Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
Obstruction of Justice: Unwarranted Expansion of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1)
ExpressO (2011)
  • Sarah O. Schrup
This Article suggests that prosecutors are misusing and courts are misinterpreting the Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction-of-justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). As a result the statute is being applied far beyond the corporate-fraud or even general-fraud context to conduct that Congress never intended when enacting the statute. Such an expansive interpretation lays bare the ambiguity inherent in the statutory language. A proper statutory construction that explores the statute itself, related provisions, the canons of construction, the legislative history, and the investigatory process at the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Congress could not have intended the limitless sweep of the statute that some courts and prosecutors have fashioned. In fact, an expansive definition of the terms within § 1512(c)(1) carries with it a host of unintended and unwanted results. Specifically, such an interpretation is at odds with congressional intent, creates absurdities and unfair sentencing disparities, renders the statute void for vagueness and encourages judicial and executive legislating. Courts should recognize and limit efforts to expand §1512(c)(1)’s reach.
  • 1512(c),
  • obstruction of justice,
  • Sarbanes-Oxley
Publication Date
August 17, 2011
Citation Information
Sarah O. Schrup. "Obstruction of Justice: Unwarranted Expansion of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1)" ExpressO (2011)
Available at: