## Facts

- The National Marine Fisheries Service began an undercover investigation after learning Patrick Lee was offering salmon caught by Taiwanese vessels for sale in the United States.
- An undercover agent negotiated to buy 500 metric tons of salmon allegedly taken illegally by Taiwanese squid-fishing vessels in the North Pacific.
- The planned transaction involved transferring salmon on the high seas to an American carrier vessel (the *Redfin*), then smuggling the salmon into Seattle while masking origin with fraudulent United States Certificates of Origin.
- The agent agreed to pay approximately $1.3 million through cash, cashier’s checks, and wire transfers; other defendants assisted with the transfer and payment logistics.
- On July 18, 1989, several defendants boarded the *Redfin* in international waters and were arrested while awaiting confirmation of payment; Lee and another defendant were arrested at a Seattle bank after receiving $330,000 for an initial shipment; another defendant was arrested at a Seattle hotel.
- The government’s theory was that the salmon were taken in violation of a Taiwanese regulation barring squid-fishing vessels from taking salmon in the relevant waters, triggering the Lacey Act’s ban on commerce in wildlife taken in violation of foreign law.

## Issues

1. Whether a Taiwanese fishing regulation qualifies as a “foreign law” under the Lacey Act’s prohibition on trafficking in fish “taken ... in violation of any foreign law.”
2. Whether the Lacey Act applies when the predicate foreign rule is enforced only through civil (not criminal) penalties.
3. Whether incorporating foreign regulations and civil-penalty regimes makes the Lacey Act unconstitutionally vague under due process.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motions to dismiss and affirmed the convictions entered on conditional guilty pleas.
- The court held the Taiwanese regulation was a “foreign law” within the meaning of the Lacey Act.
- The court held the Lacey Act may predicate U.S. criminal liability on foreign provisions carrying only civil penalties.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, emphasizing the statute’s scienter requirement and the defendants’ knowing conduct.

## Legal Principles

- “Any foreign law” in the Lacey Act is read broadly to include foreign regulations with the force of law, not only foreign criminal statutes.
- The Lacey Act does not require that the underlying foreign-law violation be criminal; U.S. criminal liability may rest on foreign civil or administrative violations when the Act’s elements are met.
- The Lacey Act’s knowledge requirement mitigates vagueness concerns by limiting punishment to knowing (or willfully blind) trafficking in wildlife taken in violation of foreign law.
- A vagueness challenge fails where statutory terms provide fair notice and, as applied, the defendants’ conduct shows awareness of the foreign-law violation and deliberate steps to conceal it.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Lacey Act prosecutions based on violations of Taiwanese fishing regulations, holding that foreign regulations count as “foreign law,” that civil-only foreign penalties do not bar U.S. criminal enforcement, and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague when defendants knowingly traffic in unlawfully taken fish and conceal the source.


United States v. Lee, 937 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1991)