Obstruction of Congress: a Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities








Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal
criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of
judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation
(18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of Congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505),
conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule
and common law). All but Section 1503 cover Congressional activities.
The laws that supplement, and sometimes mirror, the basic six tend to proscribe a particular
means of obstruction. Some, like the perjury and false statement statutes, condemn obstruction by
lies and deception. Others, like the bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud statutes, prohibit
obstruction by corruption. Some outlaw the use of violence as a means of obstruction. Still others
ban the destruction of evidence. A few simply punish “tipping off” those who are the targets of an
investigation. A good number of these apply in a Congressional context.
Many of these offenses may also provide the basis for racketeering and money laundering
prosecutions, and each provides the basis for criminal prosecution of anyone who aids and abets
in or conspires for their commission.
This report is available in abbreviated form – without footnotes, quotations, or citations – as CRS
Report RS22784, Obstruction of Congress: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Laws
Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities. Both versions have been excerpted from
CRS Report RL34303, Obstruction of Justice: an Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes that
Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities. Other excerpted portions
are also available as the following: CRS Report RS22783, Obstruction of Justice: An Abridged
Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws; CRS Report 98-808, Perjury Under Federal Law: A
Brief Overview; and CRS Report 98-807, Perjury Under Federal Law: A Sketch of the Elements,
all by Charles Doyle.






Introduc tion ............................................................................................................................... 1
General Obstruction Prohibitions..............................................................................................1
Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512).......................................................................................1
Obstruction by Violence (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)).....................................................................2
Auxiliary Offenses and Liability.........................................................................................5
Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C.
1512(b) ........................................................................................................................ ..... 8
Obstruction by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(c))..........................................13
Obstruction by Harassment (18 U.S.C. 1512(d))..............................................................15
Obstructing Congressional or Administrative Proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505)........................17
Retaliating Against Federal Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)........................................................20
Conspiracy to Obstruct (18 U.S.C. 371).................................................................................22
Conspiracy to Defraud......................................................................................................22
Conspiracy to Commit a Substantive Offense..................................................................22
Contempt of Congress.............................................................................................................23
Obstruction of Justice by Violence or Threat..........................................................................29
Violence and Threats Against Officials, Former Officials, and Their Families (18
U.S.C. 115)....................................................................................................................29
Violence and Threats Against Federal Officials on Account of the Performance of
Their Duties...................................................................................................................33
Obstruction of Justice by Bribery............................................................................................35
Bribery of Jurors, Public Officers and Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 201)...................................35
Obstruction by Mail or Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343)............................................37
Obstruction by Extortion Under Color of Official Right (18 U.S.C. 1951)......................42
Obstruction of Justice by Deception.......................................................................................43
Perjury Generally (18 U.S.C. 1621)..................................................................................43
Subornation of Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1622)..........................................................................46
False Statements (18 U.S.C. 1001)...................................................................................47
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................50





Obstruction of justice is the frustration of governmental purposes by violence, corruption, 1
destruction of evidence, or deceit. It is a federal crime. In fact, federal obstruction of justice laws 2
are legion; too many for even passing reference to all of them in a single report. This is a brief 3
description of those that outlaw interference with Congressional activities.
The general federal obstruction of justice provisions are six: 18 U.S.C. 1512 (tampering with
federal witnesses), 1513 (retaliating against federal witnesses), 1503 (obstruction of pending
federal court proceedings), 1505 (obstruction of pending Congressional or federal administrative 4
proceedings), 371 (conspiracy), and contempt. All but Section 1503 apply to Congressional
activities. In addition to these, there are a host of other statutes that penalize obstruction by
violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit.
Section 1512 applies to the obstruction of federal proceedings – Congressional, judicial, or 5
executive. It consists of four somewhat overlapping crimes: use of force or the threat of the use
of force to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)); use of deception or corruption
or intimidation to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(b)); destruction or
concealment of evidence or attempts to do so (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)); and witness harassment to
prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(d)). The offenses have similar, but not
identical, objectives and distinctive elements of knowledge and intent. Section 1512 also contains
free standing provisions that apply to one or more of the offenses within the section. These deal
with: affirmative defenses (18 U.S.C. 1512(e)); jurisdictional issues (18 U.S.C. 1512(f),(g),(h));
venue (18 U.S.C. 1512(i)); sentencing (18 U.S.C. 1512(j)); and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1512(k)).

1 Black’s describes obstruction of justice simply as anyinterference with the orderly administration of law and
justice,” BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 1107 (8th ed. 2004).
2 For this reason, theft and embezzlement statutes are beyond the scope of this report, even though they are often
designed to prevent the frustration of government programs.
3 Portions of this report draw upon two earlier documents, CRS Report 98-808, Perjury Under Federal Law: A Brief
Overview, and CRS Report 98-832, Obstruction of Justice Under Federal Law: A Review of Some of the Elements.
4 Contempt is a creature of statute and common law described in, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 401, 402; 2 U.S.C. 192.
5 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(1) (“As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section – (1) the termofficial
proceeding” means – (A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a
bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United
States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury; (B) a proceeding before the Congress; (C) a proceeding before
a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance
whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner
appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose
activities affect interstate commerce”). Federal prosecutions for obstructing state insurance proceedings appear to have
been infrequent. For additional discussion of Section 1512 see, Twenty-Second Survey of White Collar Crime:
Obstruction of Justice, 44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 794 (2007).





Subsection 1512(a) has slightly different elements depending upon whether the offense involves a
killing or attempted killing – 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1), or some other use of physical force or a threat 6
– 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(2). In essence, they condemn the use of violence to prevent a witness from
testifying or producing evidence for an investigation and set their penalties according to whether
the obstructive violence used is a homicide, an assault or a threat. In more exact terms, they
declare:
1512(a)(1) 1512(a)(2)
I. Whoever I. Whoever
II. a. kills or II. a. uses physical force,
b. attempts to kill b. attempts to use physical force,
c. uses the threat of physical force, or
d. attempts to use the threat of physical force
III. with the intent to III. with the intent to
a. prevent attendance or testimony at an official a. influence, delay, or prevent testimony at an official
proceeding (i.e., a federal judicial, legislative or proceeding
administrative proceeding)
b. prevent the production of an item at an official b. cause or induce another to withhold testimony or an
proceeding item at an official proceeding
c. prevent the communication to U.S. law c. hinder, delay or prevent the communication to U.S. law
enforcement authorities of a federal offense or a enforcement authorities of a federal offense or a
violation of probation, parole, or supervised violation of probation, parole, or supervised release
release.
d. cause or induce another to alter, conceal or destroy an
item with the intent to make unavailable
e. cause or induce another to evade process
f. cause or induce another to fail to comply with process
IV. shall be punished under §1512(a)(3) in the case of: IV. shall be punished under §1512(a)(3) in the case of:
a. murder- death or life imprisonment a. use or attempted use of physical force- imprisonment
for not more than 20 years
b. voluntary manslaughter- imprisonment for not b. threats to use physical force - imprisonment for not
more than 10 years more than 10 years
c. involuntary manslaughter- imprisonment for not
more than 6 years
d. attempted murder- imprisonment for not more 7
than 20 years

6 Here and throughout this report the outline of the statutes elements uses the language of the statute wherever
possible.
7 18 U.S.C. 1512(a). Unlike most federal crimes, subsection 1512(a) does not include imposition of a fine among the
sanctions that follow as a consequence of its provisions – with one exception. It states that a subsection 1512(a)
manslaughter offense shall be punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1112. In addition to a term of imprisonment, section
1112 states that offenders may befined under this title.” Section 3571 of Title 18 sets the general fine level for
felonies (crimes whose maximum term of imprisonment is more than one year) at the greater of either not more than
$250,000 for individuals (not more than $500,000 for organizations) or twice the amount of gain or loss associated with
(continued...)





Subsection 1512(j) provides that the maximum term of imprisonment for subsection 1512(a)
offenses may be increased to match the maximum term of any offense involved in an obstructed 8
criminal trial.
Subsection 1512(a)’s whistle blower offense applies only to violence intended to obstruct the 9
flow of information to federal “law enforcement officers.” The definition of “law enforcement
officers” for purposes of subsection 1512(a) seems too narrow to encompass the Members or 10
committees of Congress or their staff under most circumstances.
There are two statutory defenses to charges under Section 1512. One covers legitimate legal 11
advice and related services, 18 U.S.C. 1515(c), and is intended for use in connection with the
corrupt persuasion offenses proscribed elsewhere in Section 1512 rather than the violence
offenses of subsection 1512(a). The other statutory defense is found in subsection 1512(e) and
creates an affirmative defense when an individual engages only in conduct that is lawful in order
to induce another to testify truthfully. The defense would appear to be of limited use in the face of 12
a charge of the obstructing use or threat of physical force in violation of subsection 1512(a).

(...continued)
the offense. For purposes of brevity and convenience, a reference hereafter to a fine of not more than $250,000 should
be understood to include the higher limits for organizations or when the gain or loss associated with the offense is
greater. Although many federal statutes suggest that offenders may be sentenced to a fine rather than a term of
imprisonment at the discretion of the court, other provisions of law and the influence of the Sentencing Guidelines
greatly curtail the number of instances in which simple imposition of a fine would be considered an appropriate
punishment for the commission of a felony, 18 U.S.C. 3553 (imposition of sentence); U.S.S.G. §§2J1.2, 2J1.3 (base
offense level for obstruction of justice and perjury is 14), U.S.S.G. ch.5 Pt. A Sentencing Table(sentencing range for
first time offenders with an offense level of 14 is 15 to 21 months imprisonment). For a general discussion of the
operation of the federal sentencing guidelines see CRS Report RL32846, How the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Work: Two Examples.
8If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of
imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the
maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case,” 18 U.S.C. 1512(j).
9Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to . . . (C) prevent the communication by any person to a
law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission
of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be
punished as provided in paragraph (3), 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1). The obstruction by physical violence or threat portion of
subsection 1512(a) is similarly worded, see 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(2).
10 As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section. . . (4) the term ‘law enforcement officer’ means an
officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal
Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant – (A) authorized under law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or (B) serving as a probation or pretrial
services officer under this title,” 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(4).
11This chapter does not prohibit or punish the providing of lawful, bona fide, legal representation services in
connection with or anticipation of an official proceeding,” 18 U.S.C. 1512(c).
12 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act redesignated Section 1512(d)(2000 ed.) as Section 1512(e): “In a prosecution for an offense
under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to
encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully,” 18 U.S.C. 1512(e). See, United States v. Lowery, 135 th
F.3d 957, 960 (5 Cir. 1998)(reversing the defendant’s obstruction of justice conviction for the trial court’s failure to
permit evidence substantiating the defense); United State v. Thompson, 76 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1996)(upholding the
constitutionality of the defense in the face of a challenge that it unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to the th
accused); United States v. Arias, 253 F.3d 453, 457 (9 Cir. 2001)(This section was apparently intended to exempt
judicial officers who lawfully remind witnesses or defendants of their oath to give true testimony, although the
statutory language itself is not so limited. See U.S. v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 1992)(quoting legislative
history) ).





Subsections 1512(f) and 1512(g) seek to foreclose a cramped construction of the various offenses
proscribed in Section 1512. Subsection 1512(f) declares that the evidence that is the object of the
obstruction need not be admissible and that the obstructed proceedings need not be either pending
or imminent.
As a consequence of subsection 1512(h), murder, attempted murder, or the use or threat of
physical force – committed overseas to prevent the appearance or testimony of a witness or the
production of evidence in federal proceedings in this country or to prevent a witness from
informing authorities of the commission of a federal offense or a federal parole, probation,
supervised release violation – is a federal crime outlawed in subsection 1512(a) that may be 13
prosecuted in this country.
As a general rule, the courts will assume that Congress intends a statute to apply only within the
United States and to be applied consistent with the principles of international law – unless a 14
contrary intent is obvious. Subsection 1512(h) supplies the obvious contrary intent. Since a
contrary intent may be shown from the nature of the offense, the result would likely be the same
in the absence of subsection 1512(h). In the case of an overseas obstruction of federal
proceedings, the courts could be expected to discern a Congressional intent to confer 15
extraterritorial jurisdiction and find such an application compatible with the principles of 16
international law. The existence of extraterritorial jurisdiction is one thing; the exercise of such
jurisdiction is another. Federal investigation and prosecution of any crime committed overseas 17
generally presents a wide range of diplomatic, legal and practical challenges.
Subsection 1512(i) states that violations of Section 1512 or Section 1503 may be prosecuted in
any district where the obstruction occurs or where the obstructed proceeding occurs or is to occur.
In the case of obstructions committed in this country, the Constitution may limit the trial in the

13 18 U.S.C. 1512(h)(There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section”); see e.g., United
States v. Fisher, 494 F.3d 5, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2007)(contemplated murder in Canada of a federal witness).
14 EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)(It is a long-standing principle of American law that
legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States”); Murray v. the Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 118 (6 U.S. 34, 67)(1804)(“[A]n act of
Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains);
Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982).
15 United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922)(But the same rule of interpretation [of purely domestic
application] should not be applied to criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically dependent on their locality for
the government’s jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right of the government to defend itself against
obstruction, or fraud wherever perpetrated. . . . We can not suppose that when Congress enacted the [fraud] statute or
amended it, it did not have in mind that a wide field for such fraud upon the government was in private and public
vessels of the United States on the high seas and in foreign ports and beyond the land jurisdiction of the United States,
and therefore intend to include them in the section); Ford v. United States, 273 U,.S. 593, 623 (1927) (a man who
outside of a country willfully puts in motion a force to take effect in it is answerable at the place where the evil is
done).
16 Historically, the courts have found compatibility with international law where a case falls within one of the five
principles upon which geographical jurisdiction may be predicated. Either of two such principles would appear to cover
the overseas application of Section 1512. The territorial principle holds that a country may apply its laws to misconduct th
that has a substantial impact within its borders, United States v. Neil, 312 F.3d 419, 422 (9 Cir. 2002); the protective
principle holds that a country may apply its laws to protect the integrity of governmental functions, United States v.
Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 121 (2d Cir. 2003). See also, RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES, §402 & 402 cmt. f (1986).
17 See generally, CRS Report 94-166, Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law.





district of the obstructed proceedings to instances when a conduct element of the obstruction has 18
occurred there.
Subsection 1512(k) makes conspiracy to violate Section 1512 a separate offense subject to the
same penalties as the underlying offense. The section serves as an alternative to a prosecution
under 18 U.S.C. 371 that outlaws conspiracy to violate any federal criminal statute. Section 371 is
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years and conviction requires the government to 19
prove the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the scheme by one of the conspirators.
Subsection 1512(k) has no specific overt act element, and the courts have generally declined to 20
imply one under such circumstances. It remains to be seen whether, in the absence of an overt
act element, venue over a subsection 1512(k) conspiracy is proper in any district in which only an 21
overt act in its furtherance is committed. Regardless of which section is invoked, conspirators
are criminally liable under the Pinkerton doctrine for any crime committed in the foreseeable 22
furtherance of the conspiracy.
Accomplices to a violation of subsection 1512(a) may incur criminal liability by operation of 18
U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, or 373 as well. Section 2 treats accomplices before the fact as principals. That is, it
declares that those who command, procure or aid and abet in the commission of a federal crime 23
by another, are to be sentenced as if they committed the offense themselves. As a general rule,
“[i]n order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant in some sort
associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something he wishes to bring

