Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner was convicted of transporting from Ottawa, Illinois, to Guymon, Oklahoma, an airplane that he knew to have been stolen, and was sentenced to serve three years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of $2,000. The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 43 F. (2d) 273. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court on the question whether the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act applies to aircraft. *26Act of October 29, 1919, c. 89, 41 Stat. 324; U. S. Code. Title 18, § 408. That Act provides: “ Sec. 2. That when used in this Act: (a) The term ‘motor vehicle’ shall include an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motor cycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for .running on rails; . . . Sec. 3. That whoever shall transport or cause to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.”

Section 2 defines the motor vehicles of which the transportation in interstate commerce is punished in § 3. The question is the meaning of the word ‘ vehicle ’ in the phrase “ any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails.” No doubt etymologically it is possible to use the word to signify a conveyance working on land, water or air, and sometimes legislation extends the use in that direction, e. g., land and air, water being separately provided for, in the Tariff Act, September 22, 1922, c. 356, § 401 (b), 42 Stat. 858, 948. But in everyday speech ‘ vehicle ’ calls up the picture of a thing moving on land. Thus in Rev. Stats. § 4, intended, the Government suggests, rather to enlarge than to restrict the definition, vehicle includes every contrivance capable of being used “ as a means of transportation on land.” And this is repeated, expressly excluding aircraft, in the Tariff Act, June 17, 1930, c. 997, § 401 (b); 46 Stat. 590, 708. So here, the phrase under discussion calls up the popular picture. For after including automobile truck, automobile wagon and motor cycle, the words “ any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails ” still indicate that a vehicle in the popular sense, that is a vehicle running on land, is the theme. It is a vehicle that runs, not something, not commonly called a vehicle, that flies. Airplanes were well known in 1919, when this statute was passed; but it is admitted that they were not mentioned in the reports or in the debates in Congress. *27It is impossible to read words that so carefully enumerate the different forms of motor vehicles and have no reference of any kind to aircraft, as including airplanes under a term that usage more and more precisely confines to a different class. The counsel for the petitioner have shown that the phraseology of the statute as to motor vehicles follows that of earlier statutes of Connecticut, Delaware, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri, not to .mention the late Regulations of Traffic for the District of Columbia, Title 6, c. 9, § 242, hone of which can be supposed to leave the earth.

Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear. When a rule of conduct is laid down in words that evoke in the common mind only the picture of vehicles moving on land, the statute should not be extended to aircraft, simply because it may seem to us that a similar policy applies, or upon the speculation that, if the legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used. United States v. Third, 261 U. S. 204, 209.

Judgment reversed.

Cavanagh, J.

The issue presented in this case is whether entry into an enclosure by crawling under a fence constitutes the crime of entry without breaking, MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306. The Court of Appeals held that a fence is included in the catchall category of “structure” contained in the statute. We disagree with the Court of Appeals and hold that a fence is not a structure for the purposes of the statute.

i

The defendant was arrested for stealing four crushed pop cans from a 7-UP distribution center. Apparently, he slid under the fence surrounding the center through a six- to eight-inch depression in the ground, picked up the cans, and put them in his pocket. He was discovered by the police holding on to the back of a trailer parked within the fenced area. When questioned by the police, he admitted that he did not have permission to be in the center, and that he had gained access to the enclosure by crawling under the fence.

Defendant was convicted of entry without breaking1 at a bench trial before Recorder’s Court Judge *354Michael F. Sapala. Instrumental to the conviction was Judge Sapala’s finding that the fenced enclosure was “part of the business,” and, therefore, entry through the fence into the enclosure constituted entry into a structure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that “our Legislature contemplated a fence that is used to enclose and protect property and is ‘an integral part of a closed compound’ when it included the term ‘structure’ in the breaking and entering and entering -without breaking statutes.” 215 Mich App 699, 709; 547 NW2d 349 (1996) (citations omitted). We granted leave to appeal.

n

The crime of entry without breaking is defined as:

Any person who, without breaking, shall enter any dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, bam, granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, railroad car or structure used or kept for public or private use, or any private apartment therein, with intent to commit a felony or any larceny therein, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $2,500.00. [MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306.]

While the term “fence” or “fenced enclosure” does not appear in the specifically enumerated terms of the statute, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that a fence is included in the general term “structure.” The question before us is whether, in the context of the statute, the word structure was meant to include a fence.

Our first step in interpreting a statute is to look at the “common and approved usage” of the word in question. People v Fields, 448 Mich 58, 67; 528 NW2d 176 (1995). This principle of statutory construction *355requires us to look at the ordinary meaning given to the term “structure.” Unfortunately, the ordinary meaning of the word structure provides little guidance in this case. In People v Adams, 75 Mich App 736; 255 NW2d 752 (1977), the Court of Appeals explained that structure is traditionally defined to include “ ‘any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner; any construction or edifice for any use; or that which is built, such as a dwelling house, church, shed, or store.’ ” Id. at 738, quoting 2 Wharton, Criminal Law & Procedure, § 428, pp 49-50. Thus, the ordinary meaning of the term structure is broad enough to cover everything from a building to a breadbox. Certainly, entry into a breadbox is not the type of criminal behavior contemplated by the Legislature. We believe the Legislature intended a more narrow interpretation of the word “structure.”

When the ordinary meaning of a term is not helpful, this Court has traditionally looked to a second principle of statutory construction, ejusdem generis. This principle was stated by this Court in People v Brown, 406 Mich 215, 221; 277 NW2d 155 (1979):

“This is a rule whereby in a statute in which general words follow a designation of particular subjects, the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be and construed as restricted by the particular designation and as including only things of the same kind, class, character or nature as those specifically enumerated.” [Quoting People v Smith, 393 Mich 432, 436; 225 NW2d 165 (1975).]

In Smith, this Court used the principle of ejusdem generis to interpret the statutory offense of carrying a *356concealed weapon.2 The defendant was prosecuted after the police found an m-i rifle under the front seat of his car. The concealed weapons statute made it illegal for a person to so “carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, or other dangerous weapon.”3 We held that the term “other dangerous weapon” was limited to a stabbing weapon when it followed the terms “dagger, dirk, stiletto” in the statute. Therefore, the defendant’s rifle was not included in the general term “other dangerous weapon” for the purposes of that statute.4

Similarly, in the statute before us, the terms dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, bam granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, and railroad car all appear before the term structure. The commonality shared by all these terms is that they are buildings or structures that may be entered into. Indeed, the purpose of the statute is to prohibit the unlawful entry into a building or structure. Because all the specific terms listed in the statute are limited to places that may be entered into, the general term structure must also be so limited.

