FEDERAL · 18 U.S.C. · Chapter 90

Economic espionage

18 U.S.C. § 1831
Title18Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter90 — PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

This text of 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (Economic espionage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
18 U.S.C. § 1831.

Text

(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 com

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Nosal
844 F.3d 1024 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
62 case citations
United States v. Chung
659 F.3d 815 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
51 case citations
United States v. Xiaorong You
74 F.4th 378 (Sixth Circuit, 2023)
32 case citations
United States v. Fei Ye, AKA Ye Fei Ming Zhong, AKA Zhong Ming AKA Andy Zhong
436 F.3d 1117 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
30 case citations
Bellwether Cmty. Credit Union v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
353 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (D. Colorado, 2018)
19 case citations
Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Technologies, LLC
722 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Kansas, 2010)
6 case citations
Whaleco Inc. v. Shein Technology LLC
(District of Columbia, 2025)
Sandvig v. Sessions
(District of Columbia, 2018)
Bhatia v. Vaswani
(N.D. Illinois, 2019)
(PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc.
(E.D. California, 2019)
QSI, Inc. v. Neyhouse
(S.D. Ohio, 2024)

Source Credit

History

(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 Notes

Editorial Notes

Amendments
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".

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 U.S.C. § 1831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/18/1831.