Section 201 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code governs the offenses of bribery and illegal gratuity involving public officials. In order to prove bribery, the prosecution must generally establish that a thing of value was given, offered, or promised; or otherwise demanded, sought, received, or accepted by a present or future public official for an "official act" performed or to be performed by such public official. The critical distinction between bribery and illegal gratuity is that the former requires proof of intent, and the latter does not. Among the defenses outlined for changes of bribery and illegal gratuity are entrapment, due process issues, and duress or coercion. Penalty factors and criteria for bribery and illegal gratuity offenses are also discussed. The overview of the statute that targets criminal conflict of interest encompasses unauthorized compensation, limitations on the activities of government officers and employees, post-employment activities, acts that affect financial interest, and illegal outside salaries for Federal employees. Elements that must be proven for each of the aforementioned conflicts of interest are outlined, along with defenses and penalties. The honest-services doctrine derived from a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court ("Shushan") that reasoned the second clause of section 1341 of Title 18 guarantees the public an intangible right to the honest services of a public official. Generally, the courts have invoked the doctrine against public officials in cases as diverse as election tampering, alleged bribery, and illegal kickbacks. This article concludes with a discussion of the current state of the honest-services doctrine after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decisions in Skilling v. United States and Black v. United States. 422 notes