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 8 Version 9
No Charges, but Harsh Criticism for de Blasio’s Fund-Raising No Charges, but Harsh Criticism for de Blasio’s Fund-Raising
(35 minutes later)
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 one concluded that the mayor acted on behalf of donors seeking favors from the city and the other said that some of their practices appeared to violate “the intent and spirit” of the law.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 one concluded that the mayor acted on behalf of donors seeking favors from the city and the other said that some of their practices appeared to violate “the intent and spirit” of the law.
The disclosures were unusual; prosecutors rarely announce the conclusion of such inquiries when charges are not brought. The disclosures were unusual; prosecutors rarely announce the conclusion of such inquiries when no charges are filed.
The federal inquiry found a pattern in which Mr. de Blasio 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 not to bring charges, the statement said, came after weighing among other things, “the high burden of proof, the clarity of existing law” and challenge of proving corruption without “evidence of personal profit.”The federal inquiry found a pattern in which Mr. de Blasio 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 not to bring charges, the statement said, came after weighing among other things, “the high burden of proof, the clarity of existing law” and challenge of proving corruption without “evidence of personal profit.”
State prosecutors, who examined Mr. de Blasio’s unsuccessful 2014 effort to help Democrats regain control of the State Senate, concluded that the aspects of the undertaking amounted to an “end run” around limits on contributions to candidates, according to a 10-page letter outlining their findings.State prosecutors, who examined Mr. de Blasio’s unsuccessful 2014 effort to help Democrats regain control of the State Senate, concluded that the aspects of the undertaking amounted to an “end run” around limits on contributions to candidates, according to a 10-page letter outlining their findings.
Mr. de Blasio was quick to try to put the issue behind him.Mr. de Blasio was quick to try to put the issue behind him.
“I’ll just say simply it’s been basically a year, I’ve said consistently that we acted appropriately,” he told Brian Lehrer on WNYC shorter after the prosecutors released their findings. “This confirms what I’ve been saying and what all my colleagues have been saying.” He added, “We gotta get back to work. My focus now is getting back to business.” “I’ll just say simply it’s been basically a year, I’ve said consistently that we acted appropriately,” he told Brian Lehrer on WNYC in a previously scheduled interview Thursday morning, shortly after the prosecutors released their findings. “This confirms what I’ve been saying and what all my colleagues have been saying.” He added, “We gotta get back to work. My focus now is getting back to business.”
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. Later in the day during a news conference at City Hall, Mr. de Blasio refused to discuss any of the donors whose contributions — and the mayor’s response to them — had prompted scrutiny, deflecting questions by saying “the issue has been exhaustively investigated.” He defended the behavior described by the federal prosecutor, saying it was appropriate for him to approach city agencies on behalf of donors and said that he would not rule out doing so again in the future.
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. “I think it is normal for an elected official to receive concerns from people and pass them along for an agency to assess,” he said, ignoring the distinction between donors who give him thousands of dollars and everyday constituents. “That’s how we have done things, that’s how we will continue to do things.”
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 disclosure that neither the mayor nor his administration or campaign aides will face charges is 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 gearing up to run for re-election in November.The disclosure that neither the mayor nor his administration or campaign aides will face charges is 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 gearing up to run for re-election in November.
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 five individual State Senate candidates.
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 federal investigation examined at least a dozen different circumstances, mostly in which donors to his 2013 campaign, his nonprofit or both sought action from the mayor, including several in which they had direct conversations with Mr. de Blasio. At least one, Gina Argento, the operator of a Brooklyn soundstage company that depends on City Hall for film permits and a generous contributor to both the mayor’s campaign and his nonprofit, said last year through her lawyer that she felt pressured to donate.
Late in their inquiry, federal prosecutors obtained grants of immunity for three of the mayor’s donors who they believed had received some special treatment from the mayor, several people with knowledge of the matter said.
The United States attorney’s office, which until Saturday was headed by Preet Bharara, announced its decision in a brief statement on (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.The United States attorney’s office, which until Saturday was headed by Preet Bharara, announced its decision in a brief statement on (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.
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.”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.”
“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,” the statement said. Among the reasons he cited were “any changes in the law,” an apparent reference to a recent United States Supreme Court decision overturning the conviction of the former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, a ruling that made it harder to prosecute public corruption cases.“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,” the statement said. Among the reasons he cited were “any changes in the law,” an apparent reference to a recent United States Supreme Court decision overturning the conviction of the former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, a ruling that made it harder to prosecute public corruption cases.
“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 said the office’s conclusion was “not an endorsement of the conduct at issue.”In his letter, Mr. Vance said the office’s conclusion was “not an endorsement of the conduct at issue.”
The letter said that they could not prove each element of the crimes that they considered charging beyond a reasonable doubt, because the mayor and those involved in the 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 letter said that they could not prove each element of the crimes that they considered charging beyond a reasonable doubt, because the mayor and those involved in the 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 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 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.