A decade after federal prosecutors targeted New York state government in a sweeping corruption sweep, the legal architecture underpinning those convictions has largely unraveled. On September 23, 2016, then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara announced indictments against top political and economic development figures, shaking the administration of former Governor Andrew Cuomo.
The 2016 federal complaint named Joe Percoco, a top aide to the Democratic governor, alongside Alain Kaloyeros, founding president and CEO of Albany’s SUNY Polytechnic Institute, and several executives tied to the Buffalo Billion economic development initiative. At the time, the prosecutions were heralded as a major strike against statehouse malfeasance. In hindsight, however, the legal theories deployed by federal prosecutors failed to survive Supreme Court scrutiny.
Supreme Court Overturns Key Convictions
The legal foundation of the 2016 indictments collapsed when the U.S. Supreme Court reined in the federal honest-services fraud statute. In 2023, the high court unanimously overturned Percoco’s honest-services wire fraud conviction. In a separate ruling, the court also tossed the wire fraud convictions of Kaloyeros and several co-defendants. Following the reversal, Kaloyeros faced a retrial and ultimately pleaded guilty to a federal fraud charge in 2025 as part of a plea deal.
The high court’s rejections reframed the legacy of the prosecutions, transforming public perception of the prosecutors from anti-corruption crusaders into overzealous enforcers. Richard Azzopardi, a spokesman for Cuomo, characterized the original legal strategy in sharp terms. Preet Bharara pursued an aggressive strategy for personal fame without regard for the consequences, Azzopardi stated, noting that voters ultimately returned Cuomo to office with historic vote totals following the saga.
Ambiguity in Federal Anti-Corruption Law
Central to the unraveling of the cases was the vague scope of federal anti-corruption laws. Prosecutors relied heavily on the honest-services statute, a legal mechanism that has frustrated jurists for decades due to its failure to clearly define unlawful behavior. Percoco had accepted $300,000 from entities seeking state business during a period when he had left government employment, operating out of a Manhattan state office using a government-issued phone.
This gray area between public duty and private lobbying fueled the defense. Yaakov Roth, who argued Percoco’s case before the Supreme Court, questioned how an individual outside formal government employment could be expected to recognize a continuing fiduciary obligation to the public. The Supreme Court agreed unanimously, ruling that use of government resources did not establish formal employment under the criminal statute.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted the constitutional perils of vague criminal statutes. Criminal law must provide ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct, Gorsuch wrote, pointing out that decades of lower court experimentation with honest-services fraud had left legal practitioners unable to define what constitutes a sufficient fiduciary relationship for a federal felony conviction. Gorsuch urged Congress to explicitly identify the conduct it wishes to prohibit, a legislative step that remains unfulfilled.
Political Aftermath and Legacy
Despite the dramatic courtroom battles and subsequent legal reversals, the 2016 indictments did not immediately rupture Cuomo’s political standing with voters. In the 2018 gubernatorial election, Cuomo secured 60 percent of the vote, demonstrating that the electorate largely viewed the federal charges as standard Albany dysfunction rather than an immediate electoral barrier.
Nevertheless, the sweeping federal investigation altered the trajectory of the administration. The sustained pressure from the Southern District knocked the Cuomo administration off balance, forcing a defensive posture that persisted until the governor’s eventual resignation in 2021.
Worth a look