Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Abridged Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

Stealing a trade secret is a federal crime when the information relates to a product in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1832 (theft of trade secrets), or when the intended beneficiary is a foreign power, 18 U.S.C. 1831 (economic espionage). Section 1832 requires that the thief be aware that the misappropriation will injure the secret’s owner to the benefit of someone else. Section 1831 requires only that the thief intend to benefit a foreign government or one of its instrumentalities.

Section 1832 (theft) violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or a fine of not more than $250,000 (not more than $5 million for organizations), or both. Section 1831 (espionage) violations by individuals are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or a fine of the greater of not more than $5 million, or both. Section 1831 violations by organizations are punishable by a fine of not more than the greater of $10 million or three times the value of the stolen trade secret. Maximum fines for both individuals and organizations may be higher when the amount of the gain or loss associated with the offense is substantial. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit either offense carries the same penalties as the underlying crime. Offenders must also be ordered to pay restitution. Moreover, property derived from the offense or used to facilitate its commission is subject to confiscation. The sections reach violations occurring overseas, if the offender is a United States national or if an act in furtherance of the crime is committed within the United States.

Depending on the circumstances, misconduct captured in the two sections may be prosecuted under other federal statutes as well. A defendant charged with stealing trade secrets is often indictable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the National Stolen Property Act, and/or the federal wire fraud statute. One indicted on economic espionage charges may often be charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent and on occasion with disclosing classified information or under the general espionage statutes.

P.L. 112-269 set the maximum fines described above. It also instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the sufficiency of federal sentencing guidelines and policies in the area of stealing trade secrets and economic espionage. P.L. 112-236 amended the trade secrets prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1832 to overcome the implications of the Court of Appeals’ Aleynikov decision. That decision held that the section did not outlaw the theft of computer code designed to facilitate a company’s commercial transactions, because the code did not relate to a product to be placed in the stream of commerce.

This report is an abridged version, without the footnotes or attribution found in the longer report, CRS Report R42681, Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832.


Date of Report: January 28, 2013
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R42682
Price: $19.95

To Order:

R42682.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

Stealing a trade secret is a federal crime when the information relates to a product in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1832 (theft of trade secrets), or when the intended beneficiary is a foreign power, 18 U.S.C. 1831 (economic espionage). Section 1832 requires that the thief be aware that the misappropriation will injure the secret’s owner to the benefit of someone else. Section 1831 requires only that the thief intend to benefit a foreign government or one of its instrumentalities.

Section 1832 (theft) violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or a fine of not more than $250,000 (not more than $5 million for organizations), or both. Section 1831 (espionage) violations by individuals are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or a fine of the greater of not more than $5 million, or both. Section 1831 violations by organizations are punishable by a fine of not more than the greater of $10 million or three times the value of the stolen trade secret. Maximum fines for both individuals and organizations may be higher when the amount of the gain or loss associated with the offense is substantial. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit either offense carries the same penalties as the underlying crime. Offenders must also be ordered to pay restitution. Moreover, property derived from the offense or used to facilitate its commission is subject to confiscation. The sections reach violations occurring overseas, if the offender is a United States national or if an act in furtherance of the crime is committed within the United States.

Depending on the circumstances, misconduct captured in the two sections may be prosecuted under other federal statutes as well. A defendant charged with stealing trade secrets is often indictable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the National Stolen Property Act, and/or the federal wire fraud statute. One indicted on economic espionage charges may often be charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent and on occasion with disclosing classified information or under the general espionage statutes.

P.L. 112-269 set the maximum fines described above. It also instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the sufficiency of federal sentencing guidelines and policies in the area of stealing trade secrets and economic espionage. P.L. 112-236 amended the trade secrets prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1832 to overcome the implications of the Court of Appeals’ Aleynikov decision. That decision held that the section did not outlaw the theft of computer code designed to facilitate a company’s commercial transactions, because the code did not relate to a product to be placed in the stream of commerce.

This report is available in an abridged version, without footnotes or attribution, as CRS Report R42682, Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Abridged Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832.


Date of Report: January 28, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R42681
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42681.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. The negotiating partners have expressed an interest in allowing this proposed “living agreement” to cover new trade topics and to include new members that are willing to adopt the proposed agreement’s high standards. Canada and Mexico are the most recent countries to join the negotiations and Japan has participated in consultations with the partner countries about the possibility of joining.

The TPP negotiations are of significant interest to Congress. Congressional involvement includes consultations with U.S. negotiators on and oversight of the details of the negotiations, and eventual consideration of legislation to implement the final trade agreement. In assessing the TPP negotiations, Members may be interested in understanding the potential economic impact and significance of TPP and the economic characteristics of the other TPP countries as they evaluate the potential impact of the proposed TPP on the U.S. economy and the commercial opportunities for expansion into TPP markets.

This report provides a comparative economic analysis of the TPP countries and their economic relations with the United States. It suggests that the TPP negotiating partners encompass great diversity in population, economic development, and trade and investment patterns with the United States. This economic diversity and inclusion of fast-growing emerging markets presents both opportunities and challenges for the United States in achieving a comprehensive and high standard regional FTA among TPP countries.

The proposed TPP and its potential expansion are important due to the economic significance of the Asia-Pacific region for both the United States and the world. The region is home to 40% of the world’s population, produces over 50% of global GDP, and includes some of the fastestgrowing economies in the world. With the addition of Canada and Mexico, TPP negotiating partners made up 31% of U.S. goods and services trade in 2011, and the Asia-Pacific economies as a whole made up over 56%. The TPP would be the largest U.S. FTA to date by trade value.

