Opinion ID: 3010675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Criminal activities

Text: The EEA criminalizes two principal categories of corporate espionage, including Economic espionage as defined by 18 U.S.C. S 1831, and the Theft of trade secrets as defined by S 1832.8 The former provision punishes those who knowingly misappropriate, or attempt or conspire to misappropriate, trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that their offense will benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. The legislative history indicates that S 1831 is designed to apply only when there is evidence of foreign government sponsored or coordinated intelligence activity. 142 Cong. Rec. S12,212 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1996) (Managers' Statement for H.R. 3723). By contrast, S 1832, the section under which the defendants are charged, is a general criminal trade secrets provision. It applies to anyone who knowingly engages in the theft of trade secrets, or an attempt or conspiracy to do so, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, _________________________________________________________________ 8. The EEA also permits parallel civil actions to obtain appropriate injunctive relief against any violation of the statute. 18 U.S.C. S 1836(a). 10 and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret. Section 1832(a) makes clear that attempt and conspiracy are distinct offenses, and it lists them separately from those acts that constitute completed crimes under the statute. Section 1832 also contains at least three additional limitations not found in S 1831. First, a defendant charged under S 1832 must intend to convert a trade secret to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, including the defendant himself. This economic benefit requirement differs from S 1831, which states merely that the offense benefit, in any manner, a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent. Therefore, prosecutions under S 1832 uniquely require that the defendant intend to confer an economic benefit on the defendant or another person or entity. Second, S 1832 states that the defendant must intend or know that the offense will injure an owner of the trade secret, a restriction not found in S 1831. The legislative history indicates that this requires that the actor knew or was aware to a practical certainty that his conduct would cause such a result. S. Rep. No. 104-359, at 15. Finally, unlike S 1831, S 1832 also requires that the trade secret be related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce.9