TY - JOUR
T1 - Obstruction of justice
T2 - Unwarranted expansion of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(C)(1)
AU - Schrup, Sarah O'Rourke
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - This Article suggests that prosecutors are misusing and courts are misinterpreting the Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). As a result, the statute is being applied far beyond the corporate fraud or even general fraud context to conduct that Congress never intended to punish with this statute. Such an expansive interpretation lays bare the ambiguity inherent in the statutory language. A proper statutory construction that explores the statute itself, related provisions, canons of construction, the legislative history, and the investigatory process at the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Congress could not have intended the limitless sweep of the statute that some courts and prosecutors have fashioned. In fact, an expansive definition of the terms within § 1512(c)(1) carries with it a host of unintended and unwanted results. Specifically, such an interpretation is at odds with congressional intent, creates absurdities and unfair sentencing disparities, renders the statute void for vagueness, and encourages judicial and executive legislating. Courts should recognize and limit efforts to expand § 1512(c)(1)'s reach.
AB - This Article suggests that prosecutors are misusing and courts are misinterpreting the Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). As a result, the statute is being applied far beyond the corporate fraud or even general fraud context to conduct that Congress never intended to punish with this statute. Such an expansive interpretation lays bare the ambiguity inherent in the statutory language. A proper statutory construction that explores the statute itself, related provisions, canons of construction, the legislative history, and the investigatory process at the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Congress could not have intended the limitless sweep of the statute that some courts and prosecutors have fashioned. In fact, an expansive definition of the terms within § 1512(c)(1) carries with it a host of unintended and unwanted results. Specifically, such an interpretation is at odds with congressional intent, creates absurdities and unfair sentencing disparities, renders the statute void for vagueness, and encourages judicial and executive legislating. Courts should recognize and limit efforts to expand § 1512(c)(1)'s reach.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861494428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861494428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:84861494428
SN - 0091-4169
VL - 102
SP - 25
EP - 66
JO - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
JF - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
IS - 1
ER -