Skip to main content

Maritime Law--Can Fisherman's Case Recast Sarbanes-Oxley?


Can a law written to punish the "Enrons" of the world for shredding or doing away with records also be used to convict a Florida fisherman who tossed his undersized catch into the sea in an effort to avoid penalties?
 
 

That is the question before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case it has accepted to hear in its next term. The case involves the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which makes it a crime to destroy “any record, document or tangible object” with the intent to obstruct an investigation. In this case, fish were deemed by the government to be a “tangible object.”
 
The case arose when government agents boarded John Yates’ boat, F/V MISS KATIE, and found 72 undersized red grouper fish, some several inches shorter than the 20-inch keeper limit. Yates, a commercial fisherman, was ordered to turn over the undersized catch when he came to port. However, a crew member testified at trial that Yates told the crew to throw the undersized fish overboard and replace them with others. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Yates’ conviction, finding in part that a fish fits within the definition of a “tangible object” as defined under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
 
In the SCOTUS briefing, the three key arguments against the government include the following:
1. The statute criminalizes ambiguous conduct without providing a workable definition of the phrase “tangible object.”
2. The statute extends criminal law into economic activity that would be better handled by civil enforcement.
3. Congress drafted the statute to apply to financial and white-collar crimes, not fishing.
 
The Yates case has the potential to affect Sarbanes-Oxley more broadly than mere fishing, depending on the court’s ruling. If the Court simply refuses to apply the statute to circumstances like those of the fisherman at issue here, that ruling would have little impact on Sarbanes-Oxley at large. However, if the Court strikes down the provision as void for vagueness or on similar broad grounds, companies regulated by Sarbanes-Oxley will be able to breathe a sigh of relief that this provision will not be available for prosecutors to wield in circumstances Congress never had in mind.
 
Thus, this case is important to all companies and their general counsel because if the Court were to uphold a broad requirement not to destroy a ‘tangible object’ unrelated to records or documents, it would raise all forms of compliance difficulties for companies.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of the Eleventh Circuit opinion, please feel free to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more