Are Fish Tangible Objects Under Sarbanes-Oxley?

Are Fish Tangible Objects Under Sarbanes-Oxley?

Yates v. United States, 733 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2013).

The U.S. Supreme Court granted writs in this case and scheduled it for oral argument in October. It deals with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and  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.How does this apply to maritime law?  In this case, fish were deemed by the government to be a “tangible object" under Sarbanes-Oxley and thus led to the arrest, indictment and conviction of a commercial fisherman. The trial court and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.The defendant who tossed his undersized catch back into the sea to avoid penalties was indicted and convicted of violating the act.  The issue on which the Supreme Court granted writs is:

Whether Mr. Yates was deprived of fair notice that destruction of fish would fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which makes it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation, where the term “tangible object” is ambiguous and undefined in the statute, and unlike the nouns accompanying “tangible object” in section 1519, possesses no record-keeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose.

Government agents boarded the vessel and found undersized grouper.  He was told to hand over the catch when he came to port. But, according to crew members he told them to dispose of the catch.  The 11th Circuit held that the fish were "tangible objects" within the meaning of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.It would appear this decision could have broad implications for corporate clients and raise issues of compliance with federal law and record retention policies unless the court limits its decision to a fishy context.