Oceanpro through its employees purchased over 100 tons of protected fish species which it resold to restaurants in the District of Columbia. Employees gave written statements in the District of Columbia affirming they had not received the fish. Ocenpro and two employees were indicted for conspiracy, receiving the fish and making the false statement. They challenged venue for the false statement charge. The district court denied their motion. After conviction, the defendants were fined, the employees were given prison sentences and all defendants were ordered to pay $300,000.00 in restitution to Virginia and Maryland. On appeal the defendants challenged venue for the false statement charge and the restitution order. The panel affirmed finding that the effects of the statement were felt in Maryland making venue there proper. It also held Virginia and Maryland had interests which were harmed by the illegal harvesting of fish and each had a proprietary interest in the illegally harvested fish based on their forfeiture statutes.
Musings | The Barris… on Summer access to legal researc… Bloomberg Law Challe… on Summer access to legal researc… Crystle on 6th Annual National Moot Court… Adam Ness on United States Supreme Court gr… Miranda on HeinOnline’s Most-Cited…