The dissent argues that the use of ejusdem generis is inappropriate in this case because the term structure is not preceded by the modifying word “other” in the statute; therefore, the language employed by the Legislature manifests an intention for the term structure to be read expansively. We agree with the dissent *357that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply to a statute where the context of the statute manifests a contrary intention. A good example of such a situation is presented in In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich 242; 439 NW2d 246 (1989), cited by the dissent. In that case, the Court was concerned with whether the forfeiture provision of the controlled substances act5 applied to real property. The relevant provision of the act stated that it was to cover “any thing of value . . . including but not limited to money, negotiable instruments, or securities. ...” Id. at 252-253, n 7 (emphasis in original). The Court refused to apply ejusdem generis because the statute in question clearly evidenced an intention not to limit items covered by the statute to the types of things specifically listed.

In contrast, we find no such manifestation of intent in the context of the present statute. First, none of the cases cited by the dissent require the use of a modifying term such as “other” to come before the general term in a statute.6 The absence of “other” before “structure” does not, by itself, prohibit the use *358of ejusdem generis. Second, a sensible reading of the statute supports the use of ejusdem generis. As mentioned above, a broad reading of the word structure would criminalize entry into everything from a building to a breadbox, and we believe the Legislature did not intend such a broad definition of structure. Moreover, the statute before us does contain a list of specific words, all of which are of “the same kind, class, ... or nature.” Id. 7 It is exactly the type of statute where the doctrine of ejusdem generis has traditionally been used to aid in statutory interpretation. Therefore, under the principle of ejusdem generis, a structure must be something that one may physically enter into.

The only remaining question is whether a fence is a structure that one may physically enter into. We hold that it is not. Of course one could enter into a fenced “area,” as the defendant did in the instant case. However, only the fence itself is “built up or composed of parts joined together,” Adams, supra at 738; on the other hand, the “area” is merely a piece of land on which a person can trespass. The area does not consist of anything built up, or anything made of parts joined together. Thus, limiting our consideration to the fence itself, we hold that a fence is not a structure that may be entered into. As counsel for the defendant stated at oral argument:

[Y]ou can’t be inside a fence. You can be on one side or the other or on top or underneath, but you can’t be inside a *359fence. You can be on the property if you’re on the wrong side of the fence, but you can’t be in the fence.

Noticeably absent from the terms in the statute is anything resembling a fence. The Legislature chose not to include fence, wall, gate, or barrier in the statute. Nor did it include fenced enclosure, compound, or secured area. If the Legislature wanted to criminalize crawling under a fence as entry without breaking, it easily could have done so. For whatever reason, it chose not to include a fence in the statute, and we are not inclined to reword the statute to mean something the Legislature did not intend.

We note that nothing in this opinion should be construed to legalize crawling under a fence to steal. A person who does so may be guilty of trespassing and larceny or intent to commit larceny. However, in this case the defendant’s quest for pop cans, although criminal, did not violate this particular statute.

m

The defendant also argues that the prosecution failed to fulfill its duty to render reasonable assistance in locating and serving process on a defense witness.8 Because of our disposition of the case on the basis of the language of the statute itself, it is unnecessary for us to reach this issue.

IV

Because we find a fence is not a structure under the entry without breaking statute, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the defendant’s conviction is vacated.

*360Mallett, C.J., and Brickley and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Cavanagh, J.

Taylor, J.

(dissenting). I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals because a fence of the sort here in question (seven feet high, effecting a full enclosure) constitutes a “structure” under the entry without breaking statute. MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306.

The majority opinion is premised on the ejusdem generis doctrine. As stated in In re Mosby, 360 Mich 186, 192; 103 NW2d 462 (1960):

The rule of ejusdem generis is not to be invoked in every case where general words follow (or possibly precede) specific words. For example, it applies only where the specific words relate to subjects of a single kind, class, character, or nature, as noted above. In all events, the rule is useful only for purposes of aiding the judicial search for the sometimes elusive scrivener’s intent. Where the language used, considered in its entirety, discloses no purpose of limiting the general words used, the rule of ejusdem generis may not be invoked to defeat or limit the purpose of the enactment.

Also relevant is the following language from Black’s Law Dictionary, which this Court cited with approval in In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich 242, 252-253, n 7; 439 NW2d 246 (1989), a case in which this Court refused to apply the doctrine of ejusdem generis to a statute:

“The rule, however, does not necessarily require that the general provision be limited in its scope to the identical things specifically named. Nor does it apply when the context manifests a contrary intention.”

After full consideration of the statute in question, I am satisfied that the doctrine should not be applied to limit the items that can be considered to be a *361structure under the entry without breaking statute. MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306. The majority’s resort to the rule of ejusdem generis is unwarranted because the statutory language does not disclose the purpose of limiting the meaning of the word “structure” in the statute. Indeed, careful review of the statute manifests a contrary intention. Accord Utica State Savings Bank v Oak Park, 279 Mich 568, 573; 273 NW 271 (1937).

The crime of entry without breaking is defined as:

Any person who, without breaking, shall enter any dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, bam, granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, railroad car or structure used or kept for public or private use, or any private apartment therein, with intent to commit a felony or any larceny therein, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $2,500.00. [MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306.]

The first part of the statute consists of a list starting with “any dwelling, house, tent,” etc., and ends with the phrase “factory or other building.” The second part of the list continues “boat, ship, railroad car or structure.” I find it significant that the Legislature chose to modify “building” in the first listing with the word “other,” but did not so modify the word “structure” in the second. While the majority apparently dismisses this as a distinction without a difference, all would acknowledge that it is at least curious that there was such an omission. It is our duty to grapple with this and give meaning, if such is possible, to the *362drafting anomaly.1 I believe English usage dictates that “other” is limiting.2 This, of course, means that application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis to the clause culminating in “other building” is appropriate.3 However, when “other” is not a qualifier to the culminating norm in the list, such as in the second list where “structure” is unmodified, it follows that ejusdem generis cannot be used to help us understand the scope of “structure.”4

Further, because “other” restricts the noun “building,” its lack before “structure” means that structure should be read as an effort by the Legislature to use the word expansively as a catchall term. Reinforcement for this analysis comes from Pennsylvania Steel Co v J E Potts Salt & Lumber Co, 63 F 11, 15 (CA 6, 1894), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered the Michigan mechanic’s lien statute. The Sixth Circuit said that the words “other structure” had to be understood in relation to the words immediately preceding, to wit, “house, building, machinery, wharf.” Implicitly, the failure to qualify “structure” with the word “other” logically leads to the view that the Legislature did not *363want the word “structure” to be limited by the words immediately preceding; rather, it wanted a broad meaning so as to encompass things broader than the actual listing. Accord In re Forfeiture of $5,264, supra at 255 (we believe the phrase connotes an illustrative listing, one purposefully capable of enlargement).

