OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: UNWARRANTED EXPANSION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1512(C)(1).
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 Intende...
| Published in: | Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Vol. 102; no. 1; pp. 25 - 67 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Northwestern University
Winter2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=75067162&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 75067162 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00914169 CLC jtl: Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology issn: 00914169 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Winter2012 vid: 102 iid: 1 pid: 1093 pub: Northwestern University artinfo: ui: 75067162 ppf: 25 ppct: 42 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 895KB tig: atl: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: UNWARRANTED EXPANSION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1512(C)(1). aug: au: Schrup, Sarah O'Rourke affil: Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law su: United States United States. Securities & Exchange Commission Obstruction of justice Justice administration Criminal sentencing Evidence tampering sug: subj: Obstruction of justice Justice administration Criminal sentencing United States United States. Securities & Exchange Commission Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors Evidence tampering 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|