THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:That on or about (date) in the __________ District of __________ the defendant _____________, an [officer/employee] of
(name of union) , a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce, did unlawfully, willingly, and knowingly request, demand, receive, and accept, and agree to receive and accept from (name of payor) , [an employer] */ [an association of employers] [a person acting as a labor relations expert, advisor and consultant to an employer] [a person acting in the interest of an employer], the payment, loan, and delivery of a thing of value [and money in the approximate amount of $_______] which payment, loan and delivery of a thing of value was made with intent to influence **/ the defendant ______________ with respect to his actions, decisions and duties as [a representative of employees] [an officer/employee of such labor organization].
All in violation of Title 29, United States Code, Sections 186(b)(1) and (d)(2). ***/
*/ See 29 U.S.C. §§142 and 152.
**/ See United States v. Bloch, 696 F.2d 1213, 1216
(9th Cir. 1982), where the court stated that a "'willful' violation of 29 U.S.C. §186 [(b)(1) and (a)(4)] requires only that the defendant [recipient] act with knowledge that the payments are from a person acting in the interest of an employer and are intended to influence the defendant's duties as a union employee." (material in brackets and emphasis added. Compare United States v. Ferrara, 458 F.2d 868, 873, n.5 (2d Cir. 1972), where a conviction predicated on a union official's "intent to be influenced" was sustained. But see United States v. Boylan,
620 F.2d 359, 362 (2d Cir. 1980), where the court held that Section 186 does not require that the taker of prohibited payments have an "intent to be influenced."
***/ Participation in transaction occurring after October 12, 1984, and involving more than $1,000 of value is punishable as a felony; value of $1,000 or less is punishable as a misdemeanor.
[cited in USAM 9-132.010]