Further support for my conclusion that the rule of ejusdem generis should not be applied to the word structure comes from C K Eddy & Sons v Tierney, 276 Mich 333, 340-341; 267 NW 852 (1936). In that case, the Court considered an ordinance forbidding the alteration of a “building, structure, or premises” except for specified purposes. This Court refused to apply the doctrine of ejusdem generis because each of the series of terms, “buildings, structures, or premises” was used disjunctively, standing independent of any other, the whole encompassing the broad field that the ordinance manifestly intended to reach. Thereafter this Court cited a definition of the word “structure” that was broad enough to include a seven-foot high fence.5 The entry without breaking statute here at issue similarly uses the word “structure” disjunctively. Therefore “structure” should be understood broadly, as a “catchall” and not limited pursuant to ejusdem generis by the earlier terms in the list.

The majority asserts, for reasons unclear to me, that one cannot be inside a fence. I disagree. An area which people enter is commonly described as being in a fenced-in area. In this sense, then, one can be inside a fence. It is only because the majority has not *364completed the vernacular phrase that it seems unfamiliar. In any event, however, no matter how unfamiliar the phrase may seem, it does not establish the impossibility that the majority seems to be suggesting. Moreover, this argument misses the issue, as stated by the majority itself, which is whether entry into “an enclosure” by crawling under a fence constitutes the crime of entry without breaking.

Accordingly, by utilization of the syntactical rules that control our language, I conclude, along with the Court of Appeals, that the Legislature contemplated a fence6 that is used to enclose and protect property as being an integral part of a closed compound when it included the term “structure” in the entry without breaking statute. 215 Mich App 699, 709; 547 NW2d 349 (1996).

I would affirm defendant’s conviction.

Boyle and Weaver, JJ., concurred with Taylor, J.

Justice GINSBURGannounced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice BREYER, and Justice SOTOMAYOR join.

John Yates, a commercial fisherman, caught undersized red grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. To prevent federal authorities from confirming that he had harvested undersized fish, Yates ordered a crew member to toss the suspect catch into the sea. For this offense, he was charged with, and convicted of, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which provides:

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Yates was also indicted and convicted under § 2232(a), which provides:

"Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent Seizure.-Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, *1079knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Yates does not contest his conviction for violating § 2232(a), but he maintains that fish are not trapped within the term "tangible object," as that term is used in § 1519.

Section 1519was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 745, legislation designed to protect investors and restore trust in financial markets following the collapse of Enron Corporation. A fish is no doubt an object that is tangible; fish can be seen, caught, and handled, and a catch, as this case illustrates, is vulnerable to destruction. But it would cut § 1519loose from its financial-fraud mooring to hold that it encompasses any and all objects, whatever their size or significance, destroyed with obstructive intent. Mindful that in Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress trained its attention on corporate and accounting deception and cover-ups, we conclude that a matching construction of § 1519is in order: A tangible object captured by § 1519, we hold, must be one used to record or preserve information.

I

On August 23, 2007, the Miss Katie,a commercial fishing boat, was six days into an expedition in the Gulf of Mexico. Her crew numbered three, including Yates, the captain. Engaged in a routine offshore patrol to inspect both recreational and commercial vessels, Officer John Jones of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission decided to board the Miss Katieto check on the vessel's compliance with fishing rules. Although the Miss Katie was far enough from the Florida coast to be in exclusively federal waters, she was nevertheless within Officer Jones's jurisdiction. Because he had been deputized as a federal agent by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Officer Jones had authority to enforce federal, as well as state, fishing laws.

Upon boarding the Miss Katie,Officer Jones noticed three red grouper that appeared to be undersized hanging from a hook on the deck. At the time, federal conservation regulations required immediate release of red grouper less than 20 inches long. 50 C.F.R. § 622.37(d)(2)(ii)(effective April 2, 2007). Violation of those regulations is a civil offense punishable by a fine or fishing license suspension. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1857(1)(A), (G), 1858(a), (g).

Suspecting that other undersized fish might be on board, Officer Jones proceeded to inspect the ship's catch, setting aside and measuring only fish that appeared to him to be shorter than 20 inches. Officer Jones ultimately determined that 72 fish fell short of the 20-inch mark. A fellow officer recorded the length of each of the undersized fish on a catch measurement verification form. With few exceptions, the measured fish were between 19 and 20 inches; three were less than 19 inches; none were less than 18.75 inches. After separating the fish measuring below 20 inches from the rest of the catch by placing them in wooden crates, Officer Jones directed Yates to leave the fish, thus segregated, in the crates until the Miss Katie returned to port. Before departing, Officer Jones issued Yates a citation for possession of undersized fish.

*1080Four days later, after the Miss Katie had docked in Cortez, Florida, Officer Jones measured the fish contained in the wooden crates. This time, however, the measured fish, although still less than 20 inches, slightly exceeded the lengths recorded on board. Jones surmised that the fish brought to port were not the same as those he had detected during his initial inspection. Under questioning, one of the crew members admitted that, at Yates's direction, he had thrown overboard the fish Officer Jones had measured at sea, and that he and Yates had replaced the tossed grouper with fish from the rest of the catch.

For reasons not disclosed in the record before us, more than 32 months passed before criminal charges were lodged against Yates. On May 5, 2010, he was indicted for destroying property to prevent a federal seizure, in violation of § 2232(a), and for destroying, concealing, and covering up undersized fish to impede a federal investigation, in violation of § 1519.1By the time of the indictment, the minimum legal length for Gulf red grouper had been lowered from 20 inches to 18 inches. See 50 C.F.R. § 622.37(d)(2)(iv)(effective May 18, 2009). No measured fish in Yates's catch fell below that limit. The record does not reveal what civil penalty, if any, Yates received for his possession of fish undersized under the 2007 regulation. See 16 U.S.C. § 1858(a).

Yates was tried on the criminal charges in August 2011. At the end of the Government's case in chief, he moved for a judgment of acquittal on the § 1519charge. Pointing to § 1519's title and its origin as a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Yates argued that the section sets forth "a documents offense" and that its reference to "tangible object[s]" subsumes "computer hard drives, logbooks, [and] things of that nature," not fish. App. 91-92. Yates acknowledged that the Criminal Code contains "sections that would have been appropriate for the [G]overnment to pursue" if it wished to prosecute him for tampering with evidence. App. 91. Section 2232(a), set out supra,at 1-2, fit that description. But § 1519, Yates insisted, did not.

