Talk:Honest services fraud

Honest services fraud was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 5, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 4, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that United States courts of appeals agree that private individuals can be prosecuted for honest services fraud but disagree on the criteria for determining guilt?

Current status: Delisted good article

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Honest services fraud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Second Review

I will offer a second opinion here since: 1)The original review was not properly conducted (left on GAN, review open, little serious attempt made). 2) The original reviewer called for a second opinion. 3) Nominator confirmed that the review was unhelpful.

It should take a day or two, but I'll post things here as I notice them.

1. Lead section too short. It does not summarise the article.

Fixed I've expanded the lead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. The list of recent notable prosecutions does not fully conform to MOS, embedded lists. Each case should be explained briefly in proper prose and a short introduction to the section made. Each should also be cited.

Fixed I've converted the section to prose and referenced it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Necessity, or lack thereof, of state law violations

This section is clear enough, but, as in all sub-sections, it might be better to directly state the legal principle clearly first.

E.g. "The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit held in US Vs Brumley (1997) that, to be convicted of Honest Services Fraud, an official must have breached the state statutes which define the services he owes to his employer."

Question: Sorry, I'm not sure how you want this to be changed. The current version reads, "In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided in United States v. Brumley that in order for a state official to have committed honest services fraud, they must have violated the state statute defining the services which they owed to their employer (the state)." You don't think that's clear enough? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be clarified what happens as a result of the two different interpretations. Is the law different in different circuits? Will this be at issue in Mr Weurauch's appeal to the Supreme Court appeal?

I don't think this needs clarification; the fundamental issue is that the courts have differing interpretations and decide which precedent to follow on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the law isn't different in different circuits, it's interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. The Supreme Court cases are expected to consider the entire honest services law and set a binding precedent on these issues. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Intent to defraud and personal benefit

Again state the rule before giving the case history.

"The Court held that there must be some intent to defraud or seek personal gain for the offence to constitue HSF". The case illustrates the princple well though.

The first few and last line of that paragraph also need to be cited.

Fixed Both issues should be resolved now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Ktlynch (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking over this review, Ktlynch! I'll address your concerns over the next few days. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to all of the above after working on the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the article's in pretty good shape now. I would appreciate responses/clarifications to the above, of course, so we can proceed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Succinct opening

Could someone please write a definition of what an "honest services fraud" is on the first or second paragraph? 82.81.85.98 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Since it has been awhile since the last assessment, I have had another look at the current version and noticed lots of block quotes and citations to the decisions of various cases, which are considered primary sources. Should this be posted at WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Honest services fraud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too much use of block quotes and citations to legal decisions. I think this article needs more analysis from secondary sources and use of summary-style prose to be a good article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The block quotes are fine. However the referencing is not up to GA standard - there are entire paragraphs sourced solely to raw legal opinions. It's okay to have primary sources mentioned in addition to secondary sources, but they can't be used without such a secondary source, and should be second banana to the secondary source's take even when used given the extreme ease in misrepresenting them and their implications. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.