An internal audit is never just a formality when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is the silent observer.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1510, federal prosecutors can charge individuals and corporate employees with obstructing a criminal investigation by interfering with communications to federal investigators, pressuring witnesses, or attempting to block the flow of information during an inquiry.

Federal obstruction allegations often arise quietly. A company may first receive a subpoena, preservation request, SEC inquiry, or informal communication from a federal agency.

Within weeks, investigators may begin examining deleted messages, conversations with employees, document retention policies, and executive communications to determine whether anyone attempted to interfere with the investigation itself.

If you're facing obstruction of justice charges, Eisner Gorin LLP is ready to assist you. Contact us for a consultation at (818) 781-1570 or via the contact form.

What Is Obstruction of a Corporate Investigation Under 18 U.S.C. § 1510?

18 U.S.C. § 1510 prohibits obstructing the communication of information relating to federal criminal violations to criminal investigators.

Put simply, the law targets efforts to prevent witnesses, employees, accountants, auditors, compliance officers, or other individuals from providing information to federal authorities.

The statute is broad. Prosecutors do not need to prove that a defendant physically prevented an investigation.

Instead, they often focus on whether someone attempted to discourage cooperation, concealed information, delayed disclosures, manipulated internal reporting procedures, or interfered with communications likely to reach federal investigators.

In corporate investigations, Section 1510 allegations commonly involve:

• Pressuring employees not to cooperate with federal agents.
• Coaching witnesses to provide misleading explanations.
• Paying bonuses or severance packages tied to silence.
• Redirecting or delaying internal audit findings.
• Concealing complaints from compliance departments.
• Discouraging whistleblower activity.
• Interfering with the transmission of records to investigators.
• Using intermediaries to influence witness communications.

Common Conduct That Can Trigger a Federal Obstruction Investigation

Example 1: Deleted Messages During a DOJ Investigation

A company receives a federal subpoena requesting emails concerning billing practices. Later, investigators found that managers deleted messages from a messaging app after becoming aware of the inquiry. Prosecutors claim the deletions were made to obstruct the investigation.

Example 2: Pressure on Employees Not to Cooperate

Following an internal ethics complaint, executives reportedly told employees not to speak with investigators without management approval. Federal authorities are examining whether these communications unfairly hindered cooperation with law enforcement.

What Charges are Related to Federal Obstruction of an Investigation?

18 U.S.C. § 1510 is part of a broader group of federal obstruction statutes frequently charged alongside other white-collar offenses. These can include, but are not limited to:

• Corporate Fraud
• Mail fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1341
• Wire fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1343
• Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371
• False claims - 18 U.S.C. § 287
• Securities violations
• Records destruction - 18 U.S.C. § 1519
• Destruction of corporate audit records - 18 U.S. Code § 1520

How Federal Prosecutors Build 18 U.S.C. § 1510 Cases

Federal investigators rarely rely on one piece of evidence. Instead, obstruction cases are usually built through timelines showing what company leadership knew, when they learned it, and what actions followed. Prosecutors often examine:

• Internal emails discussing subpoenas or audits
• Whether litigation holds were issued
• Timing of document destruction or employee terminations
• Changes to retention policies
• Communications between executives and witnesses
• Severance agreements with confidentiality provisions
• Encrypted messaging applications
• Recorded calls with compliance departments

Importantly, federal prosecutors frequently pursue obstruction charges even when the underlying offense remains unproven. In some investigations, the obstruction allegation becomes the government's strongest charge.

For example, an internal accounting issue that might otherwise result in civil penalties can escalate into felony obstruction allegations if investigators believe executives attempted to interfere with employee cooperation.

What Must Federal Prosecutors Prove?

To secure a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1510, federal prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. The defendant willfully attempted to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information
2. The information related to a federal criminal violation
3. The communication would have been made to a criminal investigator
4. The defendant acted knowingly and intentionally

Intent is usually the central issue in obstruction cases. Many corporate investigations involve ambiguous communications rather than direct threats. Prosecutors may argue that coded language, indirect instructions, or corporate pressure campaigns demonstrate intent to obstruct.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is obstruction of a corporate investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1510?

Federal obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1510 involves charges that someone intentionally tried to prevent, delay, or interfere with the communication of information related to a federal criminal investigation.

Can someone be charged even if the underlying crime is never proven?

Yes. Federal prosecutors can pursue obstruction charges even if they do not secure a conviction for the underlying offense.

What conduct can trigger an obstruction investigation?

Common allegations involve discouraging employee cooperation, influencing witness statements, hiding information, obstructing internal audits, deleting communications, or delaying the delivery of records requested by investigators.

Are internal audits and whistleblower complaints commonly involved in obstruction cases?

Yes. Many federal obstruction investigations are initiated following outcomes such as internal audits, ethics complaints, whistleblower reports, SEC inquiries, DOJ subpoenas, or compliance reviews that suggest potential misconduct.

What penalties can result from a federal obstruction conviction?

