In the UK, as I understand it, claims for Civil actions (generally)
become Statute-barred after 6 years. However, I believe that there are
no limitations for Criminal actions.

But what is the position in the US?

Could the US Government take action at any time against one of its former
employees who had contravened certain legislation even though it was
aware of the transgressions shortly after they had occurred?

It was not politically desirable that it should have taken action but
could the threat have muzzled the transgressor for 40 years?

He actually then spoke about the matters for the first time.

Maybe, by then, he was just too old to care?

Your views, please.

---

Request for Question Clarification by aht-ga on 04 Jul 2004 02:16 PDT

40 years is a long time to keep something to oneself... 

To address your general question regarding the statute(s) of
limitation in the US, the high-level statute at the federal level is
covered by the following piece of the US Code:

------
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1658.html

"Sec. 1658. - Time limitations on the commencement of civil actions
arising under Acts of Congress

Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an
Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this
section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of
action accrues."
-----

That is, in general there is a 4 year statute of limitations if the
action is based on an Act of Congress that was enacted after Dec. 1,
1990.

Of course, in the specific case that you are referring to, where the
alleged transgression occurred 40 years ago, this particular statute
of limitation is not relevant. It all depends, of course, on how the
party bringing the action chooses to address it. Here's a case that
you might find interesting:

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=582

The Supreme Court decision in this case was that the actual action was
based on provisions of an Act that passed after 1990, even though the
case dealt primarily with an Act from 1866.

For actions based on Acts prior to 1990, it is generally best to refer
directly to the Act in question to see what, if any, statute of
limitations was established. It was primarily due to the variability
and range of statute of limitations across different Acts and
jurisdictions that prompted the passing of the uniform 4-year statute
of limitations in 1990.

So... what was the "certain legislation" that the employee allegedly contravened?

Thanks,

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

---

Clarification of Question by probonopublico-ga on 04 Jul 2004 03:33 PDT

Hi, aht

Great to see you on the case.

The legislation transgressed was the so-called 'Yardley Act' that had
been enacted in 1933 following embarrassing revelations by Herbert O
Yardley, a former cryptographer. For each offence, it prescribed a
fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both, for
State employees who were found guilty of disclosing information
learned during their employment.

The transgression occurred in 1940 and the transgressor was prosecuted
in Britain under English Law and sentenced to 7 years. Upon release in
1945, he was deported to the US where he finally spoke his piece in
1982. No action was taken and he died in 1988.

Bryan

Bryan --

The answer to your question is that the criminal statute that began
life as the Yardley Act in 1933 is subject to the generally applicable
"statute of limitations" applicable to non-capital federal crimes. 
That statute of limitations is found in Section 3282 of Chapter 213 of
Title 18 of the U.S. Code.  Here it is:

"Section 3282. Offenses not capital 
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be
prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless
the indictment is found or the information is instituted within
five years next after such offense shall have been committed."

FindLaw: U.S. Code: Title 18: Chapter 213: Section 3282
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/ii/chapters/213/sections/section%5F3282.html


The legislative history of Section 3282 indicates that the time
limitation for prosecution of such offenses was raised from three
years to five in 1954:
"1954 - Act Sept. 1, 1954, changed the limitation period from three
years to five years.

FindLaw: U.S. Code: Title 18: Chapter 213: Section 3282: Notes
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/ii/chapters/213/sections/section_3282_notes.html


Here is a brief description of the background of the passage of the Yardley Act:

"Even 'friendly' nations get upset if they know that one of their
codes has been broken. As noted earlier in this chapter, the United
States deciphered Japan's diplomatic code in 1921. Herbert O. Yardley,
who was principally responsible for breaking this code, wrote a book,
The American Black Chamber, published in 1931, which included
information on this matter. Yardley's book did not contribute to
developing friendly United States-Japanese relations. A consequence of
this revelation was enactment of a U.S. statute that made it a crime
for anyone who, by virtue of his employment by the United States,
obtained access to a diplomatic code or a message in such code and
published or furnished to another such code or message, 'or any matter
which was obtained while in the process of transmission between any
foreign government and its diplomatic mission in the United States'
(48 Stat. 122, June 10, 1933, codified at 18 U.S.C. Sect. 952.)"

Security Classification of Information, by Arvin S. Quist:
"Introduction to Classification" (2002)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist/chap_1.html


Here is the text of the current incarnation of the Yardley Act, along
with the historical notes that trace it back to the original 1933
legislation:


"Sec. 952. Diplomatic codes and correspondence.
Whoever, by virtue of his employment by the United States, obtains
from another or has or has had custody of or access to, any official
diplomatic code or any matter prepared in any such code, or which
purports to have been prepared in any such code, and without
authorization or competent authority, willfully publishes or furnishes
to another any such code or matter, or any matter which was obtained
while in the process of transmission between any foreign government
and its diplomatic mission in the United States, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (June 25,
1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 743; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec.
330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) Historical and Revision
Notes Based on section 135 of title 22, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Foreign
Relations and Intercourse (June 10, 1933, ch. 57, 48 Stat. 122). Minor
changes of phraseology were made. "


Search Strategy:

I used several Google searches, of which these two simple ones were
the most useful in tracking down some keywords applicable to the
statute that interests you:

"sale of diplomatic codes"
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22sale+of+diplomatic+codes%22

"yardley act"
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22yardley+act%22

I then used various keywords to search in an online version of the
U.S. Code (linked below) for the specific statute, its history and the
applicable statute of limitations:

Cornell Law School: U.S. Code
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/


In general, my legal background helped me to navigate through the
statutes to reach the ultimate conclusion about the relevant statute
of limitations.


I am confident that this is the information you are seeking.  If
anything is unclear, please ask for clarification before rating the
answer.


markj-ga

Hi, Markj, Very Many Thanks

Exactly what I wanted - although certainly not what I had expected.

I have now 'marked' you down in my memory bank as an 'OK Joe'.

All the Best

Bryan

Bryan --

Thanks much for the kind words, the five stars and the generous tip. 
I am honored to be on your OK Joe/Josie roster.

markj-ga