To: Professor Holborn
From: Julion Price
Re: Does the destruction of grouper that is more than 20 inches violate the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
Date: December 3, 2014
FACTS In 2007, defendant John L. Yates set out with his crew to go fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. A few days later, Officer Jones boarded their ship and examined the fish they were catching. He noticed that 72 of the fish were smaller than 20 inches. Federal fishing laws require that these fish be bigger than 20 inches before being captured. Officer Jones separated the illegal fish from the rest and gave Yates a citation. He warned Yates that his fish would be seized upon returning to port. After the officer left, Yates ordered his crew to dump the illegal fish and replace them with …show more content…
Do the fish that Yates destroyed fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?
2. Was Yates given fair notice that getting rid of the fish would be in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
ANSWERS
1. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act includes pieces of evidence that are considered “tangible objects.” Tangible objects are any physical property that can be touched. Fish are tangible, therefore they do fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
2. Officer Jones had already given Yates a citation for his crime and told him that his fish would be seized at the port. Tossing the fish overboard was the equivalent of destroying evidence. Yates was given fair warning of his violation.
REASONING
Federal Fisheries laws make it illegal to catch any red grouper that is smaller than twenty inches. When Officer Jones boarded Yates’ ship, he counted all the fish that did not meet the required size of twenty inches. Jones issued a citation and instructed Yates to return to port where the National Marine Fisheries Service would seize the fish from him. Yates blatantly ignored Jones’ instructions and dumped the fish into the sea. Jones had issued Yates a citation, so his crime of catching the undersized fish was already recorded. The fish were separated by the officer in order to be used as evidence of the illegal act. Section 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act says that there are penalties for those who destroy evidence, including “tangible objects,” and impedes any legal investigation. Tangible objects are any physical …show more content…
Officer Jones separated the illegal fish when he boarded Yates’ ship. He also gave him a citation and instructed him to return to port. The citation was a written record that Yates had committed a crime. The citation and Officer Jones’ instructions should have made it clear to Yates that he committed a crime. This also should have made it clear that the fish he caught were considered evidence of his crime. Officer Jones’ actions were clear enough for a reasonable person to understand that the fish were evidence of a crime. The defense may claim that it was unclear since Officer Jones did not refer to the fish as evidence, but the multiple warnings that Yates was given should have made it clear. In the end, I do believe that Yates violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by disposing of the fish on his
From: Julion Price
Re: Does the destruction of grouper that is more than 20 inches violate the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
Date: December 3, 2014
FACTS In 2007, defendant John L. Yates set out with his crew to go fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. A few days later, Officer Jones boarded their ship and examined the fish they were catching. He noticed that 72 of the fish were smaller than 20 inches. Federal fishing laws require that these fish be bigger than 20 inches before being captured. Officer Jones separated the illegal fish from the rest and gave Yates a citation. He warned Yates that his fish would be seized upon returning to port. After the officer left, Yates ordered his crew to dump the illegal fish and replace them with …show more content…
Do the fish that Yates destroyed fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?
2. Was Yates given fair notice that getting rid of the fish would be in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
ANSWERS
1. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act includes pieces of evidence that are considered “tangible objects.” Tangible objects are any physical property that can be touched. Fish are tangible, therefore they do fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
2. Officer Jones had already given Yates a citation for his crime and told him that his fish would be seized at the port. Tossing the fish overboard was the equivalent of destroying evidence. Yates was given fair warning of his violation.
REASONING
Federal Fisheries laws make it illegal to catch any red grouper that is smaller than twenty inches. When Officer Jones boarded Yates’ ship, he counted all the fish that did not meet the required size of twenty inches. Jones issued a citation and instructed Yates to return to port where the National Marine Fisheries Service would seize the fish from him. Yates blatantly ignored Jones’ instructions and dumped the fish into the sea. Jones had issued Yates a citation, so his crime of catching the undersized fish was already recorded. The fish were separated by the officer in order to be used as evidence of the illegal act. Section 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act says that there are penalties for those who destroy evidence, including “tangible objects,” and impedes any legal investigation. Tangible objects are any physical …show more content…
Officer Jones separated the illegal fish when he boarded Yates’ ship. He also gave him a citation and instructed him to return to port. The citation was a written record that Yates had committed a crime. The citation and Officer Jones’ instructions should have made it clear to Yates that he committed a crime. This also should have made it clear that the fish he caught were considered evidence of his crime. Officer Jones’ actions were clear enough for a reasonable person to understand that the fish were evidence of a crime. The defense may claim that it was unclear since Officer Jones did not refer to the fish as evidence, but the multiple warnings that Yates was given should have made it clear. In the end, I do believe that Yates violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by disposing of the fish on his