The Government countered that a "tangible object" within § 1519's compass is "simply something other than a document or record." App. 93. The trial judge expressed misgivings about reading "tangible object" as broadly as the Government urged: "Isn't there a Latin phrase [about] construction of a statute.... The gist of it is ... you take a look at [a] line of words, and you interpret the words consistently. So if you're talking about documents, and records, tangible objects are tangible objects in the nature of a document or a record, as opposed to a fish." Ibid.The first-instance judge nonetheless followed controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent. While recognizing that § 1519was passed as part of legislation targeting corporate fraud, the Court of Appeals had instructed that "the broad language of § 1519is not limited to corporate fraud cases, and 'Congress is free to pass laws with language covering areas well beyond the particular crisis du jourthat initially prompted legislative action.' " No. 2:10-cr-66-FtM-29SPC (MD Fla., Aug. 8, 2011), App. 116 (quoting United States v. Hunt,526 F.3d 739, 744 (C.A.11 2008)). Accordingly, the trial court read "tangible object" as a term "independent" of "record" or "document." App. 116. For violating § 1519and § 2232(a), the court sentenced Yates to imprisonment for *108130 days, followed by supervised release for three years. App. 118-120. For life, he will bear the stigma of having a federal felony conviction.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found the text of § 1519 "plain." 733 F.3d 1059, 1064 (2013). Because "tangible object" was "undefined" in the statute, the Court of Appeals gave the term its "ordinary or natural meaning," i.e.,its dictionary definition, "[h]aving or possessing physical form." Ibid.(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1592 (9th ed. 2009)).

We granted certiorari, 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1935, 188 L.Ed.2d 959 (2014), and now reverse the Eleventh Circuit's judgment.

II

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, all agree, was prompted by the exposure of Enron's massive accounting fraud and revelations that the company's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents. The Government acknowledges that § 1519was intended to prohibit, in particular, corporate document-shredding to hide evidence of financial wrongdoing. Brief for United States 46. Prior law made it an offense to "intimidat[e], threate[n], or corruptly persuad[e] another person" to shred documents. § 1512(b) (emphasis added). Section 1519cured a conspicuous omission by imposing liability on a person who destroys records himself. See S.Rep. No. 107-146, p. 14(2002) (describing § 1519as "a new general anti shredding provision" and explaining that "certain current provisions make it a crime to persuade another person to destroy documents, but not a crime to actually destroy the same documents yourself"). The new section also expanded prior law by including within the provision's reach "any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States." Id.,at 14-15.

In the Government's view, § 1519extends beyond the principal evil motivating its passage. The words of § 1519, the Government argues, support reading the provision as a general ban on the spoliation of evidence, covering all physical items that might be relevant to any matter under federal investigation.

Yates urges a contextual reading of § 1519, tying "tangible object" to the surrounding words, the placement of the provision within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and related provisions enacted at the same time, in particular § 1520 and § 1512(c)(1), see infra,at 1083, 1084 - 1085. Section 1519, he maintains, targets not all manner of evidence, but records, documents, and tangible objects used to preserve them, e.g.,computers, servers, and other media on which information is stored.

We agree with Yates and reject the Government's unrestrained reading. "Tangible object" in § 1519, we conclude, is better read to cover only objects one can use to record or preserve information, not all objects in the physical world.

A

The ordinary meaning of an "object" that is "tangible," as stated in dictionary definitions, is "a discrete ... thing," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1555 (2002), that "possess[es] physical form," Black's Law Dictionary 1683 (10th ed. 2014). From this premise, the Government concludes that "tangible object," as that term appears in § 1519, covers the waterfront, including fish from the sea.

Whether a statutory term is unambiguous, however, does not turn solely on dictionary definitions of its component words. Rather, "[t]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined *1082[not only] by reference to the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole."Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). See also Deal v. United States,508 U.S. 129, 132, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993)(it is a "fundamental principle of statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used"). Ordinarily, a word's usage accords with its dictionary definition. In law as in life, however, the same words, placed in different contexts, sometimes mean different things.

We have several times affirmed that identical language may convey varying content when used in different statutes, sometimes even in different provisions of the same statute. See, e.g.,FAA v. Cooper,566 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 132 S.Ct. 1441, 1448-1449, 182 L.Ed.2d 497 (2012), ("actual damages" has different meanings in different statutes); Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt,546 U.S. 303, 313-314, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006)("located" has different meanings in different provisions of the National Bank Act); General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline,540 U.S. 581, 595-597, 124 S.Ct. 1236, 157 L.Ed.2d 1094 (2004)("age" has different meanings in different provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967); United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.,532 U.S. 200, 213, 121 S.Ct. 1433, 149 L.Ed.2d 401 (2001)("wages paid" has different meanings in different provisions of Title 26 U.S.C.); Robinson,519 U.S., at 342-344, 117 S.Ct. 843("employee" has different meanings in different sections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson,478 U.S. 804, 807-808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986)( "arising under" has different meanings in U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331); District of Columbia v. Carter,409 U.S. 418, 420-421, 93 S.Ct. 602, 34 L.Ed.2d 613 (1973)("State or Territory" has different meanings in 42 U.S.C. § 1982and § 1983); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States,286 U.S. 427, 433-437, 52 S.Ct. 607, 76 L.Ed. 1204 (1932)("trade or commerce" has different meanings in different sections of the Sherman Act). As the Court observed in Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers,286 U.S., at 433, 52 S.Ct. 607:

"Most words have different shades of meaning and consequently may be variously construed.... Where the subject matter to which the words refer is not the same in the several places where [the words] are used, or the conditions are different, or the scope of the legislative power exercised in one case is broader than that exercised in another, the meaning well may vary to meet the purposes of the law, to be arrived at by a consideration of the language in which those purposes are expressed, and of the circumstances under which the language was employed."2

In short, although dictionary definitions of the words "tangible" and "object" bear consideration, they are not dispositive of the meaning of "tangible object" in § 1519.

Supporting a reading of "tangible object," as used in § 1519, in accord with dictionary definitions, the Government points to the appearance of that term in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. That Rule requires the prosecution to *1083grant a defendant's request to inspect "tangible objects" within the Government's control that have utility for the defense. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16(a)(1)(E).

Rule 16's reference to "tangible objects" has been interpreted to include any physical evidence. See 5 W. LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 20.3(g), pp. 405-406, and n. 120 (3d ed. 2007). Rule 16is a discovery rule designed to protect defendants by compelling the prosecution to turn over to the defense evidence material to the charges at issue. In that context, a comprehensive construction of "tangible objects" is fitting. In contrast, § 1519is a penal provision that refers to "tangible object" not in relation to a request for information relevant to a specific court proceeding, but rather in relation to federal investigations or proceedings of every kind, including those not yet begun.3See Commissioner v. National Carbide Corp.,167 F.2d 304, 306 (C.A.2 1948)(Hand, J.) ("words are chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment"). Just as the context of Rule 16supports giving "tangible object" a meaning as broad as its dictionary definition, the context of § 1519tugs strongly in favor of a narrower reading.

