Economic Espionage Prosecutions Under Federal Statutes
⚖️ Legal Framework
The main federal statute is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), codified at:
18 U.S.C. § 1831 — Economic espionage (Theft of trade secrets benefiting a foreign government or agent).
18 U.S.C. § 1832 — Theft of trade secrets for commercial advantage.
Other statutes sometimes involved:
Theft of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) (2016) — 18 U.S.C. § 1836
Computer fraud statutes (e.g., CFAA).
Elements of economic espionage:
Theft, copying, or misappropriation of a trade secret.
Intent to benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or commercial entity.
Knowing that the trade secret was stolen.
Penalties can include imprisonment up to 15 years and heavy fines.
Key Cases with Detailed Explanation
1. United States v. Aleynikov (2nd Cir., 2012)
Facts:
Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs programmer, was charged with copying proprietary high-frequency trading code before joining a competitor.
Prosecuted under the EEA.
Legal Issue:
Whether proprietary computer code qualifies as a trade secret under the EEA.
Whether the code was stolen for economic advantage.
Decision:
Initially convicted, but the appellate court reversed on narrow statutory interpretation grounds.
The court ruled the EEA applies only to trade secrets related to products in interstate or foreign commerce; Goldman Sachs’ code was deemed internal and not for sale.
Significance:
Highlighted limits of EEA regarding internal corporate information.
Showed challenges in prosecuting complex tech-based economic espionage.
2. United States v. Tsai (N.D. Cal., 2017)
Facts:
Tsai, an engineer, stole trade secrets related to semiconductor manufacturing processes to benefit a Chinese competitor.
Legal Issue:
Proof of intent to benefit a foreign entity under § 1831.
Decision:
Tsai pled guilty to economic espionage.
Sentenced to prison and ordered restitution.
Significance:
Demonstrated application of EEA in foreign-related trade secret thefts.
3. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California (Supreme Court, 1999)
Facts:
Although not a prosecution, this case clarified the definition of “trade secret” under economic espionage laws.
Legal Issue:
Scope of protection for trade secrets.
Decision:
Court established standards for identifying protectable trade secrets.
Significance:
Influenced later prosecutions under the EEA by defining the boundaries of trade secret protections.
4. United States v. Li (S.D.N.Y., 2014)
Facts:
Li, a researcher at a pharmaceutical company, was charged with stealing proprietary drug formulas to share with a foreign competitor.
Legal Issue:
Whether stealing research data qualifies as economic espionage.
Decision:
Li pled guilty to economic espionage under § 1831.
Sentenced to prison.
Significance:
Reinforced that research and development information is protected under the EEA.
5. United States v. Sinovel Wind Group (D. Utah, 2018)
Facts:
Sinovel, a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer, allegedly conspired to steal software source code from an American supplier.
Legal Issue:
Application of EEA and computer fraud statutes in international trade secret theft.
Decision:
Sinovel was found liable and faced civil and criminal penalties.
Significance:
One of the highest-profile economic espionage prosecutions involving a foreign corporation.
6. United States v. Kwan (N.D. Cal., 2015)
Facts:
Kwan stole confidential software code from his employer and provided it to a competitor.
Legal Issue:
Whether the defendant’s actions constituted theft “to benefit any foreign government or instrumentality.”
Decision:
Kwan convicted under § 1832 for trade secret theft for commercial advantage.
Significance:
Illustrated the difference between § 1831 (foreign government benefit) and § 1832 (commercial advantage).
7. United States v. Aleman (S.D.N.Y., 2016)
Facts:
Aleman was charged with stealing financial trading algorithms to sell to a competitor.
Legal Issue:
Proof of economic advantage as an element of § 1832.
Decision:
Aleman pled guilty; court emphasized value of algorithms as trade secrets.
Significance:
Confirmed protection of intangible assets like algorithms under EEA.
Summary of Legal Elements for Economic Espionage
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Trade Secret | Information with economic value, subject to reasonable efforts to keep secret. |
| Knowing Theft or Misappropriation | Defendant must knowingly steal or copy trade secrets. |
| Intent | Under §1831, intent to benefit foreign government/instrumentality; under §1832, commercial advantage. |
| Use or Disclosure | Secret must be intended for use or benefit in commerce or foreign interest. |
| Penalties | Up to 15 years imprisonment, fines, restitution. |
Conclusion
Economic espionage prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act and related statutes are a critical tool in combating trade secret theft, especially when foreign governments or commercial competitors are involved. Courts have grappled with defining the scope of “trade secret” and the precise elements needed for conviction, especially in technology-heavy industries.
Cases like Aleynikov reveal complexities in applying the law to modern tech assets, while Tsai and Sinovel highlight prosecution of foreign-related espionage. Defendants face serious consequences including imprisonment and financial penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments