UCMJ Articles 124a and 124b: Bribery and Graft

Corruption inside a chain of command does more damage than the dollar value of any envelope that changes hands. It tells the unit that decisions can be bought and that rank is a commodity. The Uniform Code of Military Justice answers that threat with two closely related but separate offenses: bribery under Article 124a and graft under Article 124b, codified at 10 U.S.C. 924a and 924b. The two crimes share a vocabulary of “official position” and “thing of value,” but they punish different harms, and the line between them matters.

Both articles are products of the Military Justice Act of 2016, which took effect on 1 January 2019. Before that reform, bribery and graft were charged as enumerated offenses under the old Article 134 general article. They now stand as their own punitive articles. Older citations to Article 134 for these crimes reflect the pre-2019 numbering.

Bribery under Article 124a

Bribery turns on intent to influence official action. The statute reaches the conduct from both sides of the transaction.

The elements for asking, accepting, or receiving a bribe are:

  1. That the accused occupied an official position or had official duties.
  2. That the accused wrongfully asked, accepted, or received a thing of value.
  3. That the accused did so with the intent to have a decision or action influenced with respect to an official matter in which the United States is interested.

The elements for promising, offering, or giving a bribe are:

  1. That the accused wrongfully promised, offered, or gave a thing of value to another person who occupied an official position or had official duties.
  2. That the accused did so with the intent to influence that person’s decision or action with respect to an official matter in which the United States is interested.

The defining feature is the corrupt intent to influence an official act. The crime is complete when the offer, solicitation, or acceptance is made with that intent. Success in actually influencing the decision is not required.

Graft under Article 124b

Graft punishes wrongful compensation for official services rather than the intent to influence a specific decision. It too reaches both sides.

The elements for asking, accepting, or receiving graft are:

  1. That the accused occupied an official position or had official duties.
  2. That the accused wrongfully asked, accepted, or received a thing of value.
  3. That the thing of value was given as compensation for, or in recognition of, services rendered or to be rendered by the accused with respect to an official matter in which the United States is interested.

The elements for promising, offering, or giving graft are:

  1. That the accused wrongfully promised, offered, or gave a thing of value to another person who occupied an official position or had official duties.
  2. That the thing of value was given as compensation for, or in recognition of, services rendered or to be rendered by that person with respect to an official matter in which the United States is interested.

The distinguishing feature is the link to official services, not the intent to bend a particular decision. Graft captures the official who is wrongfully paid for doing, or having done, his job, even when no specific decision was steered.

What the government must prove in practice

Both offenses require that the accused, or the person on the receiving end, occupied an official position or had official duties, and that a thing of value moved in connection with an official matter in which the United States is interested. The word “wrongfully” excludes lawful gifts and authorized gratuities.

The practical dividing line is intent. Bribery demands proof of intent to influence a decision or action. Graft demands proof that the thing of value was compensation for or in recognition of official services. A prosecutor who can show a payment tied to official services, but cannot prove an intent to influence a specific decision, may have graft rather than bribery. The two are frequently charged in the alternative for that reason.

Maximum punishment

For offenses committed before 27 December 2023, bribery under Article 124a carried a maximum of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. Graft under Article 124b carried a maximum of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years. The five-year figure for bribery corrects lower numbers that circulate in some older summaries; bribery is punished more heavily than graft because it strikes directly at the integrity of official decisions.

For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, sentencing follows the judge-alone framework introduced by the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. Both offenses fall within the same statutory sentencing category, under which confinement is set within the prescribed range and the conviction may still carry a punitive discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

Defenses

The most common defenses target intent and wrongfulness. For bribery, evidence that a thing of value was given or accepted without any intent to influence an official act defeats the core element. For graft, evidence that the benefit was unconnected to official services or duties breaks the required link. A lawful gift or authorized gratuity, such as a permissible token or a group gift within regulatory limits, is not wrongful. A reasonable mistake of fact, for instance an honest belief that a particular exchange was permitted under regulation, can negate the wrongful state of mind.

Distinctions from neighboring offenses

Bribery and graft sit near several other integrity offenses. Conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133 may apply to an officer’s corrupt dealings, judged against a professional standard rather than the influence-or-compensation test used here. Larceny under Article 121 and frauds against the United States under Article 124 address wrongful takings and schemes to defraud, which can overlap factually with a corrupt payment. False official statements under Article 107 frequently accompany these cases when the accused lies to conceal the transaction. The choice among charges depends on whether the proof shows an intent to influence, payment for official services, a wrongful taking, or a falsehood.

Frequently asked questions

What is the core difference between bribery and graft?
Bribery requires intent to influence an official decision or action. Graft requires that the thing of value was compensation for or in recognition of official services, even if no specific decision was influenced.

Does the bribe have to work?
No. Bribery is complete once the offer, solicitation, or acceptance is made with intent to influence. Whether the official actually changed a decision is not an element.

Are small or authorized gifts covered?
Generally no. Lawful gifts, ceremonial tokens, and authorized gratuities within regulatory limits are not wrongful. The offense turns on a wrongful thing of value tied to influence or to official services.

Which carries the heavier maximum?
For offenses before 27 December 2023, bribery (up to five years) carried a heavier maximum than graft (up to three years). Offenses on or after that date are sentenced under the judge-alone framework.

Can civilians be involved?
A thing of value can move between a service member and a civilian. The service member’s conduct is judged under Articles 124a and 124b, while a civilian’s conduct may be addressed separately under federal law.

Sources

10 U.S.C. 924a (Article 124a, Bribery): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/924a
10 U.S.C. 924b (Article 124b, Graft): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/924b
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV: https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/

Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward or Assault of a Superior Commissioned Officer The relationship between a service member and a superior commissioned officer rests on a baseline of respect and physical safety. Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice protects......
  2. UCMJ Article 120: Rape and Sexual Assault Generally Sexual offenses are among the most seriously prosecuted crimes in the armed forces, and the principal statute governing adult sexual misconduct is Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military......
  3. UCMJ Article 103: Spies Among the offenses in military law, few carry the gravity of spying in wartime. A person who infiltrates a military area under false colors to gather intelligence for an enemy......
  4. UCMJ Article 123a: Making, Drawing, or Uttering a Check Without Sufficient Funds A bounced check is usually a banking problem. It becomes a criminal one when the person who wrote it knew the account could not cover it and used it to......
  5. UCMJ Article 131a: Subornation of Perjury A court-martial, an investigation, and a preliminary hearing all depend on sworn testimony being truthful. A service member who persuades another person to lie under oath attacks that foundation directly.......
  6. UCMJ Article 99: Misbehavior Before the Enemy Military discipline asks the most of service members at the moment it matters most: when the enemy is present and a unit's survival depends on every member holding firm. Article......
  7. UCMJ Article 105: Forgery Military operations run on paper and its electronic equivalents: leave forms, pay vouchers, contracts, orders, identification cards. When someone falsifies a signature or alters a document so it appears to......
  8. UCMJ Article 111: Leaving the Scene of a Vehicle Accident A traffic accident creates immediate legal duties: stop, check for injuries, render aid, and exchange identifying information. When a service member fails to meet those duties and drives off, military......
  9. UCMJ Article 84: Breach of Medical Quarantine When a contagious illness threatens a warship, a barracks, or a forward-deployed unit, commanders and medical officers can place affected personnel under quarantine to keep an outbreak from spreading. A......
  10. UCMJ Article 134: Wrongful Cohabitation Two service members who live together without being married rarely imagine that their living arrangement could draw a court-martial charge. For most couples it never will. But the military reserves......
  11. UCMJ Article 129: Unlawful Entry Walking into another unit's barracks without permission, slipping into a restricted storage area to look around, or entering a building with no authority and no invitation can expose a service......
  12. UCMJ Article 134: Self-Injury Without Intent to Avoid Service Not every intentional self-injury in the military is treated the same way. The Uniform Code of Military Justice draws a line based on why the injury was inflicted. When a......
  13. UCMJ Article 134: Negligent Discharge of a Firearm A weapon that fires when it should not, during cleaning, while clearing a chamber, or through a careless trigger pull in a barracks room, can injure or kill even though......
  14. UCMJ Article 108a: Captured or Abandoned Property Property seized from an enemy or left behind on the field of operations does not become a souvenir, a windfall, or a private commodity. It belongs to the United States......
  15. UCMJ Article 112a: Wrongful Use or Possession of Controlled Substances Few offenses are enforced more consistently across the armed forces than drug misconduct. A positive urinalysis can end a career, and the consequences reach service members on or off duty,......