The United States is the largest TPP market in terms of both GDP and population. In 2011, non- U.S. TPP partners collectively had a GDP of $5.7 trillion, 37% of the U.S. level, and a population of 346 million, slightly larger than the U.S. population. Japan’s entry would increase the economic significance of the agreement on both of these metrics.

Unlike most previous U.S. FTA negotiations, the TPP involves countries with which the United States already has an FTA. The U.S. has FTAs in place with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore, which together account for nearly 85% of U.S. goods trade with TPP countries. Malaysia and Vietnam are the largest U.S. trade partners among TPP members without an existing U.S. FTA.

Other TPP partners also have extensive existing FTA networks. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are members, and its collective FTAs with other countries, accounts for the bulk of this interconnectedness. Moreover, ASEAN agreements with larger regional economies (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea) present a second possible avenue for Asia-Pacific economic integration; albeit one that currently excludes the United States.


Date of Report: January 29, 2013
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R42344
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42344.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Sovereign Debt in Advanced Economies: Overview and Issues for Congress

Rebecca M. Nelson
Analyst in International Trade and Finance

Sovereign debt, also called public debt or government debt, refers to debt incurred by governments. Since the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, public debt in advanced economies has increased substantially. A number of factors related to the financial crisis have fueled the increase, including fiscal stimulus packages, the nationalization of private-sector debt, and lower tax revenue. Even if economic growth reverses some of these trends, such as by boosting tax receipts and reducing spending on government programs, aging populations in advanced economies are expected to strain government debt levels in coming years.

High levels of debt in advanced economies are a relatively new global concern, after decades of attention on debt levels in developing and emerging markets. Three Eurozone countries, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, have turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other European governments for financial assistance in order to avoid defaulting on their loans. There are also concerns about the sustainability of public debt in Japan and the United States.

To date, many advanced-economy governments have embarked on fiscal austerity programs (such as cutting spending and/or increasing taxes) to address historically high levels of debt. This policy response has been criticized by some economists as possibly undermining a weak recovery from the global financial crisis. Others argue that the austerity plans do not go far enough, and that more reforms are necessary to bring debt levels down, especially considering the aging populations in many countries. 

Issues for Congress 

• Is the United States headed for a Eurozone-style debt crisis? Some economists and Members of Congress fear that, given historically high levels of U.S. public debt, the United States is headed towards a debt crisis similar to those experienced by some Eurozone countries. Others argue that important differences between the United States and Eurozone economies, such as growth rates, borrowing rates, and type of exchange rate (floating or fixed), put the United States in a stronger position. The United States has a long historical record of debt repayment, and bond spreads indicate that investors currently view the United States as far less risky than Greece, Ireland, or Portugal. 
• Impact on U.S. economy. The focus of most advanced economies on austerity programs to lower debt levels could slow growth in advanced economies and depress demand for U.S. exports. Financial instability stemming from high debt levels could also impact U.S. markets and financial institutions. 
• Policy options for Congress. Congress is debating proposals to reduce federal debt levels in the United States. Congress could urge the Administration to coordinate fiscal policies multilaterally to avoid simultaneous austerity measures that undermine the economic recovery. 

Date of Report: January 31, 2013
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R41838
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41838.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

U.S. Government Agencies Involved in Export Promotion: Overview and Issues for Congress

Shayerah Ilias, Coordinator
Specialist in International Trade and Finance

Charles E. Hanrahan
Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy

M. Angeles Villarreal
Specialist in International Trade and Finance

This report provides an overview of the federal government agencies that participate in U.S. export promotion efforts and the issues that they raise for Congress. The recent global economic downturn has renewed congressional debate over the role of the federal government in promoting exports. This debate has been heightened with the Obama Administration’s efforts to double U.S. exports under the National Export Initiative (NEI) and policy debates about possible reorganization of federal trade-related agencies. Some Members of Congress have placed greater priority on understanding the functions, coordination, and budgets of federal agencies involved in export promotion. Such an understanding may support increased congressional oversight of export promotion policy and related legislative activity.

Federal government agencies perform a wide variety of functions that contribute to export promotion, including providing information, counseling, and export assistance services; funding feasibility studies; financing and insuring U.S. trade; conducting government-to-government advocacy; and negotiating new trade agreements and enforcing existing ones.

Approximately 20 federal government agencies are involved in supporting U.S. exports directly or indirectly. Nine key agencies with programs or activity directly related to export promotion are the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce, Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Small Business Administration (SBA), Department of State, Trade and Development Agency (TDA), Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Department of the Treasury. The USDA has the largest level of export promotion funding, followed by Commerce. Some agencies charge fees for their services.

Coordination of export promotion activities is conducted through interagency bodies. In 1992, Congress attempted to enhance coordination of U.S. export promotion policy by creating the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), an interagency task force chaired by the Department of Commerce. The TPCC releases the National Export Strategy (NES), an annual report that serves as an effort to guide federal export promotion policy, goals, and activity. Executive Order 13534, issued in March 2010, formalized the NEI and established the Export Promotion Cabinet, a higher level coordinating body that is to work with the TPCC to make the NEI operational.

The export promotion activities of federal government agencies raise a number of issues for Congress; among the most prominent are the following:

• The economic arguments for and against the involvement of the U.S. government in promoting exports in the context of issues such as market failures and foreign governments’ support for their national exports; 
• The effectiveness of interagency export promotion coordination through the TPCC and the Export Promotion Cabinet; 
• The level of U.S. government spending on export promotion; its adequacy and efficiency of use; and 
• The extent to which the export promotion activities conducted by federal government agencies may be similar or overlapping, and could be reorganized. 

Date of Report: January 31, 2013
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R41495
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41495.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.