UCMJ Article 131a: Subornation of Perjury

Perjury corrupts a proceeding from the witness stand. Subornation of perjury corrupts it one step earlier, from behind the scenes, by the person who arranges for the lie to be told. Article 131a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 931a, punishes that person. It reaches the service member who induces and procures another to take an oath and give false testimony, and it treats that conduct as its own offense rather than as a mere accessory to the witness’s perjury. The article exists because a justice system that punishes only the witness who lies would leave untouched the more culpable actor who engineered the lie.

What the article punishes

Article 131a is directed at the person who causes perjury to occur through another. Under the statute, the offense is committed by a person subject to the code who induces and procures another person to take an oath and to falsely testify, depose, or state upon that oath, provided that a defined set of conditions about the oath and the false statement is satisfied. The verbs are deliberate. To induce is to bring about or persuade; to procure is to obtain or cause. The article requires both, which means a casual suggestion or an idle wish is not enough. The accused must actually bring about the false sworn statement through influence over the other person, whether by persuasion, pressure, encouragement, payment, or some other means.

The conditions that must be met

The statute does not punish an attempt to corrupt that comes to nothing. It conditions liability on the actual occurrence of a completed perjury by the other person. The conditions written into the article require that the oath was administered with respect to a matter for which an oath is required or authorized by law; that the oath was administered by a person having authority to do so; that, upon the oath, the other person willfully made or subscribed a statement; that the statement was material; that the statement was false; and that, when the statement was made or subscribed, both the accused and the other person did not believe the statement to be true.

These conditions are the elements of perjury under Article 131, imported wholesale. The effect is that subornation of perjury is not established unless the perjury was in fact committed: a lawful oath was administered by an authorized person, the suborned witness willfully made a material false statement, and that witness did not believe the statement to be true. If the witness never testified, told the truth despite the inducement, or made a statement that was not material, the conditions fail and subornation is not made out, however corrupt the accused’s effort.

The two-sided state of mind

The element that gives the article its distinctive shape is the requirement that neither the accused nor the witness believed the statement to be true when it was made. This is a two-sided mental-state requirement, and each side carries weight.

On the witness’s side, the requirement mirrors ordinary perjury: a witness who honestly believed the statement to be true did not commit perjury, even if the statement was false, and so there is no perjury to have suborned. On the accused’s side, the requirement establishes the suborner’s own guilty knowledge: the accused must have known, or at least not believed, that the testimony procured would be false. A service member who genuinely believed the testimony to be true, and encouraged the witness to give it, has not suborned perjury, because the accused lacked the disbelief in its truth that the article demands. The offense punishes the knowing procurement of a known falsehood under oath, not the mere encouragement of testimony that turns out to be wrong.

What the government must prove

To convict, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused induced and procured the other person to take an oath and to make a false statement; that the oath was one required or authorized by law and administered by a person with authority; that the other person, upon the oath, willfully made or subscribed the statement; that the statement was material; that the statement was false; and that, at the time, neither the accused nor the other person believed it to be true. Because the underlying perjury must be proven as part of the case, a subornation prosecution effectively requires the government to prove two offenses at once: the witness’s perjury and the accused’s procurement of it.

Materiality carries the same meaning here as in perjury generally. A statement is material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the matter in issue in the proceeding. A procured falsehood that could not have affected any matter at issue is not subornation, because the underlying statement would not satisfy the materiality condition.

Maximum punishment

The statute provides that a person who commits the offense shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, with the ceiling set by the Manual for Courts-Martial. Under the Manual, the maximum punishment for subornation of perjury is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. That exposure mirrors the maximum for perjury itself under Article 131, reflecting the judgment that the person who arranges a false oath is at least as culpable as the witness who swears it. Because the Manual is periodically revised and sentencing for offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023 is imposed by the military judge under sentencing parameters, the precise maximum in any case should be confirmed against the current edition.

The defenses to subornation track its demanding elements. Because the offense is not complete unless the witness actually committed perjury, any defense that defeats the underlying perjury also defeats the subornation: that the witness’s statement was literally true, that it was immaterial, that the witness honestly believed it, or that no lawful oath was administered by an authorized person. Separately, the accused may show the absence of the procurement element, that the accused did not in fact induce and procure the false testimony, or the absence of the accused’s own guilty knowledge, that the accused believed the testimony to be true.

Subornation of perjury is one of several offenses that protect the integrity of military proceedings, and it should be distinguished from its neighbors. Perjury under Article 131 punishes the witness who lies under oath. Obstruction of justice under Article 131b reaches a broader range of conduct intended to impede an investigation or proceeding, including wrongfully influencing a witness, without the strict requirement that a completed material perjury occur. Where an effort to corrupt testimony fails because the witness refuses or tells the truth, subornation may be unavailable while an obstruction theory remains. The choice among these articles depends on whether the perjury was completed, on the accused’s role, and on the precise nature of the interference with the proceeding.

Sources

10 U.S.C. 931a (UCMJ Article 131a, Subornation of perjury), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/931a
10 U.S.C. 931 (UCMJ Article 131, Perjury), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/931
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Part IV (Punitive Articles), Article 131a, Joint Service Committee on Military Justice: https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.