B

Familiar interpretive guides aid our construction of the words "tangible object" as they appear in § 1519.

We note first § 1519's caption: "Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy." That heading conveys no suggestion that the section prohibits spoliation of any and all physical evidence, however remote from records. Neither does the title of the section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in which § 1519was placed, § 802: "Criminal penalties for altering documents." 116 Stat. 800. Furthermore, § 1520, the only other provision passed as part of § 802, is titled "Destruction of corporate audit records" and addresses only that specific subset of records and documents. While these headings are not commanding, they supply cues that Congress did not intend "tangible object" in § 1519to sweep within its reach physical objects of every kind, including things no one would describe as records, documents, or devices closely associated with them. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States,523 U.S. 224, 234, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)("[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section are tools available for the resolution of a doubt about the meaning of a statute." (internal quotation marks omitted)). If Congress indeed meant to make § 1519an all-encompassing ban on the spoliation of evidence, as the dissent believes Congress did, one would have expected a clearer indication of that intent.

Section 1519's position within Chapter 73 of Title 18 further signals that § 1519was not intended to serve as a cross-the-board ban on the destruction of physical evidence of every kind. Congress placed § 1519(and its companion provision § 1520) at the end of the chapter, following immediately after the pre-existing § 1516, § 1517, and § 1518, each of them prohibiting obstructive acts in specific contexts. See § 1516 (audits of recipients of federal funds); § 1517 (federal examinations of financial institutions); § 1518 (criminal investigations of federal health care offenses).

*1084See also S.Rep. No. 107-146, at 7(observing that § 1517 and § 1518 "apply to obstruction in certain limited types of cases, such as bankruptcy fraud, examinations of financial institutions, and healthcare fraud").

But Congress did not direct codification of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's other additions to Chapter 73 adjacent to these specialized provisions. Instead, Congress directed placement of those additions within or alongside retained provisions that address obstructive acts relating broadly to official proceedings and criminal trials: Section 806, "Civil Action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases," was codified as § 1514A and inserted between the pre-existing § 1514, which addresses civil actions to restrain harassment of victims and witnesses in criminal cases, and § 1515, which defines terms used in § 1512 and § 1513. Section 1102, "Tampering with a record or otherwise impeding an official proceeding," was codified as § 1512(c) and inserted within the pre-existing § 1512, which addresses tampering with a victim, witness, or informant to impede any official proceeding. Section 1107, "Retaliation against informants," was codified as § 1513(e) and inserted within the pre-existing § 1513, which addresses retaliation against a victim, witness, or informant in any official proceeding. Congress thus ranked § 1519, not among the broad proscriptions, but together with specialized provisions expressly aimed at corporate fraud and financial audits. This placement accords with the view that Congress' conception of § 1519's coverage was considerably more limited than the Government's.4

The contemporaneous passage of § 1512(c)(1), which was contained in a section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act discrete from the section embracing § 1519and § 1520, is also instructive. Section 1512(c)(1) provides:

"(c) Whoever corruptly-

"(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding

. . . . .

"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

The legislative history reveals that § 1512(c)(1) was drafted and proposed after § 1519. See 148 Cong. Rec. 12518, 13088-13089 (2002). The Government argues, and Yates does not dispute, that § 1512(c)(1)'s reference to "other object" includes any and every physical object. But if § 1519's reference to "tangible object" already included all physical objects, as the Government and the dissent contend, then Congress had no reason to enact § 1512(c)(1): Virtually any act that would violate § 1512(c)(1) no doubt would violate § 1519as well, for § 1519applies to "the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United *1085States ... or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter," not just to "an official proceeding."5

The Government acknowledges that, under its reading, § 1519and § 1512(c)(1)"significantly overlap." Brief for United States 49. Nowhere does the Government explain what independent function § 1512(c)(1)would serve if the Government is right about the sweeping scope of § 1519. We resist a reading of § 1519that would render superfluous an entire provision passed in proximity as part of the same Act.6See Marx v. General Revenue Corp.,568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 1178, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013)( "[T]he canon against surplusage is strongest when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme.").

The words immediately surrounding "tangible object" in § 1519-"falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record [or] document"-also cabin the contextual meaning of that term. As explained in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,513 U.S. 561, 575, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995), we rely on the principle of noscitur a sociis-a word is known by the company it keeps-to "avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress." (internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. Williams,553 U.S. 285, 294, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008)("a word is given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated"). In Gustafson,we interpreted the word "communication" in § 2(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 to refer to a public communication, rather than any communication, because the word appeared in a list with other words, notably "notice, circular, [and] advertisement," making it "apparent that the list refer[red] to documents of wide dissemination." 513 U.S., at 575-576, 115 S.Ct. 1061. And we did so even though the list began with the word "any."

The noscitur a sociiscanon operates in a similar manner here. "Tangible object" is the last in a list of terms that begins "any record [or] document." The term is therefore appropriately read to refer, not to any tangible object, but specifically to the subset of tangible objects involving records and documents, i.e., objects used to record or preserve information. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2J1.2, comment., n. 1 (Nov. 2014) (" 'Records, documents, or *1086tangible objects' includes (A) records, documents, or tangible objects that are stored on, or that are, magnetic, optical, digital, other electronic, or other storage mediums or devices; and (B) wire or electronic communications.").

This moderate interpretation of "tangible object" accords with the list of actions § 1519proscribes. The section applies to anyone who "alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies,or makes a false entry inany record, document, or tangible object" with the requisite obstructive intent. (Emphasis added.) The last two verbs, "falsif[y]" and "mak[e] a false entry in," typically take as grammatical objects records, documents, or things used to record or preserve information, such as logbooks or hard drives. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 720 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "falsify" as "[t]o make deceptive; to counterfeit, forge, or misrepresent; esp., to tamper with (a document, record, etc.)"). It would be unnatural, for example, to describe a killer's act of wiping his fingerprints from a gun as "falsifying" the murder weapon. But it would not be strange to refer to "falsifying" data stored on a hard drive as simply "falsifying" a hard drive. Furthermore, Congress did not include on § 1512(c)(1)'s list of prohibited actions "falsifies" or "makes a false entry in." See § 1512(c)(1)(making it unlawful to "alte[r], destro [y], mutilat[e], or concea[l] a record, document, or other object" with the requisite obstructive intent). That contemporaneous omission also suggests that Congress intended "tangible object" in § 1519to have a narrower scope than "other object" in § 1512(c)(1).7

A canon related to noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis,counsels: "Where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are [usually] construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words." Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler,537 U.S. 371, 384, 123 S.Ct. 1017, 154 L.Ed.2d 972 (2003)(internal quotation marks omitted). In Begay v. United States,553 U.S. 137, 142-143, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), for example, we relied on this principle to determine what crimes were covered by the statutory phrase "any crime ... that ... is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,"18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The enumeration of specific crimes, we explained, indicates that the "otherwise involves" provision covers "only similar crimes, rather than every crime that 'presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.' " 553 U.S., at 142, 128 S.Ct. 1581. Had Congress intended the latter "all encompassing" meaning, we observed, "it is hard to see why it would have needed to include the examples at all." Ibid.See also CSX

*1087Transp., Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of Revenue,562 U.S. 277, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1101, 1113, 179 L.Ed.2d 37 (2011)("We typically use ejusdem generis to ensure that a general word will not render specific words meaningless."). Just so here. Had Congress intended "tangible object" in § 1519to be interpreted so generically as to capture physical objects as dissimilar as documents and fish, Congress would have had no reason to refer specifically to "record" or "document." The Government's unbounded reading of "tangible object" would render those words misleading surplusage.

Having used traditional tools of statutory interpretation to examine markers of congressional intent within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and § 1519itself, we are persuaded that an aggressive interpretation of "tangible object" must be rejected. It is highly improbable that Congress would have buried a general spoliation statute covering objects of any and every kind in a provision targeting fraud in financial record-keeping.

The Government argues, however, that our inquiry would be incomplete if we failed to consider the origins of the phrase "record, document, or tangible object." Congress drew that phrase, the Government says, from a 1962 Model Penal Code (MPC) provision, and reform proposals based on that provision. The MPC provision and proposals prompted by it would have imposed liability on anyone who "alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, or removes a record, document or thing." See ALI, MPC § 241.7(1), p. 175 (1962). Those proscriptions were understood to refer to all physical evidence. See MPC § 241.7, Comment 3, at 179 (1980) (provision "applies to any physical object"). Accordingly, the Government reasons, and the dissent exuberantly agrees, post,at 4-5, Congress must have intended § 1519to apply to the universe of physical evidence.

The inference is unwarranted. True, the 1962 MPC provision prohibited tampering with any kind of physical evidence. But unlike § 1519, the MPC provision did not prohibit actions that specifically relate to records, documents, and objects used to record or preserve information. The MPC provision also ranked the offense as a misdemeanor and limited liability to instances in which the actor "believ[es] that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted." MPC § 241.7(1), at 175. Yates would have had scant reason to anticipate a felony prosecution, and certainly not one instituted at a time when even the smallest of the fish he caught came within the legal limit. See supra,at 1080; cf. Bond v. United States,572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 2089-2090, 189 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014)(rejecting "boundless reading" of a statutory term given "deeply serious consequences" that reading would entail). A proposed federal offense in line with the MPC provision, advanced by a federal commission in 1971, was similarly qualified. See Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws § 1323, pp. 116-117 (1971).

Section 1519conspicuously lacks the limits built into the MPC provision and the federal proposal. It describes not a misdemeanor, but a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. And the section covers conduct intended to impede any federal investigation or proceeding, including one not even on the verge of commencement. Given these significant differences, the meaning of "record, document, or thing" in the MPC provision and a kindred proposal is not a reliable indicator of the meaning Congress assigned to "record, document, or tangible object" in § 1519. The MPC provision, in short, tells us neither "what *1088Congress wrote [nor] what Congress wanted," cf. post,at 1098, concerning Yates's small fish as the subject of a federal felony prosecution.

C

Finally, if our recourse to traditional tools of statutory construction leaves any doubt about the meaning of "tangible object," as that term is used in § 1519, we would invoke the rule that "ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity." Cleveland v. United States,531 U.S. 12, 25, 121 S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000)(quoting Rewis v. United States,401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971)). That interpretative principle is relevant here, where the Government urges a reading of § 1519that exposes individuals to 20-year prison sentences for tampering with anyphysical object that mighthave evidentiary value in anyfederal investigation into anyoffense, no matter whether the investigation is pending or merely contemplated, or whether the offense subject to investigation is criminal or civil. See Liparota v. United States,471 U.S. 419, 427, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985)("Application of the rule of lenity ensures that criminal statutes will provide fair warning concerning conduct rendered illegal and strikes the appropriate balance between the legislature, the prosecutor, and the court in defining criminal liability."). In determining the meaning of "tangible object" in § 1519, "it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite." See Cleveland,531 U.S., at 25, 121 S.Ct. 365(quoting United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp.,344 U.S. 218, 222, 73 S.Ct. 227, 97 L.Ed. 260 (1952)). See also Jones v. United States,529 U.S. 848, 858-859, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000)(rule of lenity "reinforces" the conclusion that arson of an owner-occupied residence is not subject to federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)because such a residence does not qualify as property "used in" commerce or commerce-affecting activity).8

For the reasons stated, we resist reading § 1519expansively to create a coverall spoliation of evidence statute, advisable as such a measure might be. Leaving that important decision to Congress, we hold that a "tangible object" within § 1519's *1089compass is one used to record or preserve information. The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice ALITO, concurring in the judgment.

This case can and should be resolved on narrow grounds. And though the question is close, traditional tools of statutory construction confirm that John Yates has the better of the argument. Three features of 18 U.S.C. § 1519stand out to me: the statute's list of nouns, its list of verbs, and its title. Although perhaps none of these features by itself would tip the case in favor of Yates, the three combined do so.

Start with the nouns. Section 1519refers to "any record, document, or tangible object." The noscitur a sociiscanon instructs that when a statute contains a list, each word in that list presumptively has a "similar" meaning. See, e.g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,513 U.S. 561, 576, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995). A related canon, ejusdem generisteaches that general words following a list of specific words should usually be read in light of those specific words to mean something "similar." See, e.g., Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,567 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2156, 2171, 183 L.Ed.2d 153 (2012). Applying these canons to § 1519's list of nouns, the term "tangible object" should refer to something similar to records or documents. A fish does not spring to mind-nor does an antelope, a colonial farmhouse, a hydrofoil, or an oil derrick. All are "objects" that are "tangible." But who wouldn't raise an eyebrow if a neighbor, when asked to identify something similar to a "record" or "document," said "crocodile"?

