preferential legislation ora favorable regulation. ‘The word “corruptly” connotes an evil motive or _._. purpose, an intent to wrongfully influence the l : recipient. S.REP. No. 95-114, at 10, Endnotes % See 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-1 (a), 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3(a). 7 See, C85 Complaint, SEC v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cv-14 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005) (among other things, the company paid a $50,000 bribe to influence an Indonesian official to repeal an unfavorable law, which was not repealed despite the bribe), available at http://www.sec.gov/ litigation/ complaints/ comp19023. pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cr-8 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005), available at giving, offering, or promising “anything of value.” Numerous domestic http://www,justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fepa/cases/monsanto-co/01-06- bribery cases under Section 201 have involved “small” dollar bribes. O5monsanto-info.pdf. See, e.g, United States v. Franco, 632 F.3d 880, 882-84 (Sth Cir. 2011) Jury instructions in FCPA cases have defined “corruptly” consistent (affirming bribery convictions of inmate for paying correctional officer with the definition found in the legislative history. See, e.g, Jury $325 to obtain cell phone, food, and marijuana, and noting that 18 Instructions at 22-23, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44; Jury US.C. § 201 does not contain minimum monetary threshold); United Instructions at 10, United States v. Green, supra note 44; Jury Instructions States v. Williams, 216 F.3d 1099, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (affirming at 35, United States v. Jefferson, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 25, bribery conviction for $70 bribe to vehicle inspector); United States v. United States v. Bourke, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 17, United Traitz, 871 R2d 368, 396 (3rd Cir. 1989) (affirming bribery conviction States v. Kay, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 5, United States v. Mead, for $100 bribe paid to official of Occupational Health and Safety supra note 44, Administration); United