In the Second Circuit, Joseph Percoco appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, arguing that as a private citizen during the relevant period, he could not owe a fiduciary duty to the public.

The court rejected this argument and upheld the conviction, relying on its precedent from United States v. Margiotta, which held that private individuals could owe such a duty if they exerted substantial influence over government decision-making.

The Second Circuit determined that the District Court's jury instructions, which required proof that Percoco "dominated and controlled" government business and that officials relied on him due to a "special relationship," were consistent with Margiotta and adequately supported by the evidence presented at trial.

The Court evaluated the Second Circuit's reliance on United States v. Margiotta (1982), which held that a private individual could owe such a duty if they exerted substantial influence over governmental decision-making and were relied upon by public officials due to a special relationship.

Drawing upon its prior decision in Skilling v. United States (2010), the Court reaffirmed that the statute applies to bribery and kickback schemes involving a clear and established fiduciary duty but does not extend to ill-defined categories of influence over government actions.

The Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case, underscoring the principle that criminal statutes must provide clear notice of the conduct they prohibit to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary application.