270 F. Supp. 3d 631
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Defendant Ying Lin, an employee at JFK Airport, was charged in a superseding indictment with smuggling (Count One), conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count Two), obstruction of justice (Count Three), conspiracy to obstruct justice (Count Four), and structuring financial transactions (Count Five). Counts One, Three, and Four were the subject of the motion to dismiss.
- The smuggling charge alleged Lin facilitated shipment of unaccompanied baggage aboard outbound AirChina passenger flights to China, in violation of TSA implementing regulations (cited via 18 U.S.C. § 554). The indictment did not allege the contents of the baggage.
- Lin moved to dismiss Count One arguing § 554 does not reach her conduct, TSA regulations do not impose duties on private individuals, and she lacked fair notice.
- Lin also moved to dismiss Counts Three and Four, arguing the obstruction counts failed to allege an ‘‘official proceeding,’’ that § 1512(c)(2) is limited to tangible objects, and that her conduct was not obstructive.
- The court dismissed Count One with prejudice, finding the government failed to allege exportation of merchandise ‘‘contrary to any law or regulation’’ because (a) TSA regulations cited govern foreign air carriers, not individual exportable goods, and (b) the indictment alleged only unaccompanied baggage (a method), not illegal merchandise.
- The court denied dismissal of Counts Three and Four, holding the indictment sufficiently alleged an official proceeding (a federal grand jury), § 1512(c)(2) is not limited to tangible objects, and intent to obstruct is a factual question for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the smuggling charge under 18 U.S.C. § 554 is properly pleaded | §554 criminalizes exporting or facilitating export of items ‘‘contrary to any law or regulation’’; government alleges Lin sent unaccompanied baggage contrary to TSA rules | Lin: §554 requires illegal merchandise or regulation directly prohibiting the item; TSA rules govern carriers, not private individuals or the contents of baggage; indictment lacks notice of illegal merchandise | Dismissed Count One with prejudice—indictment fails to allege export of merchandise contrary to U.S. law/regulation and TSA rules do not make unaccompanied baggage an illegal item or impose individual duties |
| Whether Counts Three and Four adequately allege an "official proceeding" under §1512(c)(2) | Grand jury investigation in EDNY was alleged; foreseeability of a proceeding suffices | Lin: indictment fails to identify the specific grand jury proceeding, leaving insufficient notice | Denied—allegation of a federal grand jury investigation suffices as an official proceeding; need not be pending at time of conduct |
| Whether §1512(c)(2) is limited to obstruction involving tangible objects | Government: (c)(2) is a broad ‘‘catch-all’’ that criminalizes obstructive conduct beyond (c)(1)’s tangible-object focus | Lin: (c)(2) should be read in light of (c)(1) and limited to acts akin to tampering with physical evidence | Denied—court adopts view that (c)(2) is not limited to physical evidence and can cover non-tangible obstructive acts |
| Whether alleged conduct (warning/assisting a third party to leave) can constitute obstruction | Government: factual allegations show Lin acted with corrupt intent to interfere with a grand jury investigation; intent is for jury to decide | Lin: merely informing or helping someone leave is lawful and not per se obstructive; lacks obstructive intent | Denied—intent is a factual issue for trial; indictment sufficiently alleges requisite corrupt intent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussed limits of §1512(c)(2) in this circuit; court notes Second Circuit declined to resolve scope issue)
- United States v. Volpendesto, 746 F.3d 273 (7th Cir. 2014) (held §1512(c)(2) operates as a catch‑all for obstructive behavior beyond destruction of physical evidence)
- United States v. Petruk, 781 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2015) (concluded §1512(c)(2) is not limited to obstruction related to a record, document, or other object)
- United States v. Murphy, 762 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1985) (older precedent requiring some identification of the proceeding; court here distinguishes and does not adopt Murphy’s strictness)