![]() ![]() That case also made the requirements for prosecution under the Act more difficult. In 2009, Dongfan “Greg” Chung became the first person ever convicted by a jury for violations under § 1831 of the Act. To convict an individual under § 1831 of the Act, prosecutors must prove “(1) intended to benefit a foreign government (2) knowingly possessed trade secret information (3) knew that the information was obtained without authorization (4) the information possessed was, in fact, a trade secret and (5) knew the information was a trade secret.” United States v. § 1832 will be published at a later date. A separate article discussing trade secret theft as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. Section 1832 of the Act also punishes the theft of trade secrets that benefits “anyone other than the owner thereof.” Thus, the Act reaches all trade secret theft whether or not the motives are retributory, monetary, or clandestine. Ctr., Foreign Economic Espionage in Cyberspace (2018). technology.” Nat’l Counterintelligence and Sec. While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has identified China, Russia, and Iran as the three states most capable of committing economic espionage, it also notes that “ountries with closer ties to the United States also have conducted cyber espionage to obtain U.S. Thus, while the risks associated with economic espionage to a company are clear, they may also represent a national security threat. As seen in recent years, one motive may be to close technological or military gaps. Unlike other forms of espionage in the business sector, such as corporate espionage which serves a commercial purpose, the motives behind economic espionage are not always economic in nature. Typically, economic espionage is directed or sponsored by a foreign power seeking to secure sensitive trade secrets or business information from U.S. The Act also prohibits attempts to steal trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that doing so will benefit a foreign government. Of these individual defendants, 31 were convicted of economic espionage under § 1831 of the Act the remainder were convicted for theft of trade secrets under § 1832.Įconomic espionage is the act of stealing company trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that doing so “will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent.” 18 U.S.C. ![]() For organizations, the maximum possible fine was increased to “the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization.” Between 19, there were no fewer than 190 cases against 276 individual defendants for violation sunder the Act. ![]() Since the Act’s initial passage, Congress has increased the potential monetary penalties for violations to $5 million. § 1831 can result in a prison sentence of up to 15 years. Government has aggressively enforced the Act against those who have sought to steal trade secrets from companies for the benefit of foreign adversaries.Ĭonvictions for economic espionage in violation of 18 U.S.C. The Act, among other things, criminalized the theft of trade secrets intended to benefit “any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent.” Steep penalties for violations of the Act demonstrated that the United States would take economic espionage extremely seriously. Proponents of the Act claimed foreign entities were actively attempting to steal trade secrets and that the existing laws at the time did not adequately protect their interests. At the time, the principal proponents of the law included business leaders from the then burgeoning Silicon Valley as well as from the aerospace industry. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act (the “Act”). By Benjamin Glassman, Matthew Wagner and Colin Jennings on FebruPosted in China, corruption, Department of Justice, Government Investigation, Russia, United States, US Department of Justice ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |