WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether a Florida fisherman should have been prosecuted under a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley white-collar crime law for disposing of fish while under investigation.
Federal prosecutors in Florida accused John Yates of destroying evidence that showed he had harvested red grouper fish that were smaller than the minimum 20 inches (51 cm) in length that is required under federal regulations.
A jury convicted him on two of three counts, including one of disposing of the fish under the “anti-shredding” provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley law. The provision penalizes the destruction or concealment of “a tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence” a government investigation.
Yates’s lawyers say the law was intended to apply only to record-keeping in the corporate context and that their client did not receive fair notice that his actions would be covered by it.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said in a friend-of-the-court brief that the use of the law in this case was an example of an increasing “over-criminalization epidemic” in which federal criminal prosecutions punish conduct that could be handled with civil penalties or under state law.
In August 2007, federal and state officials measured fish on Yates’ boat that they suspected were undersized. At that time, 72 were found to be under 20 inches, with some as short as 18 to 19 inches. After the boat returned to port, agents re-measured the fish. Only 69 were undersized, and they were all closer to the 20-inch mark.
A crew member later testified at trial that Yates had told crew members to throw the undersized fish overboard and replace them with others. He received a 30-day prison sentence.
In an August 2013 ruling, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding in part that a fish fit within the definition of “tangible object.”
Oral arguments and a decision are expected in the court’s next term, which begins in October and ends in June 2015.
The case is United States v. Yates, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-7451. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Lisa Von Ahn)