Summary
The Supreme Court held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred, rather than in a different district where the related federal investigation was located. The Court concluded that falsification is the only conduct proscribed by § 1519 and that the defendant’s intent to obstruct does not expand the permissible venue. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred.
- Whether the district where the related federal investigation was located may also constitute a proper venue under § 1519 because of the statute's intent-to-obstruct requirement.
- Whether § 1519 is an independent substantive offense or an inchoate obstruction offense permitting venue based on conduct related to another obstruction crime.
Holdings
- A defendant charged with violating § 1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred; venue is not proper in a different district merely because the related federal investigation was located there.
- Section 1519's knowledge and intent-to-obstruct requirements do not make the location of the investigation or any contemplated obstructive effects part of the offense's conduct-based venue analysis.
- Section 1519 is an independent substantive offense, not an inchoate offense tethered to an actual obstruction crime; venue therefore cannot be based on conduct proscribed by another obstruction statute.
Key quotations
“The venue for trying a §1519 offense is, and is only, where the defendant falsified a document, because that is the only conduct proscribed by the statute.” (at 3)
“Rather than define an inchoate offense tethered to a crime of actual obstruction, §1519 thus spells out a standalone crime for falsifying (and otherwise tampering with) documents.” (at 9)
“The trial for falsifying a document must take place where the defendant falsified the document.” (at 9)
Factual background
While employed at Twitter in San Francisco, Ahmad Abouammo provided confidential information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official in exchange for $300,000. After moving to Seattle, Abouammo was interviewed at his home by San Francisco-based FBI agents investigating unauthorized disclosures of Twitter account information. When asked for documentation supporting his explanation of the payments, he created a fake invoice in Seattle and emailed it to an agent; the agents later discovered the falsification in San Francisco.
Procedural history
Abouammo was indicted and tried in the Northern District of California for creating and emailing a fabricated invoice with intent to obstruct a federal investigation. The District Court denied his venue motion and post-trial venue challenge, and a jury convicted him. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that venue was proper where the investigation was located; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the holding that venue for the § 1519 prosecution lies in the district encompassing Seattle, the Western District of Washington, rather than the Northern District of California.