18 The Constitution requires federal crimes committed within the United States to be tried in the states and districts in
which they occur, U.S. Const. Art.III, §2, cl.3; Amend. VI. It permits Congress to determine where federal crimes
committed outside the United States may be tried, U.S. Const. Art. III, §2, cl.3; see, 18 U.S.C. 3238. This means a
federal crime committed within the United States may be tried wherever one of its conduct elements is committed,
United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280 (1999). Although the Court left the question unaddressed, id. at
279 n.2, this seems to preclude trial within the district of the obstructed proceeding if that is the only nexus to an
obstruction committed within the United States in the district of the obstructed proceeding, United States v. Cabrales, th
524 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1998); United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302, 314 (4 Cir. 2000); United States v. Strain, 396 F.3d th
689, 694 (5 Cir. 2005). For a more detailed discussion see CRS Report RL33223, Venue: A Legal Analysis of Where a
Federal Crime May Be Tried.
19 18 U.S.C. 371.
20 E.g., Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 214-15 (2004); United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 17 (1994).
21 As general rule, a crime occurs and venue is thus proper where a conduct element occurs, and “where a crime
consists of distinct parts which have different localities the whole may be tried where any part can be proved to have
been done . . . cf. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 356-67 (1912)(venue proper against defendant in district where
co-conspirator carried out overt acts even though there was no evidence that the defendant had ever entered that district
or that the conspiracy was formed there), United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280-82 (1999). Hyde was
charged under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes, an earlier version of 18 U.S.C. 371, that contained an overt act
requirement, 225 U.S. at 349.
22 Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-48 (1946); United States v. Moran, 493 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.
2007); United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432, 433 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Lake, 472 F.3d 1247, 1265 (10th
Cir. 2007).
23 18 U.S.C. 2 (“(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces
or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if
directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal”).





about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.”24 It is also necessary to prove that someone 25
else committed the underlying offense.
Section 3 outlaws acting as an accessory after the fact,26 which occurs when “one knowing that an
offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder 27
his or her apprehension, trial, or punishment.” Prosecution requires the commission of an 28
underlying federal crime by someone else. An offender cannot be both a principal and an 29
accessory after the fact to the same offense. Offenders face sentences set at one half of the
sentence attached to the underlying offense, or if the underlying offense is punishable by life
imprisonment or death, by imprisonment for not more than 15 years (and a fine of not more than 30
$250,000).
Although at first glance section 4’s misprision prohibition may seem to be a failure-to-report 31
offense, misprision of a felony under the section is in essence a concealment offense. “The
elements of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. 4 are (1) the principal committed and
completed the felony alleged; (2) the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; (3) the defendant 32
failed to notify the authorities; and (4) defendant took steps to conceal the crime.” The offense
is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 3 years and/or a fine of not more than 33
$250,000.
Solicitation to commit an offense under subsection 1512(a), or any other crime of violence, is 34
prohibited in 18 U.S.C. 373. “To establish solicitation under §373, the Government must

24 Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 (1949); United States v. Pnado Franco, 503 F.3d 389, 396 (5th Cir.
2007); United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 293 (3d Cir. 2007); see also, United States v. Wilson, 160 F.3d 732, 739
(D.C. Cir. 1998)(aiding and abetting a subsection 1512(a) offenses)(Aiding and abetting requires the government to
prove: (1) the specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime of by another; (2) guilty knowledge; (3) that the
other was committing an offense; and (4) assisting or participating in the commission of the offense).
25 United States v. Garcia-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Hassoun, 476 F.3d 1181,
1183 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006).
26 18 U.S.C. 3 (“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves,
comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after
the fact. . .”).
27 United States v. Gianakos, 415 F.3d 912, 920 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. DeLaRosa, 171 F.3d 215, 221 (5th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Irwin, 149 F.3d 565, 571 (7th Cir. 1998).
28 United States v. Hill, 279 F.3d 731, 741 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. DeLaRosa, 171 F.3d 215, 221 (5th Cir.
1999); United States v. Irwin, 149 F.3d 565, 571 (7th Cir. 1998).
29 United States v. Taylor, 322 F.3d 1209, 1211-212 (9th Cir. 2003).
30 18 U.S.C. 3 (“. . .Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be
imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not
more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is
punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years).
31 18 U.S.C. 4 (Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United
States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or
military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both”).
32 United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 544 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Cefalu, 85 F.3d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1996);
United States v. Vasquez-Chan, 978 F.2d 546, 555(9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Adams, 961 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir.
1992).
33 18 U.S.C. 4, 3571.
34 18 U.S.C. 373(a)(Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an
element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in
(continued...)





demonstrate that the defendant (1) had the intent for another to commit a crime of violence and
(2) solicited, commanded, induced or otherwise endeavored to persuade such other person to
commit the crime of violence under circumstances that strongly corroborate evidence of that 35
intent.” Section 373 provides an affirmative statutory defense if offender prevents the 36
commission of the solicited offense. Offenders face penalties set at one half of the sanctions for
the underlying offense, but imprisonment for not more than 20 years, if the solicited crime of 37
violence is punishable by death or imprisonment for life.
A subsection 1512(a) violation opens up the prospect of prosecution for other crimes for which a
violation of subsection 1512(a) may serve as an element. The racketeering statutes (RICO) outlaw
acquiring or conducting the affairs of an interstate enterprise through a pattern of “racketeering 38
activity.” The commission of any of a series of state and federal crimes (predicate offenses) 3940
constitutes a racketeering activity. Section 1512 offenses are RICO predicate offenses. RICO
violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more that 20 years (or imprisonment for life if
the predicate offense carries such a penalty), a fine of not more than $250,000 and the 41
confiscation of related property.
The money laundering provisions, among other things, prohibit financial transactions involving
the proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity,” that are intended to launder the proceeds or to 42
promote further “specified unlawful activity.” Any RICO predicate offense is by virtue of that 43
fact a specified unlawful activity, i.e., a money laundering predicate offense. Money laundering

(...continued)
violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits,
commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be
imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not
more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime
solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years). In United st
States v. Fisher, 494 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1 Cir. 2007), the First Circuit upheld a conviction for “solicitation to commit a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 373. The particular crime of violence specified in the indictment was the murder
of a cooperating federal witness. See 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1)(A).
35 United States v. Caldwell, 433 F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 125 (2d Cir.
1999); United States v. Rahman, 34 F.3d 1331, 1337 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v, Buckalew, 859 F.2d 1052, 1052-st
53 (1 Cir. 1988).
36 18 U.S.C. 373(b), (c)((b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances
manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of
the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to
postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective.
If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a
preponderance of the evidence. (c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could
not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was
incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution.”).
37 18 U.S.C. 373.
38 18 U.S.C. 1961-1963.
39 18 U.S.C. 1961.
40 Id. E.g., United States v. Diaidone, 471 F.3d 371 (2d Cir. 2006).
41 18 U.S.C. 1963. For a general discussion of RICO see, Twenty-Second Survey of White Collar Crime: Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 901 (2007); CRS Report 96-950, RICO:
A Brief Sketch.
42 18 U.S.C. 1956.
43 18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(7)(A). A second money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1957, outlaws monetary transactions
involving more than $10,000 consisting of proceeds generated by any of the predicate offenses identified in Section
(continued...)





is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine ranging from $250,000 to 44
$500,000 depending upon the nature of the offenses, and the confiscation of related property.
A subsection 1512(a) offense is by definition a crime of violence.45 Commission of a crime of
violence is an element of, or a sentence enhancement factor for, several other federal crimes, e.g.:
• 18 U.S.C. 25 (use of a child to commit a crime of violence),46
• 521 (criminal street gang),47
• 924(c)(carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence),48
• 929 (carrying a firearm with restricted ammunition during and in relation to a 49
crime of violence),
• 1028 (identity fraud in connection with a crime of violence).50
The second group of offenses within Section 1512 outlaws obstruction of federal Congressional,
judicial, or administrative activities by intimidation, threat, corrupt persuasion or deception, 18
U.S.C. 1512(b). Parsed to its elements, it provides that:
I. Whoever
II. knowingly
A. uses intimidation
B. threatens, or
C. corruptly persuades another person, or

(...continued)
1956, 18 U.S.C. 1957(f).
44 18 U.S.C. 1956, 981, 982. For a general discussion of the money laundering statutes see, Twenty-Second Survey of
White Collar Crime: Money Laundering, 44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 769 (2007); CRS Report RL33315,
Money Laundering: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1956 and Related Federal Criminal Law.
45 18 U.S.C. 16(a)(“The term ‘crime of violence’ means – (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”).
46 Offenders face a fine and term of imprisonment twice that of the offense committed by the child, 18 U.S.C. 25(b).
47 Offenders face a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years in addition to the penalty imposed for the crime of
violence, 18 U.S.C. 521(b).
48 Offenders face a term of imprisonment ranging from imprisonment for not less than 5 years to imprisonment for life
depending upon the circumstances of the offenses in addition to the penalty imposed for the underlying crime of th
violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). In United States v. Harris, 498 F.3d 278 (4 Cir. 2007), the Fourth Circuit upheld a
conviction for violating subsections 1512(a) and 924(c) in connection with the firebombing of a witnesss home (for
purposes of 924(c) a firearm includes explosive or incendiary devices, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3),(4)).
49 Offenders face a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years in addition to the penalty imposed for the underlying
crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 929(a)(1).
50 Offenders face a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years, 18 U.S.C. 1028(b)(3).





D. attempts to do so, or
E. 1. engages in misleading conduct51

2. toward another person,


III. with intent to
A. 1. a. influence,
b. delay, or
c. prevent
2. the testimony of any person
3. in an official proceeding,52 or
B. cause or induce any person to
1. a. i. withhold testimony, or
ii. withhold a
(I) record,
(II) document, or
(III) other object,
b. from an official proceeding, or

2. a. i. alter,


ii. destroy,

51As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section . . . (3) the termmisleading conduct means – (A)
knowingly making a false statement; (B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a
portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false
impression by such statement; (C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or
recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity; (D) with intent to mislead, knowingly
submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is
misleading in a material respect; or (E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead,” 18 U.S.C.
1515(a)(3).
52(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section – (1) the term ‘official proceeding’ means –
(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of
the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Claims Court, or a
Federal grand jury; (B) a proceeding before the Congress; (C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which
is authorized by law; or (D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate
commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or
agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate
commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(1).





iii. mutilate, or
iv. conceal
b. an object
c. with intent to impair
d. the object's
i. integrity or
ii. availability for use
e. in an official proceeding,
3. a. evade
b. legal process
c. summoning that person
i. to appear as a witness, or
ii. to produce a
(I) record,
(II) document, or
(III) other object,
iii. in an official proceeding, i.e., a
(I) federal court proceeding,
(II) federal grand jury proceeding,
(III) Congressional proceeding,
(IV) federal agency proceeding, or
(V) proceeding involving the insurance business; or
4. a. be absent
b. from an official proceeding,
c. to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or





C. 1. a. hinder,
b. delay, or
c. prevent
2. the communication to a
a. federal judge or
b. federal law enforcement officer53
3. of information relating to the
a. commission or
b. possible commission of a
4. a. federal offense or
b. [a] violation of conditions of
i. probation,
ii. supervisor release,
iii. parole, or
iv. release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.54
In more general terms, subsection 1512(b) bans (1) knowingly, (2) using one of the prohibited
forms of persuasion (intimidation, threat, misleading or corrupt persuasion), (3) with the intent to
prevent a witness’s testimony or physical evidence from being truthfully presented at
Congressional or other official federal proceedings or with the intent to prevent a witness from 55
cooperating with authorities in a matter relating to a federal offense. It also bans any attempt to

53(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section . . . (4) the term ‘law enforcement officer’
means an officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal
Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant – (A) authorized under law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or (B) serving as a probation or pretrial
services officer under this title,” 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(4).
54 18 U.S.C. 1512(b). “Shall be fined under this title” refers to the fact that as a general rule in the case of felonies 18
U.S.C. 3571 calls for fines of not more than the greater of $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for organizations) or of
twice the amount of the gain or loss associated with the offense.
As in the case of subsection 1512(a), if a subsection 1512(b) obstruction is committed in connection with the trial of a
criminal charge which is more severely punishable, the higher penalty applies to the subsection 1512(b) violation as
well, 18 U.S.C. 1512(j).
55 See e.g., United States v. Victor, 973 F.2d 975, 978 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 452-53
(2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Holt, 460 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Gurr, 471 F.3d 144, 154 (D.C. th
Cir. 2007); United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11 Cir. 2007).





so intimidate, threaten, or corruptly persuade, id. The term “corruptly” in the phrase “corruptly
persuades” as it appears in subsection 1512(b) has been found to refer to the manner of 565758
persuasion, the motive for persuasion, and the manner of obstruction. Prosecution for
obstructing official proceedings under subsection 1512(b)(2) will require proof that the defendant 59
intended to obstruct a particular proceeding.
The attributes common to Section 1512 as a whole, apply to subsection 1512(b); some of which
may fit more comfortably in a subsection 1512(b) corrupt persuasion setting than they do in a
1512(a) violence prosecution. The affirmative defenses in subsections 1512(e) and 1515(c) are
prime examples. Subsection 1512(e) removes by way of an affirmative defense good faith
encouragements of a witness to speak or testify truthfully, although it does not excuse urging a 60
witness to present fabrications as the truth. Subsection 1515(d) makes it clear that bona fide
legal advice and related services cannot be used to provide the basis for subsection 1512(b)

56 United States v. LaShay, 417 F.3d 715, 718 (7th Cir. 2005)(“corrupt persuasion occurs where a defendant tells a
potential witness a false story as if the story were true, intending that the witness believe the story and testify to
it”)(very much like the offenses elsewhere in subsection 1512(b) ofknowingly . . . engag[ing] in misconduct toward
another person” with obstructive intent); United States v. Farrell, 126 F.3d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1997)(emphasis in the
original)(“Thus, we are confident that both attempting to bribe someone to withhold information and attempting to
persuade someone to provide false information to federal investigators constitutecorrupt persuasion under
§1512(b)”).
57 United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296, 343 (2d Cir. 2006)(This Circuit has defined ‘corrupt persuasion’ as persuasion
that ismotivated by an improper purpose. United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 452 (2d Cir. 1996). We have also
specifically stated that the Obstruction of Justice Act can be violated by corruptly influencing a witness to invoke the
Fifth Amendment privilege in his grand jury testimony. See United States v. Cioffi, 493 F.2d 111, 1118 (2d Cir. 1974) th
); United States v. Khatami, 280 F.3d 907, 911-12 (9 Cir. 2002)(Synthesizing these various definitions ofcorrupt”
and “persuade,” we note the statute strongly suggests that one who attempts to “corruptly persuade” another is, given
the pejorative plain meaning of the root adjective “corrupt, motivated by an inappropriate or improper purpose to
convince another to engage in a course of behavior-such as impeding an ongoing criminal investigation”); United th
States v. Shotts, 145 F.3d 1289, (11 Cir. 1998)(“It is reasonable to attribute to thecorruptly persuade language in
Section 1512(b), the same well-established meaning already attributed by the courts to the comparable language in
Section 1503(a), i.e., motivated by an improper purpose).
58 United States v. Burns, 298 F.3d 523, 540 (6th Cir. 2002)(Burns attempted to ‘corruptly persuade Walker by urging
him to lie about the basis of their relationship, to deny that Walker knew Burns as a drug dealer, and to disclaim that
Burns was Walter’s source of crack cocaine”); United States v. Hull, 456 F.3d 133, (3d Cir. 2006)(there was ample
evidence from which the jury could conclude that Hull knowingly attempted to corruptly persuade Rusch, with the
intent to change her testimony. See United States v. Farrell, 126 F.3d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1997)(holding thatcorrupt
persuasion’ includesattempting to persuade someone to provide false information to federal investigators)); United st
States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470, 487 (1 Cir. 2005)(“Trying to persuade a witness to give false testimony th
counts ascorruptly persuading under §1512(b)); United States v. Pennington, 168 F.3d 1060, 1066 (8 Cir.
1999)(“After carefully examining this amendment and its legislative history, the Third Circuit concluded that the
ambiguous termcorruptly persuades includesattempting to persuade someone to provide false information to federal
investigators.’ United States v. Farrell, 126 F.3d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1997) (emphasis in the original). We agree”).
59 Even though the statute, 18 U.S.C. 1512(f), provides that the obstructed proceedings need be neither ongoing nor
pending at the time of the obstruction, it is “one thing to say that a proceeding need not be pending or about to be
instituted at the time of the offense, and quite another to say a proceeding need not even be foreseen. A knowingly . . .
corrupt persuader cannot be someone who persuades others to shred documents under a comment retention policy when
he does not have in contemplation any particular official proceeding in which those documents might be
material,Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 707-8 (2005); United States v. Vampire Nation, 451
F.3d 189, 205 (3d Cir. 2006)(We read this instruction as requiring the jury to find some connection i.e., a nexus –
between Banks’s actions and an official proceeding in that Banks could not be convicted unless the jury found he
intended to persuade Do to impede an official proceeding, which official proceeding – given Do’s email regarding his st
subpoena Banks was well aware of); United States v. Misla-Aldarondo, 478 F.3d 52, 69 (1 Cir. 2007).
60 United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470 (1st Cir. 2005)(“Cruzado did ask that they tell the truth; however,
his version ofthe truth’ that he urged upon them was anything but the truth”).





