Quiz: Was NYC Mayor Adams given a bribe or a gratuity? The difference is a big deal.

Mayor Eric Adams says he wasn’t being bribed when Turkish nationals gave him more than $100,000 worth of business-class plane tickets, luxurious hotel suites and ritzy nights out on the town in Istanbul.

Federal prosecutors disagree. They say the glamorous travel perks were bribes that Adams accepted in exchange for pressuring FDNY officials to allow a new Turkish consulate to open before the building could pass a safety inspection.

On Friday, both sides will make their arguments in court at the first major hearing in Adams’ federal corruption case. The mayor’s attorneys are asking a judge to throw out the bribery charge in his five-count indictment.

Adams’ argument hinges on a few recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that legal experts say have made it harder to convict people of federal corruption charges. A judge will have to decide whether the flight upgrades were illegal, or merely unsavory. Legal experts say it largely comes down to one key question: Were the gifts a gratuity (a token of appreciation with no arrangement ahead of time) or was there a “quid pro quo” (a deal to trade gifts for influence)? In many cases, they say, the line is blurry.

So how can Gothamist readers know if the gift cards, gold bars, wads of cash or free upgrades on international flights they may be offered are bribes or gratuities under federal law? We used some real-life and hypothetical examples to make this quiz.

A steakhouse gift card

Ms. Munee has a student named Bill in her 11th grade AP English class who’s really been struggling with his assignments. She meets with Bill's parents, who say they're concerned about his grades because he's about to apply to colleges and needs to impress the admissions officers. A week later, Bill gets his first “A” on a paper in Ms. Munee’s class, and the high marks continue for the rest of the school year. After Bill gets an “A” on his report card and is accepted to a prestigious university, his parents give Ms. Munee a $100 gift card to the nicest steakhouse in town.

If Bill’s parents never offered to give Ms. Munee a gift in advance and the teacher didn’t change the grade in the hopes of receiving one, it would likely be considered a gratuity, said Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School who teaches a course on public corruption. He said maybe the teacher determined that Bill deserved more credit for his efforts.

But the calculus might change if, in their meeting with Ms. Munee, Bill’s parents asked the teacher to raise their son’s grade and told her: “We’ll make it worth your while,” said attorney Michael Feldberg, who represented former state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver at his 2018 corruption trial. If that statement influenced Ms. Munee to change the grade, he said, “that would probably make it look more like a bribe.”

A $13,000 check

A small Midwestern city needs new garbage trucks, and Mayor Gold has to pick a company for the contract. He chooses a dealership and authorizes the city to pay the company more than $1 million for five trucks. The truck dealership is elated. Several months later, the owner sends Mayor Gold a check for $13,000. The mayor says this payment is for “consulting services” he provided to the company.

This scenario is actually based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. James Snyder, the mayor of Portage, Indiana, accepted such a check and was charged with accepting an illegal gratuity. In June, the justices ruled he hadn’t violated federal law.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the federal law isn’t clear. He added that if the above scenario were prohibited, it could make it nearly impossible for mail carriers and public school teachers to know if they can accept gifts like holiday tips or tickets to basketball games without risk of violating federal law. Under that decision, though, the mayor’s $13,000 check is also technically legal.

“The government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they happen to guess wrong,” Kavanaugh wrote.

But even though the decision was meant to clarify which types of gifts are illegal, some experts have warned that it could lead to even more confusion.

“It’s a mess. It's complex. The distinctions are hard to follow,” Feldberg said. “Every time a case comes up to the court and the court wrestles with it, let's put it this way: I don't think they're making it more clear.”

Daniel Weiner, director of the Brennan Center’s Elections & Government Program, said the ruling doesn’t make gratuities “A-OK,” but it does mean that they’re not criminal under federal law.

“The Snyder case potentially could give rise to a free for all,” he said. “As long as you refrain from having some sort of explicit agreement before you engage in corrupt activity, then potentially, you've insulated yourself from the reach of federal corruption law.”

A luxury penthouse

Councilmember Slots represents a neighborhood where a powerful real estate developer wants to open a casino inside a brand new luxury housing and retail complex. Many longtime residents don’t want a casino in their community and worry the luxury development could raise their rents. Councilmember Slots agrees and vocally opposes the plan.

But then the developer asks to meet with her, and over dinner he promises this development will make her life “a whole lot better.” The next morning, Councilmember Slots announces her support for the redevelopment plan. She also casts a decisive vote in the City Council to approve the plan. When the luxury condos are completed two years later, the developer offers Councilmember Slots the penthouse at a highly discounted price.

If the developer asked Councilmember Slots to support the casino plan and offered perks in return, Feldberg said, the official would likely be in danger of a bribery accusation.

“That sounds like a quid pro quo to me,” he said.

But Feldberg said that if the developer hadn’t put any pressure on the councilmember, and she changed her mind simply because she learned that many more residents supported the plan than she initially thought, then the penthouse could be considered a gratuity.

No-show jobs for a politician’s son

A state lawmaker with a powerful leadership position is trying to scrounge together an income for his adult son. He decides to ask various companies whose businesses could be drastically affected by state legislation to pay his son. If they don’t comply, he says, they could lose government contracts or face crippling state regulations.

So a few different companies agree to pay the official’s son hundreds of thousands of dollars. When a supervisor at one of the companies that’s paying the lawmaker’s son asks him to actually do some work, the son threatens to “smash” his head.

This scenario is based on the corruption case against former New York state Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his son, Adam. Both were convicted of bribery, as well as other charges. A higher court tossed the convictions because of instructions the jury received, but they were both convicted a second time.

Prosecutors said Dean Skelos abused his power to benefit his son.

“Yet again, a New York jury heard a sordid tale of bribery, extortion and the abuse of power by a powerful public official of this state,” then-Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said in a statement after the second trial. “And yet again, a jury responded with a unanimous verdict of guilt, in this case of Dean Skelos and his son Adam — sending the resounding message that political corruption will not be tolerated.”