When the FBI Comes Calling…®

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Obstruction of justice is a category of crimes which prosecutors often use if they cannot necessarily prove another crime. For example, Martha Stewart was originally investigated for insider trading violations, but ultimately was convicted for obstruction of justice. See Joshua Chaffin, Martha Stewart convicted over share sale, FIN. TIMES MAR. 6, 2004 AT 1. There are a large number of statutes that deal with obstruction of justice in some manner, but for the purposes of this site, only a few will be considered.

18 U.S.C. § 1505 (2007).

The Crime
Under section 1505, it is a crime for a person

  • who has the intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance with a civil investigation that was properly made under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311 et seq., to
    • willfully withhold, misrepresent, remove from any place, conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, alter, or by other means falsify any
      • documentary material,
      • answer to written interrogatories, or
      • oral testimony,
    • which is the subject of such demand;

It is also a violation for a person to attempt to do any of the previous, or solicit another to do so.

It is also a violation of section 1505 for a person to

  • corruptly, or by threat or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences,
    • obstruct, or
    • impede or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede
  • the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or
  • the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

The Punishment
A violation of section 1505 can be punished by

  • a fine, imprisonment for not more than 5 years or, both.

If the offense involves international or domestic terrorism the punishment can be

  • a fine, imprisonment for not more than 8 years, or both.

Case Law Interpreting Section 1505
A violation of the obstruction of justice statutes, including section 1505, can occur even if the "corrupt" behavior is not per se illegal in and of itself. See United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 1973). For a defendant to be found guilty of a violation of section 1505 for acting corruptly, it is necessary that the defendant's acts were performed with the intent to obstruct the administration of law. See United States v. Abrams, 427 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1970). The specific intent required for a conviction for obstruction of justice under section 1505 is that he acts "corruptly"; in other words, the act must be committed with the purpose of obstructing justice. United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529 536-37 (9th Cir. 1988). Concealing documents falls within this definition, as does submitting false documents in response to an IRS subpoena. Id. See also United States v. Tallant, 407 F. Supp. 878, 888 (N.D. Ga. 1975) (presentation of falsified records to the Securities and Exchange Commission constituted violation of section 1505 regardless or whether the falsification occurred prior to the commencement of the proceeding). In some instances, evasive answers falls within the category of corrupt of false means. See United States v. Alo, 439 F.2d 751 754 (2d Cir. 1971).

Obstruction of Justice Continued-->