This reading, of course, has its shortcomings. For instance, this is an imperfect ejusdem generiscase because "record" and "document" are themselves quite general. And there is a risk that "tangible object" may be made superfluous-what is similar to a "record" or "document" but yet is not one? An e-mail, however, could be such a thing. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2J1.2and comment. (Nov. 2003) (reading "records, documents, or tangible objects" to "includ[e]" what is found on "magnetic, optical, digital, other electronic, or other storage mediums or devices"). An e-mail, after all, might not be a "document" if, as was "traditionally" so, a document was a "piece of paper with information on it," not "information stored on a computer, electronic storage device, or any other medium." Black's Law Dictionary 587-588 (10th ed. 2014). E-mails might also not be "records" if records are limited to "minutes" or other formal writings "designed to memorialize [past] events." Id.,at 1465. A hard drive, however, is tangible and can contain files that are precisely akin to even these narrow definitions. Both "record" and "document" can be read more expansively, but adding "tangible object" to § 1519would ensure beyond question that electronic files are included. To be sure, "tangible object" presumably can capture more than just e-mails; Congress enacts "catchall[s]" for "known unknowns." Republic of Iraq v. Beaty,556 U.S. 848, 860, 129 S.Ct. 2183, 173 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2009). But where noscitur a sociisand ejusdem generisapply, "known unknowns" should be similar to known knowns, i.e., here, records and documents. This is especially true because reading "tangible object" too broadly could render "record" and "document" superfluous.

Next, consider § 1519's list of verbs: "alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in."

*1090Although many of those verbs could apply to nouns as far-flung as salamanders, satellites, or sand dunes, the last phrase in the list-"makes a false entry in"-makes no sense outside of filekeeping. How does one make a false entry in a fish? "Alters" and especially "falsifies" are also closely associated with filekeeping. Not one of the verbs, moreover, cannotbe applied to filekeeping-certainly not in the way that "makes a false entry in" is always inconsistent with the aquatic.

Again, the Government is not without a response. One can imagine Congress trying to write a law so broadly that not every verb lines up with every noun. But failure to "line up" may suggest that something has gone awry in one's interpretation of a text. Where, as here, each of a statute's verbs applies to a certain category of nouns, there is some reason to think that Congress had that category in mind. Categories, of course, are often underinclusive or overinclusive-§ 1519, for instance, applies to a bomb-threatening letter but not a bomb. But this does not mean that categories are not useful or that Congress does not enact them. See, e.g., Vance v. Bradley,440 U.S. 93, 108-109, 99 S.Ct. 939, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979). Here, focusing on the verbs, the category of nouns appears to be filekeeping. This observation is not dispositive, but neither is it nothing. The Government also contends that § 1519's verbs cut both ways because it is unnatural to apply "falsifies" to tangible objects, and that is certainly true. One does not falsify the outside casing of a hard drive, but one could falsify or alter data physically recorded on that hard drive.

Finally, my analysis is influenced by § 1519's title: "Destruction, alteration, or falsification of recordsin Federal investigations and bankruptcy." (Emphasis added.) This too points toward filekeeping, not fish. Titles can be useful devices to resolve " 'doubt about the meaning of a statute.' " Porter v. Nussle,534 U.S. 516, 527-528, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002)(quoting Almendarez-Torres v. United States,523 U.S. 224, 234, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)); see also Lawson v. FMR LLC,571 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct. 1158, 1162-1164, 188 L.Ed.2d 158 (2014)(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The title is especially valuable here because it reinforces what the text's nouns and verbs independently suggest-that no matter how other statutes might be read, this particular one does not cover every noun in the universe with tangible form.

Titles, of course, are also not dispositive. Here, if the list of nouns did not already suggest that "tangible object" should mean something similar to records or documents, especially when read in conjunction with § 1519's peculiar list of verbs with their focus on filekeeping, then the title would not be enough on its own. In conjunction with those other two textual features, however, the Government's argument, though colorable, becomes too implausible to accept. See, e.g.,Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler,537 U.S. 371, 384-385, 123 S.Ct. 1017, 154 L.Ed.2d 972 (2003)(focusing on the "product of [two] canons of construction" which was "confirmed" by other interpretative evidence); cf. Al-Adahi v. Obama,613 F.3d 1102, 1105-1106 (C.A.D.C.2010)(aggregating evidence).

Justice KAGAN, with whom Justice SCALIA, Justice KENNEDY, and Justice THOMASjoin, dissenting.

A criminal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, prohibits tampering with "any record, document, or tangible object" in an attempt to obstruct a federal investigation. This case *1091raises the question whether the term "tangible object" means the same thing in § 1519as it means in everyday language-any object capable of being touched. The answer should be easy: Yes. The term "tangible object" is broad, but clear. Throughout the U.S. Code and many States' laws, it invariably covers physical objects of all kinds. And in § 1519, context confirms what bare text says: All the words surrounding "tangible object" show that Congress meant the term to have a wide range. That fits with Congress's evident purpose in enacting § 1519: to punish those who alter or destroy physical evidence-any physical evidence-with the intent of thwarting federal law enforcement.

The plurality instead interprets "tangible object" to cover "only objects one can use to record or preserve information." Ante, at 1081. The concurring opinion similarly, if more vaguely, contends that "tangible object" should refer to "something similar to records or documents"-and shouldn't include colonial farmhouses, crocodiles, or fish. Ante, at 1089 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment). In my view, conventional tools of statutory construction all lead to a more conventional result: A "tangible object" is an object that's tangible. I would apply the statute that Congress enacted and affirm the judgment below.

I

While the plurality starts its analysis with § 1519's heading, see ante,at 1083 ("We note first § 1519's caption"), I would begin with § 1519's text. When Congress has not supplied a definition, we generally give a statutory term its ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk,563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1885, 1891, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011). As the plurality must acknowledge, the ordinary meaning of "tangible object" is "a discrete thing that possesses physical form." Ante,at 1081 (punctuation and citation omitted). A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form. See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960). So the ordinary meaning of the term "tangible object" in § 1519, as no one here disputes, covers fish (including too-small red grouper).

That interpretation accords with endless uses of the term in statute and rule books as construed by courts. Dozens of federal laws and rules of procedure (and hundreds of state enactments) include the term "tangible object" or its first cousin "tangible thing"-some in association with documents, others not. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 8302(2)(referring to "any material or tangible object that could harbor a pest or disease"); 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1(c)(authorizing investigative demands for "documentary material or tangible things"); 18 U.S.C. § 668(a)(1)(D)(defining "museum" as entity that owns "tangible objects that are exhibited to the public"); 28 U.S.C. § 2507(b)(allowing discovery of "relevant facts, books, papers, documents or tangible things").1To my knowledge, no court has *1092ever read any such provision to exclude things that don't record or preserve data; rather, all courts have adhered to the statutory language's ordinary (i.e., expansive) meaning. For example, courts have understood the phrases "tangible objects" and "tangible things" in the Federal Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure to cover everything from guns to drugs to machinery to ... animals. See, e.g.,United States v. Obiukwu,17 F.3d 816, 819 (C.A.6 1994)(per curiam) (handgun); United States v. Acarino,270 F.Supp. 526, 527-528 (E.D.N.Y.1967)(heroin); In re Newman,782 F.2d 971, 972-975 (C.A.Fed.1986)(energy generation system); Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp.,297 F.2d 49, 56-57 (C.A.9 1961)(cattle). No surprise, then, that-until today-courts have uniformly applied the term "tangible object" in § 1519 in the same way. See, e.g.,United States v. McRae,702 F.3d 806, 834-838 (C.A.5 2012)(corpse); United States v. Maury,695 F.3d 227, 243-244 (C.A.3 2012)(cement mixer).

