SPECIFIC PENAL CODES LAW — CALIFORNIA
Bribery Laws in California — PC §67 and PC §68
Bribery of public officials under PC §67 (giving) and PC §68 (receiving) are felonies carrying 2–4 years in state prison. Commercial bribery under PC §641.3 covers private sector bribery. Federal bribery charges under 18 U.S.C. §201 carry up to 15 years.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
On This Page
Jump to a Section
Quick Reference
Bribery California — At a Glance
- Law / Code
- PC §67 / PC §68 / PC §641.3
- Classification
- Felony
- Maximum Penalty
- 2, 3, or 4 years state prison
- Probation Eligible
- Yes in some cases
- Strike Offense
- No
- Related Codes
- PC §67PC §68PC §641.318 U.S.C. §201
What Is Bribery California Under California Law?
Legal Framework. California’s public-official bribery statutes target a corrupt quid pro quo involving an official act. Penal Code section 67 applies to a person who gives or offers a bribe to an executive officer, legislator, or judicial officer with intent to influence the officer in an official matter. Penal Code section 68 applies to the public officer who asks for, receives, or agrees to receive a bribe upon an agreement or understanding that the officer’s official action, vote, opinion, or judgment will be influenced. The prosecution must prove more than a gift, campaign contribution, favor, or personal relationship. It must establish the required corrupt intent and a connection between the thing of value and official conduct. A completed payment is not required; an offer, request, or agreement can be enough under the statutory language.
The Prosecution's Burden. Bribery under Penal Code sections 67 and 68 is a felony. Each statute provides for imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years and a fine not exceeding the greater of $2,000 or three times the amount of the bribe, as well as disqualification from holding any office of trust, honor, or profit in California. The precise charging decision may depend on the person’s role, the alleged official act, the evidence of an agreement, and whether related offenses are alleged. A public employee is not necessarily an “executive officer” for every purpose, so statutory coverage and the person’s actual authority require careful analysis. Separate statutes can apply to jurors, witnesses, legislators, local officials, police-related conduct, procurement matters, or conflicts of interest depending on the facts.
Potential Consequences. Commercial bribery is different from bribing a public official. Penal Code section 641.3 generally prohibits an employee, agent, or fiduciary from asking for or accepting a benefit without the employer’s or principal’s consent in exchange for using or agreeing to use that position for another person’s benefit; it also criminalizes offering that undisclosed benefit. The statute requires a benefit exceeding $250 in value and an intent to injure or defraud the employer or principal. It is ordinarily a misdemeanor when the benefit does not exceed $1,000 and a wobbler when it exceeds $1,000. Prosecutors often pair commercial-bribery allegations with embezzlement, fraud, forgery, or conspiracy counts when a vendor-payment, kickback, or procurement scheme is alleged. Federal public-bribery law, 18 U.S.C. section 201, is a separate statute directed at federal public officials and persons acting for or on behalf of the United States; it does not govern ordinary state or local California officials.
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends Bribery California Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §67 / PC §68 / PC §641.3 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
No Corrupt Quid Pro Quo
The central issue in many Penal Code sections 67 and 68 cases is whether there was a corrupt agreement to influence official action. The prosecution cannot convert every gift, donation, favor, meal, professional introduction, or relationship into bribery merely because an official later acted on a matter affecting the giver. A defense examines the timing, words used, disclosed policies, ordinary course of business, and whether the alleged benefit was tied to a specific official act. Messages that show a lawful request for assistance, advocacy, or routine constituent service can defeat the claimed quid pro quo. Where the evidence shows gratitude, friendship, or general goodwill rather than an agreement to trade official influence, the statutory intent element is not proven.
U.S. Const. amend. IV
The Alleged Recipient Was Not Covered
Penal Code sections 67 and 68 identify particular public roles and official conduct. Whether the alleged recipient was an executive officer, legislator, or judicial officer within the applicable statute can be a contested legal and factual question. The defense evaluates the person’s appointment, duties, delegation of authority, and actual capacity to act on the matter at issue. A title alone is not necessarily dispositive, particularly where a government employee had no authority to vote, decide, approve, investigate, or influence the claimed official outcome. If the prosecution relies on a different bribery statute, it must still prove that statute’s specific protected person, prohibited conduct, and mental state. Narrow statutory language matters in a felony case.
17 CCR §1219.3
Lack of Knowledge or Intent in Commercial Bribery
Commercial bribery under Penal Code section 641.3 requires that the benefit be given or received without the employer’s or principal’s consent and with intent to injure or defraud that employer or principal. A disclosed commission, referral payment, vendor incentive, or consulting arrangement is not automatically criminal. The defense investigates contracts, vendor terms, expense policies, approval emails, prior industry practice, and the knowledge of supervisors or owners. Evidence that the payment was authorized, openly reported, or reasonably believed to be authorized can undermine both nonconsent and fraudulent intent. The statute also has a value threshold: the benefit must exceed $250, and accurate valuation may affect whether any violation exists and, if so, whether it is charged as a misdemeanor or felony.
NHTSA SFST
Challenge the Government’s Proof of an Agreement
Bribery cases are often built around recorded conversations, cooperating witnesses, text messages, financial records, or undercover operations. The defense tests whether the evidence actually establishes an agreement or only an investigator’s interpretation of ambiguous language. A cooperating witness may have incentives to avoid charges, obtain leniency, protect an employer, or shift responsibility. Recordings may omit context; coded language may be speculative; and a payment may have a legitimate explanation. Bank transfers, invoices, calendars, and communications can be reconstructed to show lawful services, preexisting obligations, or an absence of any requested official act. Careful impeachment and context evidence can create reasonable doubt about the alleged corrupt understanding.
