Sarbane 1512 Case Study
Legislative history confirms that § 1512(c)(2) should be construed broadly to capture any obstructive conduct happening seamlessly from the time the crime occurred, during the investigative stages, and through trial. In 2002, § 1512(c)(2) was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley"). Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, § 1102(c)(2), 116 Stat. 745, 807 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (2012)). Before its enactment, § 1512(c)(2) was part of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 ("VWPA"). Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1248. "The [VWPA] was enacted to protect those persons with knowledge of criminal activity who are willing to confide in the government.
…show more content…
See Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 4 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)). Section 1512 broadly criminalized the use of conduct "to cause or induce any person to withhold testimony, or… record, document, or other object from an official proceeding [or] alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair… availability for use in an official proceeding." Id. Floor Debates indicate that Congress considered § 1512 as strengthening criminal penalties "against those who retaliate against corporate whistleblowers." 148 Cong. Rec. 13072, 13080 (2002) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner). Congress wanted to close any loopholes for obstruction of justice in the white-collar context and added tough penalties for document shredding. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (punishing those in violation with a fine or imprisonment "not more than 20 years, or both"). While it was one of Congress' purposes in passing § 1512(c)(2) to address white-collar financial crimes, this was not its sole purpose. The provision "also include[d] obstruction of justice penalties," not limited to the white-collar context. 148 Cong. Rec. 13276, 13349 (2002) (statement of Rep. Cox). There is no reason to assume that Congress intended to limit § 1512 to white-collar
See Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 4 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)). Section 1512 broadly criminalized the use of conduct "to cause or induce any person to withhold testimony, or… record, document, or other object from an official proceeding [or] alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair… availability for use in an official proceeding." Id. Floor Debates indicate that Congress considered § 1512 as strengthening criminal penalties "against those who retaliate against corporate whistleblowers." 148 Cong. Rec. 13072, 13080 (2002) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner). Congress wanted to close any loopholes for obstruction of justice in the white-collar context and added tough penalties for document shredding. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (punishing those in violation with a fine or imprisonment "not more than 20 years, or both"). While it was one of Congress' purposes in passing § 1512(c)(2) to address white-collar financial crimes, this was not its sole purpose. The provision "also include[d] obstruction of justice penalties," not limited to the white-collar context. 148 Cong. Rec. 13276, 13349 (2002) (statement of Rep. Cox). There is no reason to assume that Congress intended to limit § 1512 to white-collar