on Thursday that they would not bring criminal charges against Mayor Bill de Blasio or his aides following separate lengthy investigations, even as they harshly criticized the mayor’s fund-raising practices and said that he and his aides had failed to abide by the “intent and spirit” of the law.
However, the mayor did not escape unscathed. The state prosecutor, the Manhattan district attorney, criticized Mr. De Blasio, saying his effort to help state Democrats appeared to violate the intent and spirit of the law. The federal inquiry found a pattern in which the mayor or his associates solicited contributions from donors seeking favors from the city and then contacted city agencies on their behalf, according to a statement from the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. But the decision to bring no charges, the statement said, came after weighing among other things, “the high burden of proof, the clarity of existing law, any recent changes in the law and the particular difficulty in proving criminal intent in corruption schemes where there is no evidence of personal profit.”
But the disclosure that no charges will be brought in either inquiry is nonetheless a notable victory for the mayor, a first-term Democrat who has been dogged by a steady stream of media reports about the investigations, and who is now gearing up to run for re-election in November. State prosecutors, who examined Mr. de Blasio’s unsuccessful 2014 effort to help Democrats regain control of the State Senate, concluded that they could not prove each element of the crimes that they considered charging beyond a reasonable doubt, according to a letter outlining their findings. The letter said this was because the mayor and those involved in the fund-raising effort had relied on the advice of their lawyers, a valid defense in a criminal case and because of ambiguities in the way the election law statutes were written.
The prosecutors conducted the simultaneous investigations for more than a year, during which time the mayor has repeatedly said that he, his administration and his campaign aides had always acted within the law. The disclosure that neither the mayor nor his administration or campaign aids will face charges is nonetheless a victory for the mayor, though perhaps a tainted one for the first-term Democrat who has been dogged by a steady stream of media reports about the investigations, and who is now gearing up to run for re-election in November.
“I’ll just say simply it’s been basically a year, I’ve said consistently that we acted appropriately,” Mr. de Blasio said during a previously scheduled interview with Brian Lehrer on WNYC, shortly after federal prosecutors released their statement. “This confirms what I’ve been saying and what all my colleagues have been saying.” The federal inquiry involved a broad examination of whether Mr. de Blasio or his administration or campaign aides exchanged favorable city action for donations to his 2013 campaign or his now-defunct political nonprofit, the Campaign for One New York. The state inquiry was more narrowly focused on whether the mayor or his aides violated state election law in 2014 by directing campaign donations to county committees to evade limits on contributions to individual candidates in the State Senate.
The federal inquiry involved a broad examination of whether Mr. de Blasio or his administration or campaign aides exchanged favorable city action for donations to his 2013 campaign or his now-defunct political nonprofit. The state inquiry was more narrowly focused on whether the mayor or his aides violated state election law by directing campaign donations to county committees to evade limits on contributions to individual candidates in the mayor’s unsuccessful 2014 effort to help Democrats retake control of the State Senate. The decisions by the two offices that handled the inquiries were disclosed separately on Thursday morning, but the timing was coordinated. The United States attorney’s office, along with the F.B.I., conducted the federal investigation and the Manhattan district attorney’s office oversaw the state one, assisted by the F.B.I.
The decisions by the two offices that handled the inquiries were disclosed separately on Thursday morning, but the timing was coordinated. The office of the United States attorney for the Southern District oversaw the federal investigation and the Manhattan district attorney’s office oversaw the state one. The two prosecutors’ offices conducted the simultaneous investigations for more than a year, during which time the mayor had repeatedly said that he, his administration and his campaign aides had always acted within the law. Mr. de Blasio was interviewed by both offices, most recently by federal prosecutors for four hours on Feb. 24.
The United States attorney’s office, which until Saturday was headed by Preet Bharara, released a brief statement (Mr. Bharara was fired over the weekend by the Trump administration and replaced by his deputy, Joon H. Kim); the Manhattan district attorney’s office, headed by Cyrus R. Vance Jr. disclosed its findings in a 10-page letter to the state Board of Elections official whose Jan. 4, 2016, referral prompted Mr. Vance’s inquiry. “I’ll just say simply it’s been basically a year, I’ve said consistently that we acted appropriately,” Mr. de Blasio said on Thursday during a previously scheduled interview with Brian Lehrer on WNYC, shortly after federal prosecutors released their statement. “This confirms what I’ve been saying and what all my colleagues have been saying.”
Mr. de Blasio immediately sought to put the issue behind him.
“We gotta get back to work,” he said. “My focus now is getting back to business.”
The United States attorney’s office, which until Saturday was headed by Preet Bharara, released its brief statement on Thursday morning (Mr. Bharara was fired over the weekend by the Trump administration and replaced by his deputy, Joon H. Kim); the Manhattan district attorney’s office, headed by Cyrus R. Vance Jr. disclosed its findings in a 10-page letter to the state Board of Elections official whose Jan. 4, 2016, referral prompted Mr. Vance’s inquiry.
Both disclosures were unusual, in that prosecutors seldom announce the conclusion of such inquiries.Both disclosures were unusual, in that prosecutors seldom announce the conclusion of such inquiries.
In a statement, Mr. Kim said that the office and the F.B.I., in response to allegations of misconduct, had been investigating Mr. de Blasio’s 2013 campaign, his now defunct nonprofit — the Campaign for One New York — as well as the effort to help state Democrats. In his statement, Mr. Kim said investigators had examined several instances in which the mayor and “others acting on his behalf” solicited donations from people who were seeking “official favors from the city, after which the mayor made or directed inquiries to relevant city agencies on behalf of those donors.”
The investigation, he said, examined several instances in which the mayor and “others acting on his behalf” solicited donations from people who were seeking “official favors from the city, after which the mayor made or directed inquiries to relevant city agencies on behalf of those donors.” “After careful deliberation,” the statement said, “given the totality of the circumstances here and absent additional evidence, we do not intend to bring federal criminal charges against the mayor or those acting on his behalf relating to the fund-raising efforts in question.
Mr. Kim noted in the statement that the office, when considering whether to charge serious public corruption crimes, weighs “the high burden of proof, the clarity of existing law, any recent changes in the law and the particular difficulty in proving criminal intent in corruption schemes where there is no evidence of personal profit” among other things.
“After careful deliberation, given the totality of the circumstances here and absent additional evidence, we do not intend to bring federal criminal charges against the mayor or those acting on his behalf relating to the fund-raising efforts in question, the statement said.
“Although it is rare that we issue a public statement about the status of an investigation, we believe it appropriate in this case at this time, in order not to unduly influence the upcoming campaign and mayoral election,” the statement said.“Although it is rare that we issue a public statement about the status of an investigation, we believe it appropriate in this case at this time, in order not to unduly influence the upcoming campaign and mayoral election,” the statement said.
In his letter, Mr. Vance wrote that after an extensive investigation, “this office has determined that the parties involved cannot be appropriately prosecuted” — meaning the charges could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — in large part because the mayor and those involved in the fund-raising effort had relied on the advice of their lawyers. He also cited ambiguities in the way the election law statutes were written that make it difficult to bring a felony case. In his letter, Mr. Vance said the office’s conclusion was “not an endorsement of the conduct at issue.”
His office’s conclusion, he added, was “not an endorsement of the conduct at issue.” “The transactions appear contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws that impose candidate contribution limits, laws which are meant to prevent ‘corruption and the appearance of corruption’ in the campaign financing process,” he wrote.
The letter said “the transactions appear contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws that impose candidate contribution limits, laws which are meant to prevent ‘corruption and the appearance of corruption’ in the campaign financing process.”