Obstruction of justice: Meaning, Criticisms & Real-World Uses

What Is Obstruction of Justice?

Obstruction of justice refers to any act that corruptly hinders or impedes the orderly administration of law and justice, often related to an ongoing investigation or legal proceeding. This concept is a critical component of legal and regulatory compliance within the financial sector and beyond, as it aims to preserve the integrity of judicial and governmental processes. Actions that constitute obstruction of justice can range from destroying documents and tampering with witnesses to providing false statements to investigators or attempting to influence judicial outcomes. Entities and individuals face significant legal liability when found guilty of obstruction of justice, underscoring its serious implications for corporate accountability and public trust.

History and Origin

The roots of obstruction of justice can be traced back to common law principles designed to protect the integrity of legal proceedings. However, its modern application, particularly in the context of financial crimes and corporate malfeasance, saw significant expansion following major financial scandals. A pivotal moment in this evolution was the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) in the United States. This federal law was largely a response to high-profile corporate accounting scandals, most notably the Enron scandal, which exposed widespread corporate fraud and the destruction of crucial financial documents.⁸

During the unraveling of Enron, its auditor, Arthur Andersen, instructed employees to destroy documents related to the Enron audit, even as an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was imminent.⁷ This led to Arthur Andersen's indictment for obstruction of justice in March 2002, a charge that ultimately led to the firm's demise, despite the conviction later being overturned on appeal due to faulty jury instructions.⁶ The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, partly fueled by the events of the Enron case, introduced new provisions specifically addressing the destruction of evidence and obstruction of official proceedings. For example, Section 802(a) of SOX (18 U.S.C. § 1519) established criminal penalties for knowingly altering, destroying, or falsifying records with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation or a matter in bankruptcy.
⁵

Key Takeaways

Obstruction of justice involves actions that interfere with legal or governmental investigations and proceedings.
Such actions can include document destruction, witness tampering, or providing false information.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act significantly strengthened laws against obstruction, particularly in corporate and financial contexts.
Convictions for obstruction carry severe penalties, including substantial fines and imprisonment.
Corporate entities are held responsible for employee actions that constitute obstruction of justice.

Interpreting the Obstruction of Justice

Interpreting obstruction of justice in a financial context often hinges on the "corrupt intent" of the individual or entity involved. This intent signifies a deliberate desire to impede, influence, or disrupt an official proceeding. It's not merely about an action causing an impediment, but about the actor's conscious purpose behind that action. For example, a company's routine document retention policy is not obstructive, but if documents are destroyed outside of that policy or specifically because an investigation is anticipated, it could be deemed an act of obstruction.

The interpretation also considers the nature of the "official proceeding," which can include judicial proceedings, congressional inquiries, or investigations by regulatory bodies like the SEC or the Department of Justice (DOJ). Proper due diligence and adherence to strong internal controls are essential for organizations to demonstrate a commitment to lawful conduct and avoid any appearance of obstructive behavior.

Hypothetical Example

Consider "Alpha Corp," a publicly traded company facing a preliminary inquiry from the SEC regarding its financial reporting practices. An internal email from a senior executive, unaware of proper compliance programs, instructs a subordinate to "clean up" certain accounting spreadsheets by removing entries that "look bad" or could be "misinterpreted." The subordinate, following the instruction, deletes several rows of data from the spreadsheets that highlight aggressive revenue recognition.

This action, even if the executive didn't explicitly say "destroy evidence to obstruct the SEC," could be interpreted as obstruction of justice. The "corrupt intent" is inferred from the instruction to remove "bad" entries with the knowledge that an official inquiry is underway. The act of altering records to impair their integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, particularly concerning financial documents, falls squarely within the definition of obstruction.

Practical Applications

Obstruction of justice is a critical concern across various facets of finance and business, particularly in the realm of white-collar crime. It frequently appears in cases involving securities fraud, insider trading, embezzlement, and other illicit financial activities. For instance, a company officer involved in a securities fraud scheme might destroy documents related to a suspicious offering to evade detection. ⁴Similarly, an individual engaged in money laundering might lie to investigators or intimidate witnesses to conceal their illicit gains. The Department of Justice's Fraud Section is specifically tasked with investigating and prosecuting complex economic crimes, including those involving obstruction.
³
Effective risk management strategies for financial institutions and corporations must include robust measures to prevent obstruction of justice. This involves fostering a culture of ethical conduct, implementing stringent data retention policies, and providing comprehensive whistleblower protection mechanisms to encourage reporting of potential misconduct without fear of retaliation.

Limitations and Criticisms

While obstruction of justice statutes are vital for upholding the rule of law, their broad scope can sometimes lead to challenges in interpretation and application. One area of ongoing discussion concerns the precise definition of "corruptly" and the extent of "official proceeding" that qualifies for obstruction charges. The Supreme Court has, at times, narrowed the interpretation of certain Sarbanes-Oxley provisions related to obstruction, emphasizing that the conduct must specifically relate to impairing the availability or integrity of evidence. For example, in Fischer v. United States, the Court limited the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, holding that it applies to acts that impair the availability or integrity of evidence in an official proceeding.
²
Critics suggest that overly broad interpretations could potentially criminalize conduct that is not inherently malicious or intended to undermine justice, or that it could be applied in situations beyond its original legislative intent. Navigating these complexities requires careful consideration of the specific circumstances, intent, and the nature of the interference. Robust corporate governance frameworks are crucial for companies to ensure compliance while also protecting their legitimate interests.

Obstruction of Justice vs. Perverting the Course of Justice

While both "obstruction of justice" and "perverting the course of justice" describe actions that interfere with legal processes, their usage and precise definitions often differ based on jurisdiction. "Obstruction of justice" is the predominant term used in the United States federal legal system, encompassing a wide range of offenses aimed at impeding investigations, prosecutions, or judicial proceedings. This includes acts such as witness tampering, destruction of evidence, lying to investigators, and jury tampering.

In contrast, "perverting the course of justice" is a more common term in common law jurisdictions outside the United States, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. While conceptually similar, it often carries a broader connotation, referring to any act that aims to distort or pervert the outcome of a legal process, whether civil or criminal. Both terms underscore the fundamental importance of maintaining the integrity and fairness of the legal system.

FAQs

What are common examples of obstruction of justice in a financial context?

Common examples include destroying or altering financial records during an audit or investigation, coercing or threatening employees to prevent them from cooperating with authorities, providing false statements or misleading information to regulators, or attempting to conceal assets relevant to a legal proceeding. These acts aim to hide illicit financial activities or prevent their discovery.

What are the penalties for obstruction of justice?

Penalties for obstruction of justice can be severe, including substantial fines and lengthy prison sentences for individuals. For organizations, convictions can lead to significant monetary penalties, loss of business, and lasting reputational damage. The specific penalties depend on the nature and severity of the obstructive act and the statutes violated.
¹

Can a corporation be charged with obstruction of justice?

Yes, corporations can be held liable for obstruction of justice, often through the actions of their employees or agents. This is a key aspect of corporate accountability in financial crimes. Companies are expected to have robust compliance programs and internal controls to prevent such acts.

Is giving false testimony considered obstruction of justice?

Yes, intentionally giving false testimony under oath, known as perjury, is a form of obstruction of justice. Similarly, making false statements to federal agents or investigators can also be prosecuted as an obstructive act, even if not under oath.

How does obstruction of justice differ from other financial crimes?

Obstruction of justice is a "process crime," meaning it focuses on interfering with the process of an investigation or legal proceeding, rather than the underlying financial crime itself (e.g., securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement). While often committed in conjunction with other financial crimes to conceal them, obstruction is a separate and distinct offense aimed at undermining the judicial system.