## Facts

- David S. Szymuszkiewicz, an IRS revenue officer, faced job risk after a drunk-driving license suspension threatened his ability to travel for work.
- His supervisor, Nella Infusino, discovered an Outlook “rule” on her account that forwarded all incoming emails to Szymuszkiewicz.
- Investigation found copies of Infusino’s emails within Szymuszkiewicz’s Outlook client, including emails moved into a personal folder for retention.
- Evidence suggested the forwarding rule operated for about three years.
- Szymuszkiewicz contended the forwarding was accidental or related to legitimate acting-manager duties and argued he obtained nothing useful from the emails.
- He was charged and convicted by a jury under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), for intentionally intercepting electronic communications; the district court denied acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Szymuszkiewicz intentionally intercepted his supervisor’s emails under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).
2. Whether automatic email forwarding via an Outlook rule constitutes an “intercept” under the Wiretap Act (rather than access to stored communications governed by the Stored Communications Act).
3. Whether Wiretap Act liability requires proof that the defendant obtained valuable or useful information from the intercepted communications.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of intentional interception, including motive, access, computer proficiency evidence, and retention of the forwarded emails in a personal folder.
- The court held the Wiretap Act applied because evidence showed the rule was processed at the email server, which sent contemporaneous copies to Infusino and Szymuszkiewicz.
- The court rejected any requirement that the government prove Szymuszkiewicz obtained valuable information; intentional interception itself satisfied the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Intent to intercept under the Wiretap Act may be proven by circumstantial evidence; direct proof is not required.
- An “intercept” of an electronic communication under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) requires acquisition essentially contemporaneous with transmission; server-side forwarding that creates and delivers a copy as the message arrives can meet this standard.
- Wiretap Act liability does not depend on whether the intercepted communications yielded useful or valuable information; the prohibited act is the intentional interception.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a Wiretap Act conviction where a server-processed Outlook forwarding rule delivered contemporaneous copies of a supervisor’s emails to the defendant, and the evidence permitted a jury finding that the forwarding and retention were intentional, without requiring proof that the emails contained valuable information.


United States v. Szymuszkiewicz, 622 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2010)