U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 90— PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

18 U.S.C. § 1831

Economic espionage

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly—(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret;(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret;(3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;(4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.(b)Organizations.—Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided.(Added Pub. L. 104–294, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3488; amended Pub. L. 112–269, § 2, Jan. 14, 2013, 126 Stat. 2442.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2013—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–269, § 2(a), substituted “not more than $5,000,000” for “not more than $500,000” in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–269, § 2(b), substituted “not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided” for “not more than $10,000,000”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 225 cases (146 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: United States v. Xiaorong You, 74 F.4th 378 (6th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Xiaorong You, 74 F.4th 378 (6th Cir. 2023). · cites it 6× “§ 1343 ; conspiracy to commit economic espionage, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)(5); and economic espionage, in violation of 18 U.”
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Russian Fed'n, 392 F. Supp. 3d 410 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 5× “The DNC also asserts claims under Washington, D.C. common law for trespass and conversion and claims under Virginia common law for conversion, trespass to chattels, and conspiracy to commit trespass to chattels.”
United States v. Walter Liew, 856 F.3d 585 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “Relevant to this appeal, the EEA punishes both (1) “[ejconomic espionage,” which involves trade secret misappropriation intended to or done with the knowledge that it will “benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent,” 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; and (2)…”
United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “The first section ( 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)), which is not charged in the indictment, applies to foreign espionage and is expressed broadly: "Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly.”
United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: Defendant Dongfan “Greg” Chung, a former Boeing engineer who gave technological information to China, appeals his convictions on six counts of violating the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)(1), (3); on one count of…”
United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The remaining counts relate to statutory provisions that were not at issue in Nosal I: access to a protected computer “without authorization” under the CFAA and trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry, the…”
United States v. David Nosal, 828 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “The remaining counts relate to statutory provisions that were not at issue in Nosal I: access to a protected computer “without authorization” under the CFAA and trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry, the…”
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandhu, 291 F. Supp. 3d 659 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “376 (2016) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. ). See, e.g. , Compl.”
United States v. Aleynikov, 737 F. Supp. 2d 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 3× “The first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831 , prohibits the theft of trade secrets by individuals with the knowledge and intent that the theft will benefit “any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent.”
Pangang Grp. Co., Ltd. v. Usdc-Caoak, 901 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “A On February 7, 2012, the government indicted the Pangang Companies on charges of conspiracy to commit economic espionage, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)(5), and attempted economic espionage, in violation of 18 U.”
Free Country Ltd. v. Drennen, 235 F. Supp. 3d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “On November 10, 2016, plaintiff moved ex parte for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, alleging among other causes of action that defendants had misappropriated Free Country’s trade secrets in violation of New and the Defend Trade…”
Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “(“Blackbaud”) and MicroEdge, LLC (“MicroEdge”) alleging violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. § 1831 , et seq., as well as supplemental state law claims.”
Show all 225 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.