VC §23152
Suppress an Unlawful Search or Statement
Financial records, phones, offices, emails, and post-search interviews frequently drive bribery prosecutions. The defense reviews the warrant affidavit, the scope of any warrant, how digital material was searched, whether consent was voluntary, and whether investigators exceeded the authorized scope. Statements made during a custodial interrogation may be excluded if officers obtained them without the Miranda warnings required by the Fifth Amendment, or continued questioning after an unequivocal invocation of counsel or silence. Evidence seized through an unconstitutional search may be subject to suppression under Penal Code section 1538.5. Excluding a phone extraction, confidential messages, business files, or admissions can materially weaken the prosecution’s ability to prove intent, value, and an alleged quid pro quo.
17 CCR §1219.1
Separate Lawful Advocacy From Official Influence
Public-facing work often involves requests for permits, contracts, enforcement discretion, meetings, or agency action. Defense preparation can demonstrate that the alleged official conduct was ministerial, already supported by independent criteria, outside the official’s control, or properly handled through established procedures. This is especially important when prosecutors infer corruption because a donor, vendor, or acquaintance benefited after contacting a public office. Agency records, meeting logs, decision criteria, staff recommendations, and testimony from uninvolved employees may show that the result would have occurred regardless of any alleged benefit. That evidence challenges causation and intent, and it can support a narrower resolution where the facts show an ethics or disclosure issue rather than a provable criminal bribe.
VC §23103.5
Constitutional Sources: Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution
Questions
Frequently Asked — Bribery California
What are the penalties for bribing a public official in California?
Under Penal Code section 67, giving or offering a bribe to an executive officer, legislator, or judicial officer to influence official action is a felony. Under Penal Code section 68, an officer who asks for, receives, or agrees to receive a bribe on an understanding that official action will be influenced also commits a felony. Each statute provides for state-prison exposure of two, three, or four years. The statutes also authorize a fine not exceeding the greater of $2,000 or three times the amount of the bribe, and they impose disqualification from holding an office of trust, honor, or profit in California. Actual sentencing depends on the charged count, aggravating facts, criminal history, related offenses, and available sentencing alternatives.
Do prosecutors have to prove that money actually changed hands?
No. A completed payment is not required in every case. Penal Code section 67 covers giving or offering a bribe with the required intent to influence an official act. Penal Code section 68 covers an officer who asks for, receives, or agrees to receive a bribe on an agreement or understanding that official conduct will be influenced. The prosecution still must prove a corrupt arrangement, not merely a discussion, a request for ordinary government assistance, or a gift with no exchange for official action. The exact words, context, timing, and conduct of both participants matter. Ambiguous texts, vague promises, and conversations interpreted differently by investigators can be central defense issues.
Is commercial bribery the same as bribing a government official?
No. Commercial bribery under Penal Code section 641.3 concerns private-sector relationships, such as an employee, agent, or fiduciary receiving an undisclosed kickback from a vendor in exchange for using that position for the vendor’s benefit. It requires lack of the employer’s or principal’s consent, intent to injure or defraud that employer or principal, and a benefit exceeding $250. Public-official bribery under Penal Code sections 67 and 68 concerns corrupt influence over official government action and is charged as a felony. Commercial bribery is generally a misdemeanor if the benefit does not exceed $1,000 and is a wobbler if it exceeds $1,000. Related fraud, theft, conspiracy, or false-record charges may substantially increase exposure.
Can a campaign contribution or gift lead to a bribery charge?
It can trigger an investigation, but a campaign contribution or gift is not automatically a bribe. A criminal bribery charge requires proof of the statute’s elements, including corrupt intent and, in a public-bribery case, an agreement or understanding that the benefit is in exchange for influence over official action. Political contributions are also regulated by California campaign-finance and governmental-ethics rules, which are distinct from a Penal Code prosecution. Disclosure, timing, the recipient’s authority, communications about a pending matter, and whether there was a specific exchange all matter. A defense should preserve complete communications and records rather than relying on a simplistic claim that a payment was merely a gift or contribution.
What happens after LAPD, LASD, or a state agency investigates alleged bribery?
Investigations commonly involve search warrants for phones, email accounts, financial records, offices, or homes; interviews of employees or public officials; subpoenas; and review of contracts, invoices, donations, and bank transfers. In Los Angeles County, the matter may be presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for filing review, although some investigations may involve state or federal agencies. A person may learn of the case through a warrant, a request for an interview, an arrest, or a summons to appear in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Do not assume that an investigator’s request for an “informal” explanation is risk-free. Early counsel can assess warrant issues, communications, preservation obligations, and whether a prefiling presentation is appropriate. Rubin Law, P.C. can be reached at (213) 723-2337.
Can a California bribery case also become a federal case?
Yes, but federal jurisdiction is not automatic. Federal bribery under 18 U.S.C. section 201 principally concerns federal public officials and persons acting for or on behalf of the United States. A case involving state or local officials may nevertheless draw federal attention if it involves federal funds, interstate communications, federal programs, or other federal offenses. Federal prosecutors may consider statutes other than section 201 depending on the alleged conduct. State and federal authorities can investigate overlapping facts, and the source of the official’s authority, the funding involved, and the alleged scheme determine the available statutes. A federal inquiry has different procedures, charging practices, and sentencing consequences than a California Penal Code case.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Bribery California? Call Rubin Law Now.
Daniel S. Rubin defends clients facing specific penal codes charges throughout Los Angeles County. Your first consultation is free and confidential.