Honest Services Fraud Improvement Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill empowers citizens to directly pursue civil litigation against government officials for corruption, potentially increasing accountability but also raising concerns about politically motivated lawsuits and judicial burden.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new civil cause of action, allowing U.S. citizens to sue federal, state, local, and Tribal government officials for depriving the public of the 'intangible right to honest services.' It defines who can bring such a lawsuit, sets procedural requirements including an initial in camera filing and government review, and specifies the damages that can be awarded.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this legislation significantly enhances government accountability by providing a direct legal avenue for citizens to combat corruption and ethical breaches, supplementing federal criminal enforcement efforts. They contend it gives practical force to the public's right to honest services from their officials.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could lead to an increase in politically motivated or frivolous lawsuits, burdening the federal courts and potentially creating a chilling effect on individuals willing to serve in public office. Concerns about the broad definition of 'honest services fraud' in a civil context and potential for abuse of discovery processes are also likely to be raised.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications quickly.
Section 2(a), inserting new 18 U.S.C. 1343A(b)
Creation of Citizen's Civil Right of Action for Honest Services Fraud
This provision establishes a new legal right for a 'qualified plaintiff' (a U.S. citizen who was a constituent or resided within the official's jurisdiction) to bring a civil lawsuit against a 'government official' who engages in a scheme to defraud citizens of the intangible right to honest services. Successful plaintiffs can recover damages and attorney's fees.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly empowers citizens to hold corrupt officials accountable, filling potential gaps in federal criminal enforcement and providing a crucial deterrent against unethical conduct in public service.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision opens the door to an excessive number of politically motivated or frivolous lawsuits, potentially harassing public servants and diverting resources from legitimate governance.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for greater government accountability and citizen empowerment against concerns about potential abuse of the legal system and the burden on public officials and the judiciary.
Section 2(a), inserting new 18 U.S.C. 1343A(a)
Definitions of 'Government Official' and 'Qualified Plaintiff'
This section defines the scope of who can be sued and who can sue. A 'government official' includes federal public officials (elected or selected) and agents of state, local, or Tribal governments. A 'qualified plaintiff' is a U.S. citizen residing in the official's jurisdiction, who is not a candidate for elected office and is not acting on behalf of a candidate, campaign committee, or legal defense fund.
Section 2(a), inserting new 18 U.S.C. 1343A(c)
Limitations on Civil Action and Remedies
This provision sets several restrictions on the civil action. It imposes a 1-year statute of limitations from discovery of the fraud, with an absolute deadline tied to criminal charge filing. It prohibits plaintiffs from representing themselves (pro se) and forbids courts from enjoining (stopping) any official government action as a remedy. Importantly, campaign contributions cannot be the sole basis for a lawsuit, but they can be admitted as evidence of a broader scheme to defraud.
Section 2(a), inserting new 18 U.S.C. 1343A(d)
Filing Procedures and Government Intervention
This provision outlines a detailed process for filing a lawsuit. Plaintiffs and their attorneys must affirm under penalty of perjury that their allegations are true and supported by evidence. Complaints are filed confidentially ('in camera') and remain sealed for at least 60 days. During this period, the Government is notified and can choose to intervene and initiate a criminal action. If the Government proceeds criminally, the civil case is dismissed. If not, and the court finds the plaintiff met initial requirements, the complaint is unsealed and served on the defendant.
Section 2(a), inserting new 18 U.S.C. 1343A(e)
Damages, Expenses, and Attorney's Fees
This provision specifies the financial remedies available. If successful, a plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages and 'bribery damages' equal to three times the value of any bribe solicited or accepted by the liable official. Punitive damages, if awarded, are deposited into the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund. Plaintiffs also receive reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, even if their civil action is dismissed because the government initiated a criminal case based on their contribution.
The bill defines 'scheme or artifice to defraud' by referencing section 1346 of title 18, United States Code. Section 1346 clarifies that for the purposes of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343) and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341), 'the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.'
Section 2(a), 18 U.S.C. 1343A(a)(3)
Why it matters:Referencing existing statutory language is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy text and to ensure consistency with established legal interpretations. However, it means the core concept of the fraud is not immediately apparent to a non-legal expert.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing 18 U.S.C. 1346 ensures the civil action aligns with established federal criminal law on honest services fraud, leveraging existing judicial interpretations and precedents, which provides a solid legal foundation.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying on an external, complex legal definition makes the bill less accessible to the average citizen it aims to empower, requiring specialized legal knowledge to fully understand the scope of actionable conduct.
Estimated impact: This reference defines the entire scope of actionable conduct under the new civil right, significantly impacting the types of cases that can be brought and the legal arguments that will be made.
For agents of State, local, or Tribal governments, the 'scheme or artifice to defraud' must satisfy the 'commerce, mail, travel, or interstate wire requirement of a criminal action brought under section 1341, 1342, 1951, or 1952.' This means there must be an interstate nexus for federal jurisdiction.
Section 2(a), 18 U.S.C. 1343A(a)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to establish federal jurisdiction over state/local matters, ensuring the alleged fraud has an interstate nexus. It's a technical requirement to ensure constitutional authority rather than a hidden policy.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the civil action against state, local, and Tribal officials remains within the proper bounds of federal jurisdiction, preventing overreach into purely intrastate matters and adhering to constitutional principles.
Case against: Critics might contend that this adds a layer of complexity for plaintiffs and courts, requiring proof of an interstate nexus even for civil actions, which could be challenging and potentially exclude purely local corruption from federal civil redress.
Estimated impact: This provision limits the applicability of the civil action against state, local, and Tribal officials to cases involving interstate commerce or communication, potentially excluding purely local corruption that lacks such a nexus.