The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld the bribery convictions of Andre De Moya and Anthony Merritt. The court's decision, delivered on July 7, 2026, affirms the lower court's findings that the two men engaged in a bribery scheme involving a District of Columbia tax official. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal consequences of public corruption and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
De Moya and Merritt were convicted of conspiring to bribe a District of Columbia official to reduce tax liabilities for several local businesses. Their actions reportedly cost the D.C. government approximately $2.3 million in lost tax revenue. The case highlights the seriousness of public corruption and the legal system's commitment to addressing such crimes.
The background of the case involves De Moya and his business partner, Arman Amirshahi, who owned several bars and nightclubs in Washington, D.C. They believed their tax bills were too high and sought assistance from Merritt, who presented himself as an expert in navigating D.C. business and tax regulations. However, Merritt acted as an intermediary, paying bribes to Vincent Slater, a tax official, to reduce the businesses' tax obligations. The scheme unraveled during a government audit in January 2017, leading to the indictment of all involved parties.
In May 2019, Slater, Merritt, and De Moya were indicted on multiple charges, including conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud. Slater pled guilty and cooperated with the government, while Merritt and De Moya went to trial. After a fourteen-day jury trial, Merritt was convicted on all counts, and De Moya was found guilty of conspiracy, bribery, and two counts of wire fraud.
The D.C. Circuit's ruling addressed several arguments made by De Moya and Merritt on appeal. De Moya contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, claiming he believed the payments made to Slater were legitimate fees for services rendered. The court found this argument unpersuasive, stating, "A reasonable jury plainly could infer from the record evidence that De Moya knowingly and intentionally participated in the bribery scheme."
Additionally, both defendants challenged the jury instructions provided by the district court regarding bribery. They argued that the instructions allowed for a conviction based on a general pattern of payments rather than requiring a direct link between specific payments and official acts. The court acknowledged that the jury instructions diverged from established legal standards but ultimately deemed the error harmless. The ruling stated, "We conclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the jury convicted De Moya and Merritt on a proper quid pro quo theory."
Merritt also raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his lawyer failed to challenge the Sentencing Guidelines' economic Loss Table, which he believed led to an unfairly high sentence. The court rejected this argument, noting that Merritt's counsel had successfully argued for a downward variance in his sentence, which was ultimately reduced from a higher range to 110 months in prison.
The court's ruling has significant implications for public corruption cases. By affirming the convictions, it reinforces the legal framework surrounding bribery and conspiracy, particularly in cases involving government officials. The decision sends a clear message that public corruption will not be tolerated and that those who engage in such activities will face serious legal consequences.
Moving forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving bribery and corruption. It underscores the importance of maintaining integrity within public office and the legal system's commitment to prosecuting those who undermine that integrity. The court's decision also highlights the challenges defendants face when appealing convictions based on claims of insufficient evidence or ineffective counsel.
As for what’s next, while De Moya and Merritt have lost their appeal, it is unclear if they will seek further legal recourse. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential further actions or related cases pending.