corrupt persuasion prosecution.61 Conversely, a charge of soliciting a crime of violence or of
using a child to commit a crime of violence are more likely to be prosecutorial companions of a
charge under subsection 1512(a) than under subsection 1512(b).
On the other hand, the extraterritorial and venue statements of subsections 1512(h) and 1512(i)
are as readily applicable to subsection 1512(b) persuasion prosecutions as they are to a subsection

1512(a) violent obstruction case. The same can be said of aiding and abetting, accessories after 62


the fact, misprision, and predicate offense status under RICO or the money laundering statutes.
And, it likewise is a separate offense to conspire to violate subsection 1512(b) under either
section 371 or subsection 1512(k).
The obstruction by destruction of evidence offense found in subsection 1512(c) is the creation of 63
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and proscribes obstruction of Congressional proceedings, or of federal 64
administrative or judicial proceedings, by destruction of evidence.
More specifically, subsection 1512(c) provides that
I. Whoever
II. corruptly
III. A. 1. alters,

2. destroys,


3. mutilates, or
4. conceals
B. 1. a record,
2. document, or
3. other object, or
C. attempts to do so,

61 E.g., United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2000).
62 E.g., United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2006)(18 U.S.C. 1512(b) as a RICO predicate offense);
Sepulveda v. United States, 330 F.3d 55, 58 (1st cir. 2003)(same).
63 P.L. 107-204, 116 Stat, 807 (2000).
64 E.g., United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1286-287 (11th Cir. 2006)(when federal agents asked the defendant to
identify a cell phone they had seized in a drug trafficking investigation, the defendant “grabbed one of the phones,
ripped it apart and then he smashed it on the ground and tried to step on it. This made it impossible to retrieve numbers
and other information through the phones display. The defendant was convicted of violating subsection 1512(c)).





D. with the intent to impair the object’s
1. integrity, or
2. availability for use
E. in an official proceeding, or
IV. otherwise
A. 1. obstructs,
2. influences, or
3. impedes
B. an official proceeding, or
C. attempts to do so
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.65
As is generally true of attempts to commit a federal offense, attempt to violate subsection 1512(c)
requires an intent to violate the subsection and a substantial step toward the accomplishment of 66
that goal.
As for the necessary nexus between the defendant’s destructive conduct and the obstructed
proceedings: “the defendant’s conduct must ‘have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with
the [official]. . . proceedings’; in other words, ‘the endeavor must have the natural and probable 67
effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.’”
Like subsection 1512(a) and 1512(b) offenses, subsection 1512(c) offenses are RICO and money 68
laundering predicate offenses, and may provide the foundation for criminal liability as a 69
principal, accessory after the fact, conspirator, or one guilty of misprision. If the federal judicial,
administrative or Congressional proceedings are obstructed, prosecution may be had in the United 7071
States even if the destruction occurs overseas, the proceedings are yet pending, or the offender 72
is unaware of their federal character.

65 18 U.S.C. 1512(c).
66 United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 781 (8th Cir. 2007).
67 United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179, 184 (2d Cir. 2007).
68 18 U.S.C. 1961, 1956(c)(7)(A).
69 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 371, 1512(k), 4.
70 18 U.S.C. 1512(h).
71 18 U.S.C. 1512(f).
72 18 U.S.C. 1512(g).





The obstruction by harassment prohibition in subsection 1512(d) appeared in subsection 1512(c)
until redesignated by Sarbanes-Oxley, and declares:
I. Whoever,
II. intentionally,
III. harasses another person, and thereby
IV. A. hinders,
B. delays,
C. prevents, or
D. dissuades,
V. any person from
A. 1. attending or
2. testifying in
3. an official proceeding, or
B. reporting
1. a. to a law enforcement officer, or
b. judge
c. of the United States,
2. a. the commission, or
b. possible commission, of
3. a. a federal offense, or
b. a violation of the conditions of
i. probation,
ii. supervised release,
iii. parole, or
iv. release pending judicial proceedings, or





C. 1. arresting, or
2. seeking to arrest
3. another person
4. in connection with a federal offense, or
D. causing
1. a. a criminal prosecution, or
b. a parole revocation proceeding, or
c. a probation revocation proceeding
2. a. to be sought, or
b. instituted, or
3. assisting in such prosecution or proceeding, or
VI. attempts to do so
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.73
The fine of crimes punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year is not more than 74
$100,000 (not more than $200,000 for organizations). The subsection does not proscribe
obstructing a private individual who seeks information of criminal activity in order to report it to 75
federal authorities.
Subsection 1512(d) harassment offenses are RICO and money laundering predicate offenses.76
The provisions of law relating to principals, accessories after the fact, and conspiracy apply with 77
equal force to offenses under subsection 1512(d), as do the provisions elsewhere in Section 78

1512 relating to extraterritorial application, and abolition of the need to show pendency or 79


knowledge of the federal character of the obstructed proceedings or investigation. Subsection

1512(d) harassment, however, cannot provide the basis for a misprision prosecution since the 80


subsection’s offenses are not felonies.

73 18 U.S.C. 1512(d).
74 18 U.S.C. 3571, 3581.
75 Camelio v. American Federation, 137 F.3d 666, 671-72 (1st Cir. 1998).
76 18 U.S.C. 1961, 1956(c)(7)(A).
77 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 371, 1512(k).
78 18 U.S.C. 1512(h).
79 18 U.S.C. 1512(f), (g).
80 18 U.S.C. 4 (Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony. . .”). Crimes punishable by
imprisonment for not more than one year are class A misdemeanors, 18 U.S.C. 3581.





Section 1505 outlaws interfering with Justice Department civil investigative demands issued in 81
antitrust cases, but deals primarily with obstructing Congressional or federal administrative
proceedings:
I. Whoever
II. A. corruptly, or
B. by threats or
C. force, or
D. by any threatening letter or communication
III. A. influences,
B. obstructs, or
C. impedes or
D. endeavors to

1. influence,


2. obstruct, or
3. impede
IV. A. 1. the due and proper administration of the law under which
2. any pending proceeding is being had
3. before any department or agency of the United States, or
B. 1. the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which
2. any inquiry or investigation is being had

81 “Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil
investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents,
removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary
material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so
or solicits another to do so . . . Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years or, if the offense
involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both,”
18 U.S.C. 1505.





3. by
a. either House, or
b. any committee of either House or
c. any joint committee of the Congress
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years (not more than 8 years if 82
the offense involves domestic or international terrorism), or both.
Prosecutions under Section 1505 have been relatively few, at least until recently, and most of 83
these arise as obstructions of administrative proceedings. “The crime of obstruction of [such]
proceedings has three essential elements. First, there must be a proceeding pending . . . Second,
the defendant must be aware of the pending proceeding. Third, the defendant must have 84
intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.”
Perhaps due to the breadth of judicial construction, the question of what constitutes a pending
proceeding has arisen most often. Taken as a whole, the cases suggest that a “proceeding”
describes virtually any manner in which an administrative agency proceeds to do its business. The
District of Columbia Circuit, for example, has held that an investigation by the Inspector General
of the Agency for International Development may qualify as a “proceeding” for purposes of
Section 1505. In doing so, it rejected the notion “that [section] 1505 applies only to adjudicatory 85
or rule-making activities, and does not apply to wholly investigatory activity.” Moreover,
proximity to an agency’s adjudicatory or rule-making activities, such as auditors working under
the direction of an officer with adjudicatory authority, has been used to support a claim that an 86
obstructed agency activity constitutes a proceeding. The courts seem to see comparable breadth

82 18 U.S.C. 1505.
83 E.g., United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 761 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 174 (2d
Cir. 2006); United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2006).
84 United States v. Price, 951 F.2d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 1991), citing, United States v. Sutton, 732 F.2d 1483, 1490 (10th
Cir. 1984) and United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1988); see also, United States v. Blackwell, 459 th
F.3d 739, 761-62 (6 Cir. 2006); United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 174 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. th
Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9 Cir. 2006).
85 United States v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118, 1127 (D.C.Cir. 1994). The court also observed thatother courts have held
that agency investigative activities are proceedings within the scope of [section] 1505. In those cases, the investigations
typically have involved agencies with some adjudicative power, or with the power to enhance their investigations
through the issuance of subpoenas or warrants, id.
86 United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 175 (2d Cir. 2006)(Quattrones Brief could be read as raising a distinction
between the informal and formal stages of the SEC investigation and whether criminal liability for obstructing an
agency ‘proceeding’ can only arise in the context of the latter. In our view, that argument comes up short); United th
States v. Technic Services, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1044 (9 Cir. 2002)(“However, the record shows that TSI’s conduct,
while removing the asbestos at the pulp mill, was under investigation by the EPA at the relevant time. . . An
investigation into a possible violation of the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, which could lead to a civil or criminal
proceedings is a kind of proceeding”); United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d 181, 198-99 (3d Cir. 1991)(the government . . .
argues that the agency that Badolate obstructed acted under the direction of the Army’s contracting officer, who had the
authority to make adjudications on behalf of the Defense Department. . . . Other courts of appeals have broadly
construed the term ‘proceeding’ as that term is used in §1505. The Sixth Circuit, in United States v. Fruchtman, 421 th
F.2d 1019, 1021 (6 Cir. 1970) rejected the contention that the word ‘proceedings’ refers only to those steps before a
federal agency that are judicial or administrative in nature. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Browning, Inc., 572 th
F.2d 720, 724 (10 Cir. 1978), wrote: ‘In sum, the term proceeding is not . . . limited to something in the nature of a
trial. The growth and expansion of agency activities have resulted in a meaning being given to proceeding which is
(continued...)





in the Congressional equivalent (“obstructing the due and proper exercise of the power of 87
inquiry” by Congress and its committees).
In the case of either Congressional or administrative proceedings, Section 1505 condemns only
that misconduct which is intended to obstruct the administrative proceedings or the due and 88
proper exercise of the power of inquiry. In order to overcome judicially-identified uncertainty as 89
to the intent required, Congress added a definition of “corruptly” in 1996: “As used in Section
1505, the term ‘corruptly’ means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing
another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or
destroying a document or other information,” 18 U.S.C. 1515(b). Examples of the type of conduct 90
that has been found obstructive vary.
Section 1505 offenses are not RICO or money laundering predicate offenses.91 Section 1505 has
neither a separate conspiracy provision nor an explicit exterritorial jurisdiction provision.
However, conspiracy to obstruct administrative or Congressional proceedings may be prosecuted 92
under 18 U.S.C. 371, and the courts would likely find that overseas violations of Section 1505 93
may be tried in this country. Moreover, the general aiding and abetting, accessory after the fact,

(...continued)
more inclusive and which no longer limits itself to formal activities in a court of law. Rather, the investigation or search
for the true facts . . . is not to be ruled as a non-proceeding simply because it is preliminary to indictment and trial.See th
also . . . Rice v. United States, 356 F.2d 709, 712 (8 Cir. 1966)(‘Proceedings before a governmental department or
agency simply mean proceeding in the manner and form prescribed for conducting business before the department or
agency. . .’). Given the broad meaning of the wordproceeding’ and the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s particular
mission, we agree with the government that when Badolate obstructed Sterns search for the true purchase order dates,
Badolate obstructed a proceeding within the meaning of §1505).
87 United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 300-301 (4th Cir. 1989)(The question of whether a given congressional
investigation is adue and proper exercise of the power of inquiry for purposes of [section] 1505 can not be answered
by a myopic focus on formality. Rather, it is properly answered by a careful examination of all the surrounding
circumstances. If it is apparent that the investigation is a legitimate exercise of investigative authority by a
congressional committee in an area within the committee's purview, it should be protected by [section] 1505. While
formal authorization is certainly a factor that weighs heavily in this determination, its presence or absence is not
dispositive. To give [Section 1505] the protective force it was intended, corrupt endeavors to influence congressional
investigations must be proscribed even when they occur prior to formal committee authorization).
88 United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d 181, 199 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Mitchell, 877 at 299; United States v.
Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1988).
89 United States v. Poindexter, 951 F.2d 369 (D.C.Cir. 1991)(holding that ambiguity of the termcorruptly in the
context of 1505 rendered it unconstitutionally vague at least when applied to false statements made directly to
Congress).
90 United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 761 (6th Cir. 2006)(submission of inaccurate information pursuant to an
Securities and Exchange Commission subpoena); United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) (false th
statements to SEC investigators); United States v. Technic Services, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1044 (9 Cir.
2002)(tampering with air monitoring devices during an Environmental Protection Agency investigation); United States
v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118, 1127-128 (D.C.Cir. 1994)(enlisting others to lie to AID Inspector General’s Office th
investigators); United States v. Price, 951 F.2d 1028, 1031 (9 Cir. 1991) (using threats to avoid an interview with IRS
officials; United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d 181, 198 (3d Cir. 1991) (making false statements to a Defense Department
auditor); United States v. Schwartz, 924 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1991)(lying to Customs Service officials); United States v. th
Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 299-300 (4 Cir. 1989) (endeavoring to use family relationship to obstruct a Congressional th
investigation); United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 536-37 (9 Cir. 1988)(submitting false documentation in
response to an IRS subpoena).
91 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 1956(c)(7).
92 E.g., United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 748 (6th Cir. 2006).
93 Cf., United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922)(We can not suppose that when Congress enacted the [fraud]
statute or amended it, it did not have in mind that a wide field for such fraud upon the government was in private and
(continued...)





and misprision statutes are likely to apply with equal force in the case of obstruction of an 94
administrative or Congressional proceeding.
Congress outlawed retaliation against federal witnesses under Section 1513 at the same time it 95
outlawed witness tampering under Section 1512. Although somewhat more streamlined, Section

1513 shares a number of attributes with Section 1512. The definitions in Section 1515 apply to 96


both sections. Consequently, the prohibitions apply to witnesses in judicial, Congressional and 9798
administrative proceedings. There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over both offenses. In slightly
different terms, both protect witnesses against murder and physical abuse – committed,
attempted, conspired, or threatened. Offenses under the two are comparably punished.
Section 1513 prohibits witness or informant retaliation in the form of killing, attempting to kill,99 100
inflicting or threatening to inflict bodily injury, damaging or threatening to damage property,

(...continued)
public vessels of the United States on the high seas and in foreign ports and beyond the land jurisdiction of the United
States, and therefore intend to include them in the section); Ford v. United States, 273 U,.S. 593, 623 (1927) (“a man
who outside of a country willfully puts in motion a force to take effect in it is answerable at the place where the evil is
done).
94 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4. E.g., United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d 181, 184 (3d Cir. 1991).
95 P.L. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1249, 1250 (1982).
96 18 U.S.C. 1515(a).
97 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(1)(“As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section – (1) the term ‘official
proceeding’ means – (A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a
bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United
States Claims Court, or a Federal grand jury; (B) a proceeding before the Congress; (C) a proceeding before a Federal
Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose
activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner
appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose
activities affect interstate commerce”).
98 18 U.S.C. 1512(h), 1513(d).
99(a) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person with intent to retaliate against any person for – (A) the
attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other
object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (B) providing to a law enforcement officer any information
relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation
supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings – shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2). (2)
The punishment for an offense under this subsection is – (A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in
sections 1111 and 1112; and (B) in the case of an attempt, imprisonment for not more than 20 years . . . (c) If the
retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment
which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the
maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case,” 18 U.S.C. 1513(a),(c).
100(b) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the
tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for – (1) the
attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other
object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release, parole, or release pending
judicial proceedings given by a person to a law enforcement officer; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a
criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the
higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged
in such case,” 18 U.S.C. 1513(b),(c).





and conspiracies to do so.101 It also prohibits economic retaliation against federal witnesses, but 102
only witnesses in court proceedings and only on criminal cases. It does not reach economic
retaliation against witnesses on the basis of information relating to the violations of supervised
release, bail, parole, or probation conditions.
To satisfy the assault prong of Section 1513, the government must prove that the defendant bodily 103
injured another in retaliation for the victim’s testimony or service as a government informant. 104105
The extent of the injuries need not be extensive, nor in the case of a threat even carried out. 106
As a general rule, the intent to retaliate need not have been the sole motivation for the attack.
Section 1513 offenses are RICO predicate offenses and consequently money laundering predicate 107
offenses. They are also violent offenses and therefore may result in the application of those 108
statutes in which the commission of a violent crime is an element or sentencing factor. Those
who aid and abet a Section 1513 offense are liable as principals and are punishable as if they 109
committed the offense themselves. An individual who knows another has committed a Section

1513 offense and nevertheless assists the offender in order to hinder his capture, trial or 110


punishment is in turn punishable as an accessory after the fact. And an individual who 111
affirmatively conceals the commission of a Section 1513 by another is guilty of misprision.

101Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those
prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 1513(e)*. There are
two subsections 1513(e); one prohibits economic retaliation and other conspiracy; 1513(e)* is the conspiracy
subsection. Conspiracy to violate Section 1513 may be prosecuted alternatively under 18 U.S.C. 371, e.g., United th
States v. Templeman, 481 F.3d 1263, 1264 (10 Cir. 2007).
102(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference
with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful
information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both,” 18 U.S.C. 1513(e). The placement of subsection 1513(c) – after violent
proscriptions of subsections 1513(a) and 1513(b), but before the economic retaliation proscription of subsection
1513(e) may raise some question over whether subsection(c) provides an alternative sentencing provision for
subsection 1513(e). Subsection 1513(c) states, “If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a
criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the
higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged
in such case.
103 United States v. Tapia, 59 F.3d 1137, 1140 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Bolen, 45 F.3d 140, 142 (7th Cir. 1995);
United Sates v. Cofield, 11 F.3d 413, 419 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Brown, 937 F.2d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1991); st
United States v. Beliveau, 802 F.2d 553, 562 (1 Cir. 1986).
104 United States v. Cunningham, 54 F.3d 295, 299 (7th Cir. 1995).
105 United States v. Maggitt, 794 F.2d 590, 593-94 (5th Cir. 1986).
106 United States v. Molina, 407 F.3d 511, 529-30 (1st Cir. 2005)(there is nothing in Section 1513 that requires
retaliation to be the sole motive for a murder. As long as there is sufficient evidence from which the jury can infer that
retaliation was a substantial motivating factor behind the killing it does not matter that defendant may have had other
motives).
107 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 1956(c)(7)(A).
108 E.g., United Stats v. Caldwell, 433 F.3d 378, 384 (4th Cir. 2005)(conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513, 373
(solicitation to commit a crime of violence), 1114 (attempted murder of an individual assisting federal officers or
employees).
109 18 U.S.C. 2.
110 18 U.S.C. 3.
111 18 U.S.C. 4.





If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States or to
defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one
or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined 112
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. 371.
Section 371 contains both a general conspiracy prohibition and a specific obstruction conspiracy
prohibition in the form of a conspiracy to defraud proscription. The elements of conspiracy to
defraud the United States are: (1) an agreement of two more individuals; (2) to defraud the United 113
States; and (3) an overt act by one of conspirators in furtherance of the scheme. The “fraud
covered by the statute ‘reaches any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or 114
defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government” by “deceit, craft or trickery, 115
or at least by means that are dishonest.” The scheme may be designed to deprive the United
States of money or property, but it need not be so; a plot calculated to frustrate the functions of a 116
governmental entity will suffice.
The elements of conspiracy to commit a substantive federal offense are: “(1) an agreement
between two or more persons to commit a specified federal offense, (2) the defendant’s knowing
and willful joinder in that common agreement, and (3) some conspirator’s commission of an overt 117
act in furtherance of the agreement.” Conspirators must be shown to have exhibited the same

112 For addition discussion of Section 1512 see, Twenty-Second Survey of White Collar Crime: Federal Criminal
Conspiracy, 44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 523 (2007).
113 United States v. World Wide Moving, 411 F.3d 502, 516 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ballistrea, 101 F.3d 827,
832 (2d Cir. 1996).
114 Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987), citing, Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966);
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 66 (1942); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); and
Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 479 (1910).
115 Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. at 188 (To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to
cheat the Government out of property or money, but also mens to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful
governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest); Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. at 66 (The indictment charges that the United States was defrauded by depriving it of its lawful
governmental functions by dishonest means; it is settled that this is a ‘defrauding. . .’”).
116 Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. at 188 (It is not necessary that the government shall be subjected to
property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by th
misrepresentation. . .”); United States v. World Wide Moving, 411 F.3d 502, 516 (4 Cir. 2005); United States v. st
Goldberg, 105 F.3d 770, 773 (1 Cir. 1997); United States v. Ballistrea, 101 F.3d 827, 832 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal
citations omitted) (This “provision ‘not only reaches schemes which deprive the government of money or property, but
also is designed to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies’”); United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640, 647
(D.C. Cir. 1995)(internal citations omitted)(Ifthe government’s evidence showed that Dean conspired to impair the
functioning of the department of the Housing and Urban Development, ‘no other form of injury to the Federal
Government need be established for the conspiracy to fall under §371’).
117 United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119, 142 (2d Cir. 2006); see also, United States v. Munoz-Frnaco, 487 F.3d 25, 45
(1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 492 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 760 thth
(6 Cir. 2006); United States v. Soy, 454 F.3d 766, 768 (7 Cir. 2006); United States v. Chong, 419 F.3d 1076, 1079 thth
(9 Cir. 2005); United States v. Weidner, 437 F.3d 1023, 1033 (10 Cir. 2006); United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, th
1294 (11 Cir. 2006).





level of intent as required for the underlying substantive offense.118 The overt act need only be
furtherance of the scheme; it need not be the underlying substance offense or even a crime at 119
all. Conspirators are liable for the underlying offense should it be accomplished and for any
reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common 120
plot.
As noted earlier, a number of federal statues including sections 1512 and 1513 include within
their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s 121
substantive provisions. The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions
is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily 122
do not require proof of an overt act. The disadvantage is that they may lack the venue
flexibility afforded by subsection 371 and other conspiracy provisions that contain an overt act 123
element. Although sections 1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a
charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to
proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371.
Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.124 125
Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time. The statutory contempt
of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in
recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.
Parsed to its elements, Section 192 states that

118 United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686 (1975); United States v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25, 45 (1st Cir. 2007);
United States v. Soy, 454 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Weidner, 437 F.3d 1023, 1033 (10th Cir. 2006); th
cf., United States v. Ching Tang Lo, 447 F.3d 1212, 1232 (9 Cir. 2006).
119 United States v. Soy, 454 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. May, 359 F.3d 683, 694 n.18 (4th Cir. 2004);
United States v. Lukens, 114 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1997); cf., Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53
(1942).
120 Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-48 (1946); United States v. Moran, 493 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.
2007); United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432, 433 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Lake, 472 F.3d 1247, 1265 (10th
Cir. 2007).
121 E.g., 18 U.S.C. 1512(k)(Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this subsection shall be subject to the
same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy).
Subsection 1513(e) is similarly worded.
122 Where Congress enacts a conspiracy provision without an explicit overt act requirement as in the Sherman Act,
conviction may be had without proof of an overt act, Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 212-14
(2005)(construing 18 U.S.C. 1956(h)); United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 14 (1994)(construing 21 U.S.C. 846).
123 The Constitution provides that crimes must be tried in the state and district in which they occur, U.S. Const. Art. II,
§2, cl.3; Amend. VI. The Supreme Court has said that when the elements of a crime are committed in more than one
state or district the crime may be tried in any district in which one of its elements is committed, United States v.
Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280-82 (1999). Conspiracies with an overt act element may be tried anywhere an
overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed, United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1998).
124 2 U.S.C. 192-196; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927).
125 For a more extensive discussion of contempt of Congress see CRS Report RL34097, Congress's Contempt Power:
Law, History, Practice, and Procedure.





I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to
A. give testimony, or
B. to produce papers
V. upon any matter under inquiry
VI. before
A. either House,
B. any joint committee,
C. any committee of either House
VII. who willfully
A. makes default, or
B. refuses
1. to answer any question
2. pertinent to the matter under inquiry
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or less than
$100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve 126
months.
The Dictionary Act states that, unless the context suggests otherwise when the term “person” 127
appears in the United States Code, it includes organizations as well. Nevertheless, prosecution
appears to have been limited to individuals, although the custodians of organizational documents
have been charged. The term “summoned,” on the other hand, has been read broadly, so as to
extend to those who have been served with a testimonial subpoena, to those who have been
served with a subpoena to produce documents or other items (subpoena duces tecum), and to 128
those who have appeared without the benefit of subpoena.

126 2 U.S.C. 192. By operation of 18 U.S.C. 3571 the maximum fine is $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations).
127 1 U.S.C. 1 (In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the
wordsperson’ and ‘whoever include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint
stock companies, as well as individuals. . . ”).
128 Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 296 (1929).





Section 192 applies only to those who have been summoned by the “authority of either House of
Congress.” As a consequence, the body which issues the subpoena must enjoy the authority of 129
either the House or Senate to do so, both to conduct the inquiry and to issue the subpoena.
Authority may be vested by resolution, rule, or statute. Section 192 speaks only of the Houses of
Congress and their committees, but there seems little question that the authority may be conferred 130
upon subcommittees.
The testimony or documents sought by the subpoena or other summons must be sought for “a
matter under inquiry” and in the case of an unanswered question, the question must be “pertinent 131
to the question under inquiry.” The statute outlaws “refusal” to answer pertinent questions, but
the courts have yet to say whether the proscription includes instances where the refusal takes the
form of false or deceptive testimony. There is no word on whether the section outlaws any refusal
to answer honestly or only unequivocal obstinance. On at least two occasions, however,
apparently the courts have accepted nolo contendere pleas under Section 192 based upon a false 132
statement predicate.
Section 192 bans only “willful” recalcitrance. Thus, when a summoned witness interposes an
objection either to an appearance in response to the summons or in response to a particular
question, the objection must be considered, and if found wanting, the witness must be advised 133
that the objection has been overruled before he or she may be successfully prosecuted. The
grounds for a valid objection may be found in rule, statute, or the Constitution, and they may be 134
lost if the witness fails to raise them in a timely manner.
The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses against self-incrimination.135 The protection reaches
wherever incriminating testimonial communication is compelled whether in criminal proceedings 136
or elsewhere. It covers communications that are either directly or indirectly incriminating, but

129 Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702, 713 (1966); Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 296 (1929).
130 Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702, 714 (1966)(We do not question the authority of the Committee
appropriately to delegate functions to a subcommittee of its members, nor do we doubt the availability of §192 for
punishment of contempt before such a subcommittee in proper cases”).
131 Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 755-56 (1962), citing, Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 273 (1929).
132 Peterson, Prosecuting Executive Branch Officials for Contempt of Congress, 66 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW
REVIEW 563, 571 n.45 (1991)(Richard Helms (former Director of the CIA) and Richard Kleindienst (former Attorney
General) were indicted for giving false testimony before Congress. Ultimately, each pleaded nolo contendere to
violations of 2 U.S.C. §192 . . . See United States v. Helms, CR. No. 650 (D.D.C. 1977); United States v. Kleindienst,
CR No. 256 (D.D.C. 1974); Wash. Post, Nov. 1, 1977, at A4); a former Counsel to the Clerk of the House described
the two cases in much the same way in House Judiciary Committee hearings, Prosecution of Contempt of Congress:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Comm. on the thst
Judiciary, 98 Cong., 1 Sess. at 29 (1983)(prepared statement of Stanley Brand).
133 Flaxer v. United States, 358 U.S. 147, 151 (1958)(In the Quinn case the witness wasnever confronted with a
clear-cut choice between compliance and noncompliance, between answering the question and risking prosecution for
contempt. The rulings were so imprecise as to leave the witness to ‘guess whether or not the committee had accepted
his objection.’ . . . We repeat what we said in the Quinn case: Giving a witness a fair apprisal of the committee’s ruling
on an objection recognizes the legitimate interests of both the witness and the committee.), quoting Quinn v. United
States, 349 U.S. 155, 166 (1955); Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456, 468 (1961)(Unless the subject matter has
been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on
grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the
propounded questions are pertinent thereto”), quoting, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 214-15 (1957).
134 McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372, 379 (1960); United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 332-33 (1950).
135 U.S. Const. Amend. V (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . .).
136 Watkins v. United States , 354 U.S. 178, 195-96 (1957)(It was during this period that the Fifth Amendment
(continued...)





only those that are “testimonial.”137 Organizations enjoy no Fifth Amendment privilege from self-138
incrimination, nor in most cases do the custodians of an organization’s documents unless their
act of producing the subpoenaed documents is itself an incriminating testimonial 139
communication. An individual’s voluntarily created papers and records are by definition not 140
compelled communications and thus ordinarily fall outside the privilege as well. Moreover, the 141
protection may be waived if not invoked, and the protection may be supplanted by a grant of
immunity which promises that the truthful testimony the witness provides or is compelled to 142
provide will not be used directly or derivatively in his or her subsequent prosecution.
Aside from the Fifth Amendment, the status of constitutionally-based objections to a
Congressional summons or question is somewhat more amorphous. The First Amendment affords
a qualified immunity from subpoena or interrogation, whose availability is assessed by balancing 143
competing individual and Congressional interests. Although a subpoena or question clearly in
furtherance of a legislative purpose ordinarily carries dispositive weight, the balance may shift to
individual interests when the nexus between Congress’ legitimate purpose and the challenged 144
subpoena or question is vague or nonexistent. In cases of such imprecision, the government’s 145
assertion of the pertinence necessary for conviction of statutory contempt may become suspect.
The Fourth Amendment may also supply the basis for a witness to disregard a Congressional
subpoena or question. The Amendment condemns unreasonable governmental searches and 146
seizures. The Supreme Court in Watkins confirmed that witness in Congressional proceedings