Potential penalties might involve federal prison, large fines, probation, consequences for professional licenses, damage to reputation, and further charges such as fraud, conspiracy, or record destruction.

Why is early legal representation important in an obstruction investigation?

Early legal intervention can assist in preserving evidence, safeguarding privileged communications, responding to subpoenas, managing employee interviews, challenging government assumptions, and potentially avoiding criminal charges.

Why Internal Audits Create Federal Exposure

Internal audits often become the starting point for federal obstruction investigations.

Many companies initially believe an issue can remain internal. An accounting discrepancy, vendor irregularity, healthcare billing concern, or antitrust complaint may initially appear as a compliance issue rather than a criminal matter.

Once federal regulators become involved, however, investigators begin reviewing how the company reacted after discovering the potential problem. Federal prosecutors frequently focus on the period immediately following:

• An SEC inquiry
• A whistleblower complaint
• A federal subpoena
• A DOJ preservation request
• A grand jury inquiry
• An internal ethics complaint
• A healthcare billing audit
• A cybersecurity breach investigation

Investigators may ask:

• Were employees warned not to cooperate?
• Did management attempt to identify whistleblowers?
• Were records preserved properly?
• Were internal findings altered before disclosure?
• Did executives communicate outside official channels?
• Was outside counsel provided with complete information?

In high-value corporate investigations, prosecutors often seek leverage quickly by presenting obstruction allegations early in the case.

The government understands that reputational pressure alone can destabilize companies, executives, licensing relationships, and investor confidence.

For corporations operating in regulated industries such as healthcare, finance, pharmaceuticals, defense contracting, or technology, obstruction allegations can create parallel civil, administrative, and criminal exposure simultaneously.

Hypothetical Case Study: Internal Compliance Review Turns into a Federal Obstruction Investigation

A publicly traded healthcare technology company launches an internal review after a compliance manager raises concerns about Medicare billing irregularities. Outside consultants begin auditing communications between regional sales executives and billing personnel.

During the review, a senior executive instructs department managers to "pause unnecessary conversations with auditors until leadership gets aligned." Several employees later reported feeling pressured not to cooperate fully.

Two weeks later, the company receives a DOJ subpoena requesting emails, billing records, and internal compliance reports. Federal investigators discover that:

• Several employee devices were replaced shortly after the internal review began
• Compliance meeting summaries were revised before production
• A manager warned employees against “creating discoverable material”
• Key Slack messages were deleted during the audit period
• Human resources tracked which employees spoke with the investigators

The government opens a parallel obstruction investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1510 and related federal statutes.

Our white-collar criminal defense team at Eisner Gorin LLP focuses the response on intent and context rather than allowing prosecutors to frame routine corporate management decisions as criminal conduct. Our attorneys argue that:

• The executive never instructed employees to provide false information
• Device replacements followed an existing cybersecurity policy
• The revised compliance summaries corrected factual inaccuracies rather than concealing misconduct
• Employees remained free to cooperate with investigators
• No evidence showed payments, threats, intimidation, or coercion

Our team also challenges the government's timeline analysis and metadata assumptions through a forensic review of the company's communications systems.

Rather than treating the investigation as a narrow obstruction issue, Eisner Gorin LLP approaches the matter as a broader federal exposure problem involving parallel DOJ, regulatory, and reputational concerns.

Defense Strategies in Federal Obstruction Investigations

Defending a Section 1510 allegation requires early intervention, careful control of communications, and a detailed understanding of federal investigative procedures.

In many cases, the most effective strategy is to demonstrate that the government's interpretation of events ignores legitimate business operations, ordinary legal coordination, or standard compliance practices.

Potential defense approaches our team may use include:

• Demonstrating a lack of corrupt intent
• Establishing lawful privilege or confidentiality concerns
• Showing employees remained free to communicate with investigators
• Challenging whether the communication involved a federal criminal matter
• Contesting forensic interpretations of metadata or deletion activity
• Demonstrating that records management policies predated the investigation
• Separating routine corporate oversight from alleged obstruction

Additionally, pretrial motions can become particularly important in obstruction cases involving electronic evidence, search warrants, subpoenas, privilege disputes, and government overreach.

Federal obstruction investigations often move quickly once prosecutors believe evidence preservation problems exist. Search warrants, device seizures, and employee interviews may occur before formal charges are filed.

For reputation-sensitive executives and corporations, pre-indictment strategy can substantially affect whether a matter remains confidential, resolves through negotiation, or escalates into public litigation.

In summary, obstruction cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1510 are often less about a single statement or deleted email and more about how prosecutors interpret an organization's conduct during the earliest stages of federal scrutiny.

Eisner Gorin LLP is ready to assist you. Book your consultation today. Our legal team is located in Los Angeles.

Related Legal Topics

• Destruction of Property
• Destruction of Records
• Healthcare Offenses
• Obstruction by Bribery
• Obstruct Examination
• Obstruct Proceedings