United States v. Aleynikov
676 F.3d 71
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Aleynikov, Goldman Sachs programmer, was convicted at trial of violating the NSPA and EEA for stealing and transferring source code.
- He uploaded over 500,000 lines of Goldman’s HFT system source code to a German server and later moved files to devices in the U.S.
- District court held the HFT source code was a trade secret and that the system was a product produced for interstate commerce, supporting Count One and Count Two.
- District court dismissed a CFAA count; Aleynikov was sentenced to 97 months and fined $12,500.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, holding the indictment insufficient under both the NSPA and the EEA.
- The court declined to decide broader issues not necessary to the disposition, focusing on statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSPA: are source code goods under 2314? | Aleynikov contends source code is intangible not goods. | Govt argues intangible code can be transported as a good under 2314. | Source code is not goods; NSPA does not apply. |
| EEA §1832(a): is code produced for or placed in interstate commerce? | Aleynikov argues code not produced for or placed in interstate commerce. | Govt contends system intended for interstate commerce; falls within §1832(a). | Code not produced for or placed in commerce; EEA does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) (limits NSPA to physical goods; intangible property not covered)
- United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389 (2d Cir.1966) (physical goods requirement; intangible secret formulas not readily scholars)
- United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir.1991) (NSPA applies to physical goods, not purely intangible property)
- United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir.1998) (codes used for access are intangible information, not goods)
- United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2000) (NSPA does not apply to purely intangible information)
- Piervinanzi v. United States, 23 F.3d 670 (2d Cir.1994) (legislation intended to cover non-physical transfers under NSPA)
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) (statutory terms read in context; avoid surplusage)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits Commerce Clause reach; affects interpretation of 'substantially affect interstate commerce')
- United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 214 (1952) (ambiguity in criminal statutes resolved in favor of lenity)