(...continued)
privilege against self-incrimination was frequently invoked and recognized as legal limit upon the authority of a
committee to require that a witness answer its questions. Some early doubts as to the applicability of that privilege
before a legislative committee never matured. When the matter reached this Court, the Government did not challenge in
any way that the Fifth Amendment protection was available to the witness, and such a challenge could not have
prevailed”).
137 Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 19 (2001)(the privilege against self-incrimination applies where a witness answers
could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence against him), quoting, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S.
479, 486 (1951); United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000)(The wordwitness’ in the constitutional text limits
the relevant category of compelled incriminating communications to those that are ‘testimonial’ in character”); Hibel v.
Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177, 189 (2004).
138 Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 107-108 (1988).
139 Under the act of production doctrine, a custodian’s testimonial act of turning over documents in response to a
subpoena is entitled to Fifth Amendment protection if his actionby confirming the existence of the documents, or his
control of them, or his belief that they came within the description of the documents sought in the subpoena – would
incriminate him or provide a link in the chain leading to his incrimination, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36-8
(2000).
140 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409-10 (1976); United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 611-12 (1984).
141 Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 608-609 (1962); Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, 195-96 (1955).
142 18 U.S.C. 6001-6005 (immunity generally), particularly 18 U.S.C. 6005 (immunity in Congressional proceedings);
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 462 (1972)(upholding the constitutionality of the immunity statute).
143 Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 126 (1959)(balancing the governmental interest in investigating
Communist activities in the United States against the witness’ interest in the confidentiality of his associations and
concluding “that the balance between the individual and the governmental interests here at stake must be struck in favor
of the latter, and that therefore the provisions of the First Amendment have not been offended”);.
144 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 196-206 (1957).
145 United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46-8 (1953); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 207-16 (1957).
146 U.S. Const. Amend. IV (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .).





are entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, but did not explain what such protection entails.147
In fact, the courts have addressed only infrequently the circumstances under which the Fourth
Amendment cabins the authority of Congress to compel a witnesses to produce papers or
response to questions.
When dealing with the subpoenas of administrative agencies, the Court noted sometime ago that
the Fourth Amendment “at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness
or breadth in the things required to be ‘particularly described,’ if also the inquiry is one the
demanding agency is authorized by law to make and the materials specified are relevant. The gist
of the protection is in the requirement, expressed in terms, that the disclosure sought shall not be 148
unreasonable.” At the same time, it pointed out that as in the case of a grand jury inquiry 149
probable cause is not a prerequisite for a reasonable subpoena. In later years, it explained that
where a grand jury subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, “the motion to quash must be
denied unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the category
of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the 150
grand jury’s investigation.” The administrative subpoena standard has been cited on the those
infrequent occasions when the validity of a Congressional subpoena has been challenged on 151
Fourth Amendment grounds. Contempt convictions have been overturned, however, when a 152
Fourth Amendment violation taints the underlying subpoena or question.
Perhaps most unsettled of all is the question the extent to which, if any, the separation of powers
doctrine limits the subpoena power of Congress over members and former members of the other
branches of government. As a practical matter, however, the other branches of government
ultimately control the prosecution and punishment for statutory contempt of Congress, at least
under the current state of the law. Section 194 states that the United States Attorney to whom

147 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 188 (1957)(Witnessescannot be subjected to unreasonable searches and
seizures”).
148 Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 208 (1946).
149The result therefore sustains the Administrator’s position that his investigative function, in searching out violations
with a view to securing enforcement of the Act, is essentially the same as the grand jury’s or the courts in issuing other
pretrial orders for discovery of evidence, and is governed by the same limitations. These are that he shall not act
arbitrarily or in excess of his statutory authority, but this does not mean that his inquiry must be limited by forecasts of
the probable result of the investigation,” Id. at 216 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, United States v. Powell,
379 U.S. 48, 57 (1964) .
150 United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 301 (1991). Strictly speaking, R. Enterprises involves the
prohibition against “unreasonable or oppressive subpoenas found in Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, a proscription no less demanding than the Fourth Amendment.
151 McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372, (1960)(It thus appears that the records called for by the subpoena were not
‘plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose (of the Subcommittee) in the discharge of (its) duties,’ but, on
the contrary were reasonablyrelevant to the inquiry. Finally, petitioner contends that the subpoena was so broad as to
constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. ‘(A)dequacy
or excess in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature, purposes and scope of the inquiry.
The Subcommittees inquiry here was a relatively broad one . . . and the permissible scope of materials that could
reasonably be sought was necessarily equally broad”), citing the Fourth Amendment standard for administrative
searches from Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209 (1946). See also, Packwood v. Senate
Select Committee on Ethics, 510 U.S. 1319, 1320 (1994)(As we stated in Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling
determining whether a subpoena is overly broad ‘cannot be reduced to formula; for relevancy and adequacy or excess
in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature, purposes and scope the inquiry)(Ch. J.
Rehnquist denying the application for a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals of a District Court order enforcing
a Congressional subpoena duces tecum)(internal citations omitted).
152 United States v. McSurely, 473 F.2d 1178, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1972).





Congress refers a violation of Section 192 has a duty to submit the matter to the grand jury.153
Should a grand jury indictment be forthcoming further prosecution is at the discretion of the 154
Executive Branch in proceedings presided over by the Judicial Branch.
The rules governing the Congressional hearing may also afford a witness the basis to object to a
Congressional summons or interrogation and to defend against a subsequent prosecution for
violation of Section 192. No successful prosecution is possible if the Congressional tribunal in 155
question has failed to follow its own rules to the witness’s detriment. Among other things those
rules may identify evidentiary privileges available to a witness. The evidentiary rules that control 156
judicial proceedings do not govern legislative proceedings, unless and to the extent they are
constitutionally required or have been made applicable by Congressional rule and decision of the
tribunal. To the extent the rules or body issuing the subpoena afford a witness an attorney-client
or attorney work product protection or any other evidentiary privilege, the privilege provides a
valid basis to object and defend.
Section 192 states that violations are punishable by imprisonment for not less than one month nor 157
more than twelve months and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. By virtue of
generally applicable amendments enacted after the section, class A misdemeanors (crimes
punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year) are subject to a fine of not more than 158
$100,000 for individuals and not more than $200,000 for organizations.

153Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in Section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce
any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any
question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or
concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress,
and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not
in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may
be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case
may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its
action,” 2 U.S.C. 194.
Dicta in two District of Columbia District Court cases indicate that the United States Attorney was required to present
the matter to the grand jury, United States v. House of Representatives, 556 F.Supp. 150, 151 (D.D.C. 1983); Ex parte
Frankfeld, 32 F.Supp. 915, 916 (D.D.C. 1940). Between the two, however, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia held to be discretionary the similar worded duty of the Speaker, when the House is not in session, to refer a
contempt citation to the United States Attorney, Wilson v. United States, 369 F.2d 198, 201-205 (D.C. Cir. 1966). It
may be argued that similarly worded duties should be similarly construed and that therefore the United States
Attorney’s duty to refer the case to the grand jury is likewise discretionary.
154 Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that indictments be signed by an attorney for the
government as a demonstration of the assent of the government to go forward without which a prosecution may not be thth
had, United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5 Cir. 1965); United States v. Wright, 365 F.2d 135, 137 (7 Cir. 1966).
See also, Watye v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985)(So long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe
that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to
file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion”).
155 Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 123-24 (1963).
156 The Constitution gives each House the authority to “determine the rules of its proceedings, U.S. Const. Art. I, §5,
cl.2. The Federal Rules of Evidence as such apply only to certain judicial proceedings, F.R.Evid. 1101.
157Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give
testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question
pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than
$1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve
months,” 2 U.S.C. 192.
158 In 1984, Congress established a uniform fine schedule which amends individual statutory maximum fine provisions
(continued...)





Congress’ exercise of its inherent power to punish for contempt of its authority predates the 1857 159
enactment of the original version of its statutory contempt provisions. The statute has always 160
been recognized as a supplement rather than a replacement of the inherent power. In fact for the
first half of the statute’s existence, Congress continued to rely upon its inherent power
notwithstanding the presence of a statutory alternative. Thereafter, Congress began to resort to the 161
statutory alternatives more regularly. The inherent power lay dormant and does not appear to 162
have been invoked any time within the last half century.
There are two statutory provisions available to permit Congress to call upon the courts to
overcome the resistance of witnesses in Congressional proceedings. One covers immunity orders 163
where the witness has claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Continued recalcitrance after the grant of immunity is punishable under the court’s civil and
criminal contempt powers. The second permits the court enforcement of a Senate subpoena but 164
apparently only to the extent of the court’s civil contempt powers.
In addition to the basic six federal crimes of obstruction of justice, federal law features a host of
criminal statutes that proscribe various obstructions according to the obstructive means used.
Thus, several federal statutes outlaw use of threats or violence to obstruct federal government
activities, quite aside from the general obstruction provisions of sections 1512, 1513, 1505, and

1503.


Section 115 prohibits certain acts of violence against Members of Congress, Members-elect,
judges, jurors, officials, former officials, and their families in order to impede the performance of

(...continued)
like those of Section 192 sub silentio, 18 U.S.C. 3571. Under the schedule, class A misdemeanors (crimes punishable
by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, 18 U.S.C. 3559) are punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 for
individuals and not more than $200,000 for organizations, 18 U.S.C. 3571(b), (c).
159 Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821). The original version of 2 U.S.C. 192 appears in 11 Stat. 155
(1857).
160 Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125, 151 (1935); In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 671-72 (1897).
161 In addition to Section 192, some of the misconduct that might have been punished under Congress inherent
contempt power may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements), 1621 (perjury), 1505 (obstruction of
justice before Congressional committees), or 1512 (obstruction of justice).
162 Congress does not appear to have called upon its inherent power of contempt since the mid-1930s, 4 DESCHLERS
PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ch. 15, §17 n.7 (1974); Beck, CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, App.A, at
213 (1959).
163 18 U.S.C. 6001-6005.
164 28 U.S.C. 1365.





their duties or to retaliate for the performance of those duties. The section consists of three related
offenses. One designed to protect the families of judges, officials, and Members against threats
and acts of violence, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(A); another to protect Members, judges and officials
from threats, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B); and a third to protect former Members, former judges,
former officials and their families from retaliatory threats and acts of violence, 18 U.S.C.

115(a)(2). In more precise terms, they declare:


(1)(Family)
I. Whoever
II. A. assaults
B. kidnaps,
C. murders,
D. attempts to assault, kidnap, or murder,
E. conspires to assault, kidnap, or murder, or
F. threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder
III. a member of the immediate family of
A. a federal judge,
B. a Member of Congress,
C. the President and any other federal officer or employee
IV. with the intent
A. either to

1. a. impede,


b. intimidate, or
c. interfere with

2. a. a federal judge,


b. a Member of Congress,
c. the President and any other federal officer or employee

3. in the performance of official duties;





B. or to
1. retaliate against

2. a. a federal judge,


b. a Member of Congress,
c. the President and any other federal officer or employee
3. for the performance of official duties
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).165
Subsection 115(a)(1)(A) only condemns violence against the families of federal officials not 166
violence committed against the officials themselves. Subsection 115(b) makes assault,
kidnaping, murder, and attempts and conspiracies to commit such offenses in violation of the
section subject to penalties imposed for those crimes when committed under other sections of the
Code, i.e., 18 U.S.C. 111, 1201, 1111, 1113, and 1117. It makes threats to commit an assault
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 years and threats to commit any of the other
offenses under the section punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, 18 U.S.C.
115(b)(4). A fine of not more than $250,000 is available as an alternative or supplementary
sanction in either instance. Id.
(2)(Threats)
I. Whoever
II. threatens to
A. assault
B. kidnap, or
C. murder
III.A. a federal judge,
B. a Member of Congress,
C. the President and any other federal officer or employee

165 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(A).
166 United States v. Bennett, 368 F.3d 1343, 1352-354 (11th Cir. 2004), vacd on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1110 (2005).





IV. with the intent
A. either to

1. a. impede,


b. intimidate, or
c. interfere with

2. a. a federal judge,


b. a Member of Congress,
c. the President and any other federal officer or employee

3. in the performance of official duties;


B. or to
1. retaliate against

2. a. a federal judge,


b. a Member of Congress,
c. the President and any other federal officer or employee
3. for the performance of official duties
shall be punished as noted earlier by imprisonment for not more than 6 years in the case of a
threatened assault and not more than 10 years in the case of all other threats outlawed in the 167
section.
The circuits are divided over the question of whether a violation of subsection 115(a)(1)(B) is a
specific intent offense. The Eleventh Circuit has held that it is not and as a consequence the 168
government need not show that the defendant knew that his victim was a federal official. The
Sixth Circuit, on the other hand, held that it is a specific intent offense and as a consequence a 169
defendant is entitled to present a defense of intoxication or diminished capacity.
They were at one point likewise divided over whether the threat proscribed in the section is one
that would instill fear in a reasonable person to whom it was communicated or one a reasonable 170
defendant would understand would convey a sense of fear. The Ninth Circuit has suggested that

167 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B), (b)(4).
168 United States v. Berki, 936 F.2d 529, 532-34 (11th Cir. 1991).
169 United States v. Veach, 455 F.3d 628, 632-34 (6th Cir. 2006).
170 United States v. Saunders, 166 F.3d 907, 913 n.6 (7th Cir. 1999)(Those cases holding that the test should be an
objective speaker-based one include United States v. Schiefen, 139 F.3d 638, 639 (8th Cir. 1998) . . . United States v. stth
Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486, 1491-92 (1 Cir. 1997) . . . United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9 Cir.
(continued...)





the Supreme Court may have resolved the split when it defined those “true threats” that lie
beyond the protection of the First Amendment’s free speech clause as “those statements where the
speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful 171
violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
(3)(Former Officials)
I. Whoever
II. A. assaults
B. kidnaps,
C. murders,
D. attempts to assault, kidnap, or murder, or
E. conspires to assault, kidnap, or murder, or
III. A. a former federal judge,
B. a former Member of Congress,
C. the former President and any other former federal officer or employee, or
D. a member of the immediate family of such former judge, Member or individual
IV. on account of the performance of their former official duties
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) as described above.172
Section 1114 of Title 18 of the United States Codes outlaws murder, manslaughter, and attempted
murder and manslaughter of federal officers and employees as well as those assisting them, 173
committed during or on account of the performance of their duties. The section’s coverage

(...continued)
1990) . . .and United States v. Welch, 745 F.2d 614, 619 (10th Cir. 1984). . . Those cases treating the objective test as
recipient-based include United States v. Malik, 16 F.3d 345, 48 (2d Cir. 1994); and United States v. Maisoner, 484 F.2d th
1356, 1358 (4 Cir. 1973)).
171 United States v. Stewart, 403 F.3d 1007, 1016-19 (9th Cir. 2005), quoting, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 349-50
(2003).
172 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(2).
173 18 U.S.C. 1114 (“Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in
any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or
employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or
employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished (1) in the case of
murder, as provided under Section 1111; (2) in the case of manslaughter, as provided under Section 1112; or (3) in the
(continued...)





extends to government witnesses.174 Other provisions outlaw kidnaping or assaults against federal
officers and employees committed during or account of the performance of their duties, but their 175
coverage of those assisting them is less clear.
Beyond these general prohibitions, federal law proscribes the murder, kidnaping, or assault of 176
Members of Congress, Supreme Court, or the Cabinet; and a number of statutes outlaw assaults
on federal officers and employees responsible for the enforcement of particular federal statutes 177
and programs.

