COMPUTER AND INTERNET FRAUD

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to decide whether the plain language of the federal bank fraud statute requires proof of, in addition to intent to deceive a financial institution, a specific intent to target the financial institution’s property. See Brief for Petitioner, Lawrence Eugene Shaw at 15. The case arises out of Lawrence Eugene Shaw’s conviction of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), after Shaw withdrew funds from a Taiwanese businessman’s Bank of America account, albeit without any harm to Bank of America. See United States v. Shaw, 781 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2015). Shaw argues the plain language of § 1344(1) requires proof of intent to deprive that institution of its own property. See Brief for Petitioner at 15. The government responds that because the Congressional intent behind the statute was to target all forms of bank fraud, the statute must be interpreted broadly: without concern for schemers’ mental states as to whose property they sought to defraud. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 44–45. Potentially at stake is the balance between federal and state police power, with federal police power increasing the broader the Supreme Court interprets a statute. See Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ("NACDL"), in Support of Petitioner at 5.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the scope of the “exceeds authorized access” clause of the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). A person violates the CFAA when the person “accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information” from the computer. Petitioner Van Buren was a policeman who was authorized to access a law enforcement database. For reasons unrelated to his job, he used that access to search a license plate for financial gain. Respondent United States contends that when Van Buren accessed the database for a reason unrelated to his job, he exceeded his authorized access and violated the CFAA. Van Buren argues that he did not exceed his authorized access because the “exceeds authorized access” provision does not punish individuals who misuse information they are otherwise authorized to access. The outcome of this case will have broad implications on how employers protect sensitive data and how prosecutors can pursue hacking and computer fraud. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources