I agree with the reversal decision made by the Supreme Court. Although Yates altered his catch after his boat was encountered by a Florida fish and wildlife officer, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act which Yates was charged under was established to prohibit corporate and management from knowingly altering or destroying "any record, document, or tangible object" with the intent to obstruct an investigation. While we are all aware that Yates engaged in wrongful doing by tossing the undersized fish out, where do fish come into play when considering the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Yates argued the phrase "tangible object" in the context of the law was limited to what he believed to be computers, servers, and other storage devices, and I could not agree more with