(...continued)
case of attempted murder or manslaughter, as provided in Section 1113”).
174 See, United States v. Caldwell, 433 F.3d 378, 384 (2005), affirming the conviction a defendant who solicited the
murder of a government witness on charges of violating 18 U.S.C. 373 (solicitation of murder), 1114 (attempted
murder), 1512(a) (witness tampering), 1513 (witness retaliation), 371 (conspiracy to murder a government witness).
175 18 U.S.C. 1201(a)(emphasis added)(Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or
carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent
thereof, when . . . (5) the person is among those officers and employees described in Section 1114 of this title and any
such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties .
. . the sentence under this section for such offense shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years); 111
(emphasis added) (Whoever (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person
designated in Section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or (2)
forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in Section 1114 on account of
the performance of official duties during such person's term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section
constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and in all other
cases, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both”).
176 18 U.S.C. 351.
177 E.g., 7 U.S.C.60 (assault designed to influence administration of federal cotton standards program), 87b (assault
designed to influence administration of federal grain standards program), 473c-1 (assaults on cotton samplers to
influence administration of federal cotton standards program), 511i (assaults on designed to influence administration of
federal tobacco inspection program), 2146 (assault of United States animal transportation inspectors); 15
U.S.C.1825(a)(2)(C) (assaults on those enforcing the Horse Protection Act)); 16 U.S.C.773e (assaults on officials
responsible for enforcing the Northern Pacific Halibut Act), 973c (assaults on officials responsible for enforcing the
South Pacific tuna convention provisions), 1417 (assaults on officials conducting searches or inspections with respect
to the global moratorium on tuna harvesting practices), 1436 (assaults on officials conducting searches or inspections
with respect to the marine sanctuaries), 1857, 1859 (assaults on officials conducting searches or inspections with
respect to the federal fisheries management and conservation program), 2403, 2408 (assaults on federal officials
conducting searches or inspections on vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with respect Antarctic
conservation), 2435 (assaults on federal officials conducting searches or inspections on vessels subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States in enforcement of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention), 3637 (assaults
on federal officials conducting searches or inspections on vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with
respect Pacific salmon conservation), 5009 (assaults on federal officials conducting searches or inspections on vessels
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with respect North Pacific anadromous stock conservation), 5505
(assaults on federal officials conducting searches or inspections on vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States with respect high seas fishing compliance), 5606 (assaults on federal officials conducting searches or inspections
on vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with respect Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention
compliance); 18 U.S.C.1501 (assault on a server of federal process), 1502 (assaulting a federal extradition agent); 21
U.S.C.461(c) (assaulting federal poultry inspectors), 21 U.S.C.675 (assaulting federal meat inspectors), 21
U.S.C.1041(c) (assaulting federal egg inspector); 30 U.S.C.1461 (assaults on officials conducting searches or
inspections with respect to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act); 42 U.S.C.2000e-13 (assaulting EEOC
personnel), 2283 (assaulting federal nuclear inspectors).





Section 1512(b) outlaws witness tampering by corrupt persuasion. Several other federal statutes
outlaw bribery in one form or another. The main federal bribery statute is 18 U.S.C. 201 which
prohibits bribing Members of Congress, other federal officials, employees, jurors and witnesses.
Although it makes no mention of bribery, the honest services component of the mail and wire
fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1346, in some circumstances may afford prosecutors of
public corruption greater latitude and more severe penalties than section 201. The Hobbs Act, 18
U.S.C. 1951, condemns public officials who use their position for extortion. A few other statutes,
noted below, outlaw bribery to obstruct specific governmental activities.
Section 201 outlaws offering or soliciting bribes or illegal gratuities in connection with judicial, 178
congressional and administrative proceedings. Bribery is a quid pro quo offense. In simple
terms, bribery under “§201(b)(1) as to the giver, and §201(b)(2) as to the recipient . . . require[] a
showing that something of value was corruptly given, offered, or promised to a public official (as
to the giver) or corruptly demanded, sought, received, accepted, or agreed to be received or
accepted by a public official (as to the recipient) with intent . . . to influence any official act 179
(giver) or in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act (recipient).” In
the case of witnesses, subsection 201(b)(3) as to the giver and subsection 201(b)(4) as to the
recipient require a showing that something of value was corruptly offered or sought with the
intent to influence or be influenced with respect to testimony before, or flight from, a federal 180
judicial, congressional committee, or administrative trial, hearing or proceeding.

178 The difference between bribes and gratuities under section 201 is thatfor bribery there must be a quid pro quoa
specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for testimony or a vote in the jury room. “An illegal
gratuity, on the other hand, may constitute merely a reward for some past or future testimony or jury service, United
States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404-405 (1999). Section 201 outlaws both but punishes bribery more
severely. For addition discussion of Section 1512 see, Twenty-Second Survey of White Collar Crime: Public
Corruption, 44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 855 (2007).
179 Id. at 404. The Court’s opinion refers to public officials rather than jurors. Section 201defines public officials to
include jurors, 18 U.S.C. 201(a)(1). Subsections 201(b)(1),(2) provide thatWhoever – (1) directly or indirectly,
corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a
public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to
give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent – (A) to influence any official act; or (B) to influence
such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude
in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) to induce
such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation
of the lawful duty of such official or person; (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official,
directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value
personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the
commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the
official duty of such official or person . . .shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary
equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may
be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
180 That is, “Whoever . . . (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person,
or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the
testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission,
or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence
(continued...)





The subsections condemn invitations and solicitations to corruption, but the entreaties need not be 181182
successful nor does it matter that corruption was unnecessary. The intent required for bribery,
and the difference between the bribery and illegal gratuity offenses, is the intent to deliberately
offer or accept something of value in exchange for the performance or omission of an official 183
act. Section 201 defines the public officials covered broadly to cover federal and District of 184
Columbia officers and employees as well as those acting on their behalf. This includes anyone 185
who “occupies a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities.” Although there is 186
a statutory definition of “official act,” it has been a matter of some dispute, perhaps because of 187
its sweeping language. The question becomes particularly difficult when the bribery charge
alleges that a bribe was provided in exchange for some unspecified official act or acts or for some 188
general course of conduct. The application difficulties seem to have been exemplified by one

(...continued)
such person to absent himself therefrom; [or] (4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or
agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced
in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for
absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the
thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified
from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States,” 18 U.S.C. 203(b)(3), (4).
181 United States v. Muhammad, 120 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 1997), citing, United States v. Gallo, 863 F.2d 185, 189 (2d
Cir. 1988).
182 United States v. Orenuga, 430 F.3d 1158, 1165-166 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(finding no fault with a jury instruction which
stated, “It is not a defense to the crime of bribery that had there been no bribe, the public official might have lawfully th
and properly performed the same act); United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 675 (4 Cir. 200)(“it does not matter
whether the government official would have to change his or her conduct to satisfy the payors expectations); United
States v. Alfisi, 308 F.3d 144, 150-51(2d Cir. 2002)(rejecting the defendant’s contention that the money given the
public official was to ensure an honest and accurate inspection).
183 United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404-405 (1999); United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666,
674(4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Leyva, 282 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002).
184 18 U.S.C. 201(a)(1)(the termpublic official means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner,
either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the
United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any
official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror).
185 Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482, 496 (1984)(officials of a private organization, contracted by the city, to
administer a federal program under which the city received funds); United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 728-29 (5th th
Cir. 2002)(cook at a federal prison); United States v. Kenney, 185 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11 Cir. 1999)(defense contractor
employee who assisted Air Force to procure material and equipment).
186 18 U.S.C. 201(a)(3)(the termofficial act means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit,
proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public
official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit).
187 The judges of the District of Columbia Circuit recently had great difficulty agreeing on whether a police officer had
been rewarded for anofficial act,” in violation of section 201’s illegal gratuity prohibition, when he checked police
department databases for motor vehicle and outstanding arrest warrant information unrelated in any police
investigation. Six members of the court held that the termofficial act does not include everything a public official is
authorized to do and reversed the officer’s conviction, Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d 1319, 1323-326 (D.C. Cir.
2007). Five members dissented, id. at 1333.
188 United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1013, 1014 (4th Cir. 1998)(“A good will gift to an official to foster a
favorable business climate, given simply with the generalized hope or expectation of ultimate benefit on the part of the
donor does not constitute a bribe. But, “It is not necessary for the government to prove that the payor intended to
induce the official to perform a set number of official acts in return for the payments. . . For example, payments may be
made with the intent to retain the official’s services on an as needed basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents
itself the official will take specific action on the payor’s behalf); United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 282 (3d Cir.
2007)(emphasis of the court) (Moreover, we agree with the government that the District Court’s instruction to the jury
that it could convict upon finding a ‘stream of benefits’ was legally correct. The key to whether a gift constitutes a
(continued...)





appellate panel which held that governmental plea bargain practices fell within the reach of 189
section 201’s prohibitions. No such difficulties seem to attend the provisions of subsection

201(d) which make it clear that prohibitions do not preclude the payment of witness fees, travel 190


costs or other reasonable witness expenses.
The penalty structure for illegal gratuities under section 201 is typical. Illegal gratuities, that is,
offering or soliciting a gift as a reward for an official act, is punishable by imprisonment for not 191
more than 2 years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000. The penalty structure for bribery,
however, is fairly distinctive: imprisonment for not more than 15 years; a fine of the greater of
three times the amount of the bribe or $250,000; and disqualification from holding any federal 192
position of honor or trust thereafter.
Section 201 offenses are RICO and money laundering predicate offenses.193 Federal law
governing principals, accessories after the fact, misprision, conspiracy and extraterritorial 194
jurisdiction apply with equal force to bribery and illegal gratuities under section 201.
The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes have been written and constructed with such sweep that
they cover among other things, obstruction of government activities by corruption. They reach
any scheme to obstruct the lawful functioning in the judicial, legislative or executive branch of

(...continued)
bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be made in exchange for some official action; the government
need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act. See United States v. th
Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4 Cir.1998). Rather,[t]he quid pro quo requirement is satisfied so long as the
evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official
actions favorable to the donor.’ Id. Thus, ‘payments may be made with the intent to retain the official’s services on an
as needed basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor’s st
behalf.’ Id.; see also United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 730 (1 Cir.1996) (stating thata person with continuing
and long-term interests before an official might engage in a pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to
coax ongoing favorable official action in derogation of the public's right to impartial official services’). While the form
and number of gifts may vary, the gifts still constitute a bribe as long as the essential intent-a specific intent to give or
receive something of value in exchange for an official act-exists).
189 United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998), vacd for rehearing en banc, 144 F.3d 1361 (10th Cir.
1998). The decision was overturn en banc and its view uniformly rejected by other federal appellate court United States thth
v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297, 1298 (10 Cir. 1998); United States v. Ihnatenko, 482 F.3d 1097, 1099-110 (9 Cir.
2007)(citing cases in the accord from the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits); United States v. Souffront, 338 F.3d th
809, 827 (7 Cir. 2003).
190 18 U.S.C. 201(d)(Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c)[relating to
bribery and receipt of illegal gratuities involving witnesses] shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of
witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a
witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at
any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the
preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying).
191 18 U.S.C. 201(c).
192 18 U.S.C. 201(b).
193 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 1956(c)(7)(A).
194 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, 371; United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922); Ford v. United States, 273 U,.S. 593, 623
(1927).





government that involves (1) the deprivation of money, property or honest services, and (2) the 195
use of the mail or wire communications as an integral part of scheme.
The elements of the two offenses are similar. Mail fraud is the federal crime of scheming to 196
defraud and of using the mail to further the scheme, 18 U.S.C. 1341. Wire fraud is the federal
crime of scheming to defraud and of using wire communications to further the scheme, 18 U.S.C. 197198

1343. Other than for their jurisdictional elements, the courts read them the same way. Thus,


what constitutes a scheme to defraud is the same in both instances: any act or omission that
“wrong[s] one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes and usually signif[ies] the 199
deprivation of something of value by trick, deceit, chicane or overreaching.” Both crimes 200
require a specific intent to defraud, and they are punishable regardless of whether the scheme 201202
succeeds. The deception that is part of the scheme, however, must be material; that is, it must

195 For addition discussion of Section 1512 see, Twenty-Second Survey of White Collar Crime: Mail and Wire Fraud,
44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 745 (2007).
196 United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 493 (5th Cir.
2007); United States v. Jennings, 487 F.3d 564, 577 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Morales-Rodriguez, 467 U.S. 1, 7 st
(1 Cir. 2006). 18 U.S.C. 1341(Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or
for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell,
dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or
spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such
counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any
post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal
Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or
commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be
delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered
by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than
$1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both”).
197 United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 493 (5th Cir. 2007)(Wire fraud is (1) the formation of a scheme or artifice to
defraud, and (2) use of the wires in furtherance of the scheme); United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1331 (11th thth
Cir. 2007); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 185 (4 Cir. 2007); United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 936-37 (6
Cir. 2006). 18 U.S.C. 1343 (Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for
obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or
causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any
writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall
be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both”).
198 Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 355 n.2 (2005)(we have construed identical language in the wire and
mail fraud statutes in pari materia), citing, Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 20 (1999) and Carpenter v. United
States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 and n.6 (1987); see also, United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 95 (2d Cir. 2006)(In
interpreting §1343, we look not only to cases decided under that section but also to cases involving 18 U.S.C. §1341,
the mail fraud statute, as §1341 uses the same relevant language in prohibiting the furtherance of fraudulent schemes by th
use of the mails”); United States v Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1221 (11 Cir. 2007)(Aside from the means by which a fraud
is effectuated, the elements of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, are identical”); United th
States v. Sloan, 492 F.3d 884, 890 (7 Cir. 2007).
199 McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987); United States v. Ratcliff, 488 F.3d 639, 646 (5th Cir. 2007);
United States v. Sloan, 492 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2007)(“a scheme to defraud exists when the conduct at issue has
demonstrated a departure from the fundamental honesty, moral uprightness and candid dealings in the general life of
the community”).
200 United States v. Sloan, 492 F.3d 884, 891 (7th Cir. 2007)(“To show an intent to defraud, we require a willful act by
the defendant with the specific intent to deceive or cheat, usually for the purpose of getting financial gain for one’s self th
or causing financial loss to another); United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526, 531 (6 Cir. 2007); United States v. thth
Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 493 (5 Cir. 2007); United States v Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1222 (11 Cir. 2007).
201 United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148, 1153 (10th Cir.
(continued...)





have a natural tendency to induce reliance in the victim to his detriment or the offender’s 203
benefit.
Both statutes refer to a “scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by
means of false or fraudulent pretenses. . .” The extent to which that phrase encompasses
intangibles has not always been clear. In spite of a generous interpretation by many of the lower
federal appellate courts that encompassed frustration of governmental functions in many forms,
the Supreme Court in McNally declared that the mail fraud statute did not proscribe schemes to 204
defraud the public of the honest and impartial services of its public employees or officials.
Lest McNally be read to limit the mail and wire fraud statutes exclusively to tangible money or
property, the Court explained in Carpenter, soon thereafter, that the “property” of which the mail
and wire fraud statutes speak includes recognized intangible property rights. There, it upheld
application of the mail fraud statute to a scheme to deny a newspaper its pre-publication property 205
right to its confidential information. The Court later confirmed that the wire fraud statute could
be used against a smuggling scheme that deprived a governmental entity of its intangible right to 206
collect tax revenues.
In the interim, Congress expanded the scope of the mail and wire fraud statutes with the passage
of 18 U.S.C. 1346 which defines the “scheme to defraud” element in the fraud statutes to include
a scheme “to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Section 1346 extends
mail and wire fraud to prohibit the deprivation of their intangible right to honest services of both
public and private officers and employees. In the private realm, it proscribes bribery, kickbacks
and various forms of self-dealing committed to the detriment of those to whom the offender owes 207
a fiduciary duty of some kind. In the public sector, it condemns dishonesty in public officers
and employees, although the exact scope of that proscription remains largely undefined. Some
courts have said that honest services fraud in the public sector “typically occurs in either of two
situations: (1) bribery, where a public official was paid for a particular decision or action; or (2) 208
failure to disclose a conflict of interest resulting in personal gain.” The bribery examples cause

(...continued)
2006); United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006).
202 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 20-6 (1999).
203 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. at 22 n .5 (“The Restatement instructs that a matter is material if ‘(a) a reasonable
man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in
question; or (b) the maker of the representation knows or has reason to know that its recipient regards or is likely to
regard the matter as important in determining his choice of action, although a reasonable man would not so regard it. th
Restatement (Second) of Torts §538 (1977))1, 20-6 (1999); United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526, 531 (6 Cir.
2007)(“Materiality of falsehood is a requisite element of mail fraud. The misrepresentation must have the purpose of
inducing the victim of the fraud to part with the property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do
absent the misrepresentation or omission. A misrepresentation is material if it has a natural tendency to influence or is
capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it was addressed”); United States v. Fallon, th
470 F.3d 542, 546 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Rosby, 454 F.3d 670, 674 (7 Cir. 2006).
204 United States v. McNally, 483 U.S. 350, 361, 355 n.4 (1987).
205 Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 26-7 (1987).
206 Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 357 (2005).
207 United States v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509, 521 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124, 139-44 (2d Cir.
2003).
208 United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 279 (3d Cir. 2007); see also, United States v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1297
(11th Cir. 2007)(Public officials inherently owe a fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decision in the
publics best interest. If an official instead secretly makes his decisions based on his own person interestsas when an
(continued...)





little pause; more perplexing are the issues of how broadly the conflict-of-interest provision may
sweep and what atypical situations the honest services fraud prohibition may also reach.
If bribery cases turn on the search for the quid pro quo, the other honest services fraud cases
begin, and in some cases end, with the quid. Little more seems to be required than a substantial 209
benefit conferred upon a public official and the inferences that flow from that fact. Although
technically the crime is complete when a scheme to defraud is accompanied by a mailing or
interstate wire communication, the courts usually require that some other breach of law or duty
attend the conveyance, if for no other reason than to confirm fraudulent intent. The circuits
apparently do not agree on the nature of the taint that must attend the official receipt of a benefit, 210
particularly whether some breach of ethical or disclosure statutes must also be involved.
While Section 1346 protects governmental entities from the deprivation of the honest services of
its officers and employees, it does not protect government entities from the deprivation of other
nonproperty benefits. For example, it does not protect them from outside fraud that obstructs the

(...continued)
official accepts a bribe or personally benefits from an undisclosed conflict of interest the official has deprived the
public of his honest services)(emphasis added); United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31, 40 (2001)([W]e noted two of
the ways that a public official can steal his honest services from his public employer: (1) the official can be influenced
or otherwise improperly affected in the performance of his official duties; or (2) the official can fail to disclose a
conflict of interest resulting in personal gain”).
209 United States v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007)(emphasis of the court)(A public officials
undisclosed conflict of interest . . . does by itself harm the constituents’ interest in the end for which the official serve[s] st
– honest government in the publics best interest); United States v. Potter, 463 F.3d 9, 17-8 (1 Cir. 2006)(“Even if the
defendants expected the payments to benefit Harwood, [an influential state legislator,] defendants say that there was no
direct evidence that such payments were for a specific legislative act, such as a vote by Harwood; the government
stipulated that Harwood, presumably because of his partner’s normal work for Lincoln Park, had recused himself from
voting on matters that might affect the company. The government, say defendants, never proved that they sought to
have Harwood misuse his official power and thereby deprive the states citizens of his honest services. It is common
knowledge that powerful legislative leaders are not dependent on their own votes to make things happen. The honest
services that a legislator owes to citizens fairly include the informal and behind the scenes influence on legislation.
There was adequate evidence, if any was needed beyond the size of the payment, that Bucci and Potter both believed
Harwood to be powerful. And Sawyer II, 239 F.3d at 40 n.8, forecloses any argument that the government must prove
the specific official act targeted by the defendants”).
210 United States v. Jennings, 487 F.3d 564, 577-78 (8th Cir. 2007)(Jennings urges us to adopt the Third Circuit’s
approach, and to limit the scope of §1346 by requiring a link between the mail fraud prosecution of local officials and
their violation of state disclosure laws. See United States v. Panarella, 277 F.3d 678, 692-93 (3d Cir. 2002)(holding
that ‘state law offers a better limiting principle for purposes of determining when an official’s failure to disclose a
conflict of interest amounts to honest services fraud’); see also United States v. Murphy, 323 F.3d 102, 104 (3d Cir.
2003)(stating that, in addition to a violation of a state disclosure statute, there must also be a fiduciary relationship in
order to prosecute local public officials for honest services mail fraud). In contrast, the government encourages us to
adopt the First Circuit’s test, which the district court seemed to follow in crafting Jennings jury instructions. The First
Circuit has taken a broader approach than the Third Circuit. According to the First Circuit, the duty to disclose a
potential conflict can come not only from specific state disclosure laws, but also from the legislator’s general fiduciary st
duty to the public. United States v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, 62 (1 Cir. 1998). A public official has an affirmative duty th
to disclose material information to the public employer); see also, United States v. Thompson, 486 F.3d 877, (7 Cir.
2007)(“Treating an incorrect application of state procurement law as a misuse of office and a raise as a private gain
would land us back in the soup once again, simple violations of administrative law would become crimes. Nothing in
the language of §1341or §1346 suggests that Congress has created such an equation, which would imply that every
time a court sets aside a decision under the Administrative Procures Act, a crime has occurred if anyone involved in the
administrative decision received a good performance review that led to a step increase under the General Schedule of th
compensation); cf., United States v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509, 521-23 (5 Cir. 2006) (holding that in the private sector, no
honest services fraud occurs when an employees fraudulent conduct serves the goals of his employer who rewards him
for reaching those goals).





lawful administration of their licensing regimes211 or taints their elections212 – as long as the
governmental entities are not defrauded of any money or property.
As for the jurisdictional elements, a defendant causes the use of mail or the interstate wire
communications when the use of the mails or interstate wire communication is a foreseeable 213
consequence of his action. He need not personally use the mail or transmit an interstate wire 214215
communications nor intend that they be used. Nor need the mailing or transmission be an
essential component of the scheme to defraud; it is enough if the mailing or wire communication 216
is incidental to the scheme.
Prosecutors may favor a mail or wire fraud charge over or in addition to bribery charge if for no
other reason than that under both fraud sections offenders face imprisonment for not more than 20 217
years rather than the 15-year maximum found in section 201.
Mail fraud and wire fraud are both RICO and money laundering predicate offenses.218 The legal
precipes relating to principals, accessories after the fact, misprision, and conspiracy apply to mail
fraud and wire fraud as well. However, the courts are unlikely to conclude that either applies to
misconduct occurring entirely overseas, since their jurisdictional elements (United States) mails
and interstate and foreign commerce of the United States) are clearly domestic.

211 Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 18-20 (2000)(footnote 2 of the opinion in brackets)(internal quotations and
citations omitted)(“McNally reversed the mail fraud convictions of two individuals charged with participating in a self-
dealing patronage scheme that defrauded Kentucky citizens of the right to have the Commonwealth’s affairs conducted
honestly. At the time McNally was decided federal prosecutors had been using §1341 to attack various forms of
corruption that deprived victims of intangible rights unrelated to money or property. [E.g., United States v. Clapps, 732
F.2d 1148, 1153 (CA3 1984)(electoral bodys right to fair elections); United States v. Bronston, 658 F.2d 920, 927
(CA2 1981)(client’s right to attorney’s loyalty); United States v. Bohonous, 628 F.2d 1167, 1172 (CA9 1980)(right to
honest services of an agent or employee); United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1150 (CA7 1974)(right to honest
services of public officials).] Reviewing the history of §1341, we concluded that the original impetus behind the mail
fraud statute was to protect the people from schemes to deprive them of their money or property. . . . Soon after
McNally, in Carpenter v. United States, we again stated that §1341 protects property nerights only. . . . The following
year, Congress amended the law specifically to cover one of the ‘intangible rights’ that lower courts had protected
under §1341 prior to McNally: the intangible right to honest services. Significantly, Congress covered only the
intangible right to honest services even though federal courts, relying on McNally , had dismissed, for want of
monetary loss to any victim, prosecutions for diverse forms of public corruption including licensing fraud.”
212 United States v. Turner, 465 F.3d 667, 674 (6th Cir. 2006)(Section 1346 did not revive those cases involving
prosecutions under the mail fraud statute for deprivations of the intangible right of honest elections); United States v. th
Ratcliff, 488 F.3d 639, 644-46 (5 Cir. 2007).
213 United States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1222 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting, Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9
(1954); United States v. Ratliff-White, 493 F.3d 812, 817, 818 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Amico, 486 F.3d 764,
781 (2d Cir. 2007).
214 United States v. Morales-Rodriguez, 467 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Ingles, 445 F.3d 830, 835 (5th Cir.
2006).
215 United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 493 (5th Cir. 2007).
216 Schmuck v. United States 489 U.S. 705, 701-11 (1989); United States v. Morales-Rodriguez, 467 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.
2006); United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 95 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 881, 887 (11th Cir. 2005).
217 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343. Although not ordinarily relevant in an obstruction of governmental functions context, mail
and wire fraud offenders face imprisonment for not more than 30 years and a fine of not more $1 million when a
financial institution is the victim of the fraud, id.
218 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 1956(c)(7)(A).





The Hobbs Act outlaws the obstruction of interstate or foreign commerce by means of robbery or 219
extortion. Extortion under the Act comes in two forms: extortion induced by fear and extortion 220
under color of official right. Extortion under color of official right occurs when a public official
receives a payment to which he is not entitled, knowing it is being provided in exchange for the 221
performance of an official act. Liability may be incurred by public officers and employees,
those in the process of becoming public officers or employees, those who hold themselves out to
be public officers or employees, their coconspirators, or those who aid and abet public officers or 222
employees in extortion under color or official right. The payment need not have been 223224
solicited, nor need the official act for which it is exchanged have been committed. The
prosecution must establish that the extortion obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate or foreign
commerce, but proof of a potential impact even one that is not particularly severe may be 225
sufficient.
Hobbs Act violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years and a fine of not 226227
more than $250,000. Hobbs Act offenses are RICO and money laundering predicates. The
Act has a separate conspiracy component, but recourse to prosecution of conspiracy under 18

219 18 U.S.C. 1951 ((a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any
article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens
physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this
section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section . . .
(2) The termextortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of
actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. (3) The term ‘commerce’ means commerce
within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in
a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points
within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has
jurisdiction. . . .”).
220 United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, 461 F.3d 69, 73 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817, 826 (6th Cir.
2006).
221 Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 268 (1992); United States v. D’Amico, 496 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2007);
United States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817, 826 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 768 (3d Cir. 2005); st
United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470, 481 (1 Cir. 2005).
222 United States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817, 827 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Rubio, 321 F.3d 517, 521 (5th Cir. 2003);
United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Freeman, 6 F.3d 586, 593 (9th Cir. 1993).
223 United States v. Foster, 443 F.3d 978, 984 (8th Cir. 2006)(the color of official right “element does not require an
affirmative act of inducement by the official”); United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, 461 F.3d 69, 73-4 (1st Cir. 2006); United
States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 768 (3d Cir. 2005).
224 Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 268 (1992)(“the offense is completed at the time when the public official
receives a payment in return for his agreement to perform specific official acts; fulfillment of the quid pro quo is not an th
element of the offense”); United States v. Foster, 443 F.3d 978, 984 (8 Cir. 2006); United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d
754, 768 (3d Cir. 2005).
225 United States v. DAmico, 496 F.3d 95, 103 (1st Cir. 2007)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (“to
prove a completed extortion, the government had to satisfy the Hobbs Act’s jurisdiction element of showing that
DAmico’s conduct obstructed, delayed, or affected commerce. To meet this requirement, the government had to prove
only that there was a realistic probability that DAmico’s conduct would affect interstate commerce”); United States v. th
Foster, 443 F.3d 978, 984 (8 Cir. 2005)(“it is enough that the conduct had the potential to impact commerce”); United
States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 766 (3d Cir. 2005)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)(“In any individual
case, proof of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce is all that is required. And . . . such a de minimis effect in an
individual Hobbs Act case need only be potential”).
226 18 U.S.C. 1951(a)
227 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 1956(c)(7)(A).





U.S.C. 371 is an alternative.228 An offender may incur criminal liability under the misprision 229
statute or as a principal or accessory before the fact to a violation of the Hobbs Act by another.
In addition to the obstruction of justice provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512, there are four
other general statutes that outlaw obstructing the government’s business by deception. Three
involve perjury: 18 U.S.C. 1623 that outlaws false swearing before federal courts and grand
juries; 18 U.S.C. 1621 the older and more general prohibition that proscribes false swearing in
federal official matters (Congressional, judicial, or administrative); and 18 U.S.C. 1622 that
condemns subornation, that is, inducing another to commit perjury. Sections 1621 and 1622 apply
in a Congressional context; Section 1623 does not. The fourth, 18 U.S.C. 1001, proscribes
material false statements concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal executive
branch agency, and to a somewhat more limited extent within the jurisdiction of the federal courts
or a Congressional entity.
None of the four are RICO predicate offenses or money laundering predicate offenses.230 The 231
laws relating to aiding and abetting, accessories after the fact, misprision, and conspiracy, 232
however, apply to all four. Sections 1621 and 1623 state that their prohibitions apply regardless 233
of whether the perjurious conduct occurs overseas or within this country. Section 1001 has no 234
such explicit declaration, but has been held to have extraterritorial application nonetheless.
Separated into its elements, Section 1621 provides that:
(1)
I. Whoever having taken an oath
II. before a competent tribunal, officer, or person,
III. in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered,

228 E.g., United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2003); Louisiana v. Guidry, 489 F.3d 692, 695 (5th Cir.
2007)(Guidry successfully negotiated a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of
conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§371 and 1951. . .”).
229 18 U.S.C. 4, 2, 3.
230 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 1956(c)(7).
231 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, 371.
232 E.g., United States v. Atalig, 502 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007)(conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1001); cf., United
States v. Dunne, 324 F.3d 1158, 1162-163 (10th Cir. 2003).
233 18 U.S.C. 1621 (This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the
United States); 18 U.S.C. 1623 (This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United
States”).
234 United States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 854-55 (9th Cir. 1986).





IV. a. that he will
i. testify,
ii. declare,
iii. depose, or
iv. certify truly, or
b. that any written
i. testimony,
ii. declaration,
iii. deposition, or
iv. certificate
by him subscribed, is true,
V. willfully and contrary to such oath
VI. a. states or
b. subscribes
any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)
I. Whoever in any
a. declaration,
b. certificate,
c. verification, or
d. statement
under penalty of perjury as permitted under Section 1746 of title 28, United States Code,235

235Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to
law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration,
verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition,
or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter
may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and
dated, in substantially the following form:
(continued...)





II. willfully subscribes as true
III. any material matter
IV. which he does not believe to be true
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether 236
the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
The courts generally favor an abbreviated encapsulation such as the one found in United States v.
Dunnigan: “A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false
testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather 237
than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.”
Perjury is only that testimony which is false. Thus, testimony that is literally true, even if 238
deceptively so, cannot be considered perjury for purposes of a prosecution under Section 1621.
Moreover, Section 1621 requires compliance with “the two witness rule” to establish that a
statement is false. Under the rule, “the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not sufficient to 239
establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused as set forth in the indictment as perjury.”
Thus, conviction under Section 1621 requires that the government “establish the falsity of the
statement alleged to have been made by the defendant under oath, by the testimony of two 240
independent witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances.” If the rule is to be
satisfied with corroborative evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and support the account 241
of the single witness upon which the perjury prosecution is based.

(...continued)
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)’.
“‘(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify,
or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature),’” 28 U.S.C. 1746.
236 18 U.S.C. 1621.
237 United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993); United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir. 2003);
United States v. Singh, 291 F.3d 756, 763 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Nash, 175 F.3d 429, 438 (6th Cir. 1999); th
see also, United States v. Dumeisi, 424 F.3d 566, 582 (7 Cir. 2005)(the elements of perjury are (1) testimony under
oath before a competent tribunal, (2) in a case in which United States law authorizes the administration of an oath, (3)
false testimony, (4) concerning a material matter, (5) with the willful intent to provide false testimony).
238 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 362 (1972) (“It may well be that petitioner’s answers were not guileless but
were shrewdly calculated to evade. Nevertheless . . . any special problems arising from the literally true but
unresponsive answer are to be remedied through the questioner's acuity and not by a federal perjury prosecution”); see thth
also, United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 841 (9 Cir. 2003); United States v. Roberts, 308 F.3d 1147, 1152 (11 th
Cir. 2002); United States v. DeZarn, 157 F.3d 1042, 1047-48 (6 Cir. 1998).
239 Hammer v. United States, 271 U.S. 620, 626 (1926).
240 Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 607 (1945); United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 315 (2d Cir. 2006);
United States v. Chaplin, 25 F.3d 1373, 1377 (7th Cir. 1994).
241 Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 610 (1945); United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 315 (2d Cir. 2206)(The
rule is satisfied by the direct testimony of a second witness or by other evidence of independent probative value,
circumstantial or direct, which is of a quality to assure that a guilty verdict is solidly founded. The independent
evidence must, by itself, be inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant. However, the corroborative evidence need
(continued...)





The test for materiality under Section 1621 is whether the false statement “has a natural tendency 242
to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision-making body to which it [is] addressed.”
Conviction under Section 1621 requires not only that the defendant knew his statement was false
(“which he does not believe to be true”), but that his false statement is “willfully” presented.
There is but scant authority on precisely what “willful” means in this context. The Supreme Court
in dicta has indicated that willful perjury consists of “deliberate material falsification under 243244
oath.” Other courts have referred to it as acting with an “intent to deceive” or as acting 245
“int entionall y.”
Although a contemporaneous correction of a false statement may demonstrate the absence of the
necessary willful intent to commit perjury, the crime is completed when the false statement is
presented to the tribunal; without a statutory bar or defense such as that found in Section 1623
(which outlaws perjury in a purely judicial context), recantation is no defense nor does it bar 246
prosecution.
Section 1622 outlaws procuring or inducing another to commit perjury: “Whoever procures
another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both,” 18 U.S.C. 1622. The crime consists of
two elements – (1) an act of perjury committed by another (2) induced or procured by the
defendant. Perjury under either Section 1621 or 1623 will support a conviction for subornation 247
under Section 1622, but proof of the commission of an act of perjury is a necessary element of 248
subornation. Although the authorities are exceptionally sparse, it appears that to suborn one
must know that the induced statement is false and that at least to suborn under Section 1621 one 249
must also knowingly and willfully induce. Subornation is only infrequently prosecuted as such
perhaps because of the ease with which it can now be prosecuted as an obstruction of justice

(...continued)
not, it itself, be sufficient, if believed to support a conviction”).
242 United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 839 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Roberts, 308 F.3d 1147, 1155 (11th
Cir. 2002); United States v. Allen, 892 F.2d 66, 67 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Mareno Morales, 815 F.2d 725, st
747 (1 Cir. 1987).
243 United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937)(emphasis added).
244 United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617, 622-23 (3d Cir. 1954).
245 United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 560 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Mounts, 35 F.3d 1208, 1219 (7th Cir.
1994).
246 United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1934); United States v. McAfee, 8 F.3d 1010, 1017 (5th Cir. 1993).
247 United States v. Endo, 635 F.2d 321, 322 (4th Cir. 1980).
248 United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 376 (4th Cir. 1995)(if the underlying perjury conviction is reversed for
insufficient evidence, the subornation conviction must likewise be reversed); see also, United States v. Silverman, 745 th
F.2d 1386, 1394 (11 Cir. 1984).
249 Rosen v. N.L.R.B., 735 F.2d 564, 575 n.19 (4th Cir. 1980)(“it is true that a necessary predicate of the charge of
subornation of perjury is the suborners belief that the testimony sought is in fact false); Petite v. United States, 262 th
F.2d 788, 794 (4 Cir. 1959)([i]t is essential to subornation of perjury that the suborner should have known or
believed or have had good reason to believe that the testimony given would be false, that he should have known or
believed that the witness would testify willfully and corruptly, and with knowledge of the falsity; and that he should
have knowingly and willfully induced or procured the witness to give such false testimony)(Petite only refers to
Section 1621 since it was decided prior to the enactment of Section 1623).





under either 18 U.S.C. 1503 or 1512250 which unlike Section 1622 do not insist upon suborner 251
success as a prerequisite to prosecution.
The general false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001, outlaws false statements, concealment, or
false documentation in any matter within the jurisdiction of any of the three branches of the 252
federal government, although it limits application in the case of Congress and the courts. More
specifically it states:
I. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
II. whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch of the Government of the United States,
III. knowingly and willfully –
IV. a. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
b. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
c. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, imprisoned not more than

8 years if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331)


or if the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A (sexual abuse), 109B (sex offender
registration), 110 (sexual exploitation), or 117 (transportation for illicit sexual purposes), or 253
Section 1591 (sex trafficking).

250 United States v. Miller, 161F.3d 977, 982-84 (6th Cir. 1998).
251 18U.S.C. 1503 (emphasis added) (Whoever . . . endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration
of justice . . .”); 1512 (b) (emphasis added) (Whoever . . . corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so . . .
with intent to influence . . . the testimony of any person in an official proceeding . . .).
252 There are scores of more limited false statement statutes that relate to particular agencies or activities and include 8
U.S.C. 1160(b)(7)(A) (applications for immigration status); 15 U.S.C. 158 (China Trade Act corporate personnel); 15
U.S.C. 645 (Small Business Administration); 15 U.S.C. 714m (Commodity Credit Corporation); 16 U.S.C. 831t (
TVA); 18 U.S.C. 152 ( bankruptcy); 18 U.S.C. 287 (false or fraudulent claims against the United States); 18 U.S.C. 288
(postal losses); 18 U.S.C. 289 (pensions); 18 U.S.C. 541 (entry of goods falsely classified); 18 U.S.C. 542 (entry of
goods by means of false statements); 18 U.S.C. 550 (refund of duties); 18 U.S.C. 1003 (fraudulent claims against the
United States); 18 U.S.C. 1007 (FDIC transactions); 18 U.S.C. 1011 (federal land bank mortgage transactions); 18
U.S.C. 1014 (loan or credit applications in which the United States has an interest); 18 U.S.C. 1015 (naturalization,
citizenship or alien registry); 18 U.S.C. 1019 (false certification by consular officer); 18 U.S.C. 1020 (highway
projects); 18 U.S.C.1 022 (false certification concerning material for the military); 18 U.S.C. 1027 (ERISA); 18 U.S.C.
1542 (passport applications); 18 U.S.C. 1546 (fraud in connection with visas, permits and other documents); 22 U.S.C.
1980 (compensation for loss of commercial fishing vessel or gear); 22 U.S.C. 4221 (American diplomatic personnel);
22 U.S.C. 4222 (presentation of forged documents to United States foreign service personnel); 42 U.S.C. 408 (old age
claims); 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b (Medicare).
253 18 U.S.C. 1001(a). For addition discussion of Section 1512 see, Twenty-Second Survey of White Collar Crime:
False Statements and False Claims, 44 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 491 (2007).





The courts’ description of the elements will ordinarily be limited to whichever of the forms of 254255256
misconduct – false statement, concealment, or false documentation – is implicated in the
particular case. In addition, Section 1001 imposes a limitation upon an offense that involves
matters within the jurisdiction of either the judicial or legislative branch:
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to
a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a)
shall apply only to (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter
related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or
support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the
Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or
review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or
office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. 18 U.S.C.
1001(b),(c).
Those limitations constitute elements of the offense in such cases.257
A matter is within the jurisdiction of a federal entity when it involves a matter “confided to the
authority of a federal agency or department . . . A department or agency has jurisdiction, in this
sense, when it has power to exercise authority in a particular situation. Understood in this way,
the phrase ‘within the jurisdiction’ merely differentiates the official, authorized functions of a 258
agency or department from matters peripheral to the business of that body.” Several courts have
held that the phrase contemplates coverage of false statements made to state, local, or private 259
entities but relating to matters that involve federal funds or regulations. Subsection 1001(b)

254 United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 761 (6th Cir. 2006)(“Section 1001 of Title 18 prohibits any person from
(1) ‘knowingly and wilfully’; (2) ‘making any material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation’; (3)
‘in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative , or judicial branch of the Government of the United thst
States”); United States v. Rice, 449 F.3d 887, 892 (8 Cir. 2006); United States v. Hatch, 434 F.3d 1, 5 (1 Cir. 2006); th
United States v. Camper, 384 F.3d 1073, 1075 (9 Cir. 2004).
255 United States v. Moore, 446 F.3d 671, 677 (7th Cir. 2006)(We have identified the five elements of a false
statement’ charge under §1001(a)(2) . . . (1) the defendant must . . have a duty to disclose the information; (2) . . . there
must be acts amounting to concealment; (3) the . . . concealed facts must be material; (4) the person must . . . conceal
the facts knowingly and willfully; and (5) the . . . concealed information must concern a matter within the jurisdiction
of a federal department or agency).
256 United States v. McGauley, 279 F.3d 62, 69 (1st Cir. 2002)(To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, the
government must prove that the defendant knowingly and willfully made or used a false writing or document, in
relation to a matter with the jurisdiction of the United States government with knowledge of its falsity); United States th
v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110, 1131-132 (11 Cir. 2004).
257 United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Pickett, 353 F.3d 62, 66-69 (D.C.
Cir. 2004).
258 United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475, 479 (1984); United States v. Atalig, 502 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007);
United States v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110, 1136 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 363 (6th Cir.
2001).
259 United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 363 (6th Cir. 2001)(“We have in the past looked to whether the entity to which
the statements were made received federal support and/or was subject to federal regulation); United States v. Davis, 8
F.3d 923, 929 (2d Cir. 1993)(“In situations in which a federal agency is overseeing a state agency, it is the mere
existence of the federal agency’s supervisory authority that is important to determining jurisdiction”), contra, United th
States v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110, 1139, 1141 (11 Cir. 2004)(emphasis in the original) (“The clear, indisputable
holding of Lowe is that a misrepresentation made to a private company concerning a project that is the subject of a
contract between that company and the federal government does not constitute a misrepresentation about a matter
(continued...)





precludes application of prohibitions in Section 1001(a) to the statements, omissions, or
documentation presented to the court by a party in judicial proceedings. This includes statements 260
of indigency filed by a defendant seeking the appoint of counsel, or by a defendant for a 261
probation officer’s presentence report; but not statements made by one on supervised release to 262
a parole officer.
Although the offense can only be committed “knowingly and willfully,” the prosecution need not
prove that the defendant knew that his conduct involved a “matter within the jurisdiction” of a 263264
federal entity nor that he intended to defraud a federal entity. Instead, the phrase “knowingly
and willfully” refers to the circumstances under which the defendant made his statement, omitted
a fact he was obliged to disclose, or included with his false documentation, i.e., “that the
defendant knew that his statement was false when he made it or – which amounts in law to the 265
same thing – consciously disregarded or averted his eyes from the likely falsity.”
Prosecution for a violation of Section 1001 requires proof of materiality, as does conviction for
perjury, and the standard is the same: the statement must have a “natural tendency to influence, or 266
be capable of influencing the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” There is no need 267
to show that the decision maker was in fact diverted or influenced.
Conviction for false statements or false documentation under Section 1001 also requires that the 268
statements or documentation be false, that they not be true. And the same can be said of the
response to a question that is so fundamentally ambiguous that the defendant’s answer cannot be 269
said to be knowingly false. On the other hand, unlike the perjury provision of Section 1623,

(...continued)
within the jurisdiction of the federal government. . . . Because neither Lowe not its central holding has ever been
overruled . . . it remains good law).
260 United States v. McNeil, 362 F.3d 570, 573 (9th Cir. 2004)(but observing that[s]ubmitting a false CJA-23 form
may subject a defendant to criminal liability under other statutes, for example, under 18 U.S.C. 1621, the general
statute on perjury, or 18 U.S.C. 1623, which punishes the making of a false material declaration in any proceeding,
before, or ancillary to, any court”).
261 United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075, 1078-1081 (9th Cir. 2007).
262 United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 605 (6th Cir. 2001).
263 United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 75 (1984); United States v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 2006).
264 United States v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 2006).
265 Id.; United States v. Duclos, 214 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2000); United States v. Hsia, 176 F.3d 716, 721-22 (D.C. Cir.
1999); United States v. Hoover, 175 F.3d 564, 571 (7th Cir. 1999).
266 United States v. Johnson, 485 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. McBane, 433 F.3d 344, 350 (3d Cir.
2005); United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 318 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Mitchell, 388 F.3d 1139, 1143 (8th th
Cir. 2004); United States v. Finn, 375 F.3d 1033, 1038 (10 Cir. 2004).
267 United States v. McBane, 433 F.3d 344, 350 (3d Cir. 2005), quoting, United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 512
(1995); United States v. Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Mitchell, 388 F.3d 1139, 1143 thth
(8 Cir. 2004); United States v. Hasner, 340 F.3d 1261, 1273-274 (11 Cir. 2003).
268 United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589, 592 (4th Cir. 2003)(“The principle articulated in Bronston holds true for
convictions under Section 1001. . . We cannot uphold a conviction . . . where the alleged statement forming the basis of th
a violation of Section 1001 is true on its face”); United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 637 (5 Cir. 2002); United th
States v. Kosth, 257 F.3d 712, 719 (7 Cir. 2001).
269 United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589, 592 (4th Cir.
2003); cf., United States v. Martin, 369 F.3d 1046, 1060 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hatch, 434 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.
2006).





“there is no safe harbor for recantation or correction of a prior false statement that violates 270
Section 1001.”
Prosecutions under subsection 1001(a)(1) for concealment, rather than false statement or false 271
documentation, must also prove the existence of duty or legal obligation not to conceal.
Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
cdoyle@crs.loc.gov, 7-6968


270 United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 318 (2d Cir. 2006), citing, United States v. Sebaggala, 256 F.3d 59, 64 (1st
Cir. 2001); United States v. Meuli, 8 F.3d 1481, 1486-487 (10th Cir. 1993); and United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, th
1275 (11 Cir. 1983).
271 United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 318-19 (2d Cir. 2006)(Defendant’s legal duty [as a broker] to be truthful
under Section 1001 included a duty fo disclose the information regarding the circumstances of Stewart’s December 27th
trade . . . .Trial testimony indicated that the SEC had specifically inquired about [his] knowledge of Stewart’s trades.
As a result, it was plausible for the jury to conclude that the SECs questioning and triggered [his] duty to disclose and
that ample evidence existed that his concealment was material to the investigation ”); United States v. Moore, 446 F.3d thth
671, 678-79 (7 Cir. 2006)(regulatory obligation); United States v. Gibson, 409 F.3d 325, 333 (6 Cir.
2005)(“Conviction on a 18 U.S.C. 1001 concealment charge requires a showing that the ‘defendant had a legal duty to
disclose the facts at the time he was alleged to have concealed them’”), quoting, United States v. Curran, 20 F.3d 560,
566 (3d Cir. 1994).