That is not necessarily the end of the matter; I agree with the plurality (really, who does not?) that context matters in interpreting statutes. We do not "construe the meaning of statutory terms in a vacuum." Tyler v. Cain,533 U.S. 656, 662, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001). Rather, we interpret particular words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury,489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). And sometimes that means, as the plurality says, that the dictionary definition of a disputed term cannot control. See, e.g.,Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 205, n. 9, 130 S.Ct. 1345, 176 L.Ed.2d 54 (2010). But this is not such an occasion, for here the text and its context point the same way. Stepping back from the words "tangible object" provides only further evidence that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said.

Begin with the way the surrounding words in § 1519reinforce the breadth of the term at issue. Section 1519refers to "any" tangible object, thus indicating (in line with that word's plain meaning) a tangible object "of whatever kind." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 97 (2002). This Court has time and again recognized that "any" has "an expansive meaning," bringing within a statute's reach alltypes of the item (here, "tangible object") to which the law refers. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker,535 U.S. 125, 131, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002); see, e.g., Republic of Iraq v. Beaty,556 U.S. 848, 856, 129 S.Ct. 2183, 173 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2009); Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,552 U.S. 214, 219-220, 128 S.Ct. 831, 169 L.Ed.2d 680 (2008). And the adjacent laundry list of verbs in § 1519("alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry") further shows that Congress wrote a statute with a wide scope. Those words are supposed to ensure-just as "tangible object" is meant to-that § 1519covers the whole world of evidence-tampering, in all its prodigious variety. See United States v. Rodgers,466 U.S. 475, 480, 104 S.Ct. 1942, 80 L.Ed.2d 492 (1984)(rejecting a "narrow, technical definition" of a statutory term when it "clashes strongly" with "sweeping" language in the same sentence).

Still more, "tangible object" appears as part of a three-noun phrase (including also "records" and "documents") common to evidence-tampering laws and always understood to embrace things of all kinds. The Model Penal Code's evidence-tampering section, drafted more than 50 years ago, similarly prohibits a person from "alter[ing], destroy[ing], conceal[ing] or remov[ing]

*1093any record, document or thing" in an effort to thwart an official investigation or proceeding. ALI, Model Penal Code § 241.7(1), p. 175 (1962) (emphasis added). The Code's commentary emphasizes that the offense described in that provision is "not limited to conduct that [alters] a written instrument." Id.,§ 241.7, Comment 3, at 179. Rather, the language extends to "any physical object." Ibid. Consistent with that statement-and, of course, with ordinary meaning-courts in the more than 15 States that have laws based on the Model Code's tampering provision apply them to all tangible objects, including drugs, guns, vehicles and ... yes, animals. See, e.g.,State v. Majors,318 S.W.3d 850, 859-861 (Tenn.2010)(cocaine); Puckett v. State,328 Ark. 355, 357-360, 944 S.W.2d 111, 113-114 (1997)(gun); State v. Bruno,236 Conn. 514, 519-520, 673 A.2d 1117, 1122-1123 (1996)(bicycle, skeleton, blood stains); State v. Crites,2007 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 615, *5-*7 (Dec. 21, 2007) (deer antlers). Not a one has limited the phrase's scope to objects that record or preserve information.

The words "record, document, or tangible object" in § 1519also track language in 18 U.S.C. § 1512, the federal witness-tampering law covering (as even the plurality accepts, see ante,at 1084) physical evidence in all its forms. Section 1512, both in its original version (preceding § 1519) and today, repeatedly uses the phrase "record, document, or other object"-most notably, in a provision prohibiting the use of force or threat to induce another person to withhold any of those materials from an official proceeding. § 4(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 1249, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2). That language, which itself likely derived from the Model Penal Code, encompasses no less the bloody knife than the incriminating letter, as all courts have for decades agreed. See, e.g.,United States v. Kellington,217 F.3d 1084, 1088 (C.A.9 2000)(boat); United States v. Applewhaite,195 F.3d 679, 688 (C.A.3 1999)(stone wall). And typically "only the most compelling evidence" will persuade this Court that Congress intended "nearly identical language" in provisions dealing with related subjects to bear different meanings. Communications Workers v. Beck,487 U.S. 735, 754, 108 S.Ct. 2641, 101 L.Ed.2d 634 (1988); see A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 252 (2012). Context thus again confirms what text indicates.

And legislative history, for those who care about it, puts extra icing on a cake already frosted. Section 1519, as the plurality notes, see ante,at 1079, 1081, was enacted after the Enron Corporation's collapse, as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 745. But the provision began its life in a separate bill, and the drafters emphasized that Enron was "only a case study exposing the shortcomings in our current laws" relating to both "corporate and criminal" fraud. S.Rep. No. 107-146, pp. 2, 11(2002). The primary "loophole[ ]" Congress identified, see id.,at 14, arose from limits in the part of § 1512just described: That provision, as uniformly construed, prohibited a person from inducing another to destroy "record[s], document[s], or other object[s]"-of every type-but not from doing so himself. § 1512(b)(2); see supra,at 1093. Congress (as even the plurality agrees, see ante,at 1081) enacted § 1519to close that yawning gap. But § 1519could fully achieve that goal only if it covered all the records, documents, and objects § 1512did, as well as all the means of tampering with them. And so § 1519was written to do exactly that-"to apply broadly to any acts to destroy or fabricate physical evidence," as long as performed with the *1094requisite intent. S.Rep. No. 107-146, at 14. "When a person destroys evidence," the drafters explained, "overly technical legal distinctions should neither hinder nor prevent prosecution." Id.,at 7. Ah well: Congress, meet today's Court, which here invents just such a distinction with just such an effect. See United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank,374 U.S. 321, 343, 83 S.Ct. 1715, 10 L.Ed.2d 915 (1963)("[C]reat[ing] a large loophole in a statute designed to close a loophole" is "illogical and disrespectful of ... congressional purpose").

As Congress recognized in using a broad term, giving immunity to those who destroy non-documentary evidence has no sensible basis in penal policy. A person who hides a murder victim's body is no less culpable than one who burns the victim's diary. A fisherman, like John Yates, who dumps undersized fish to avoid a fine is no less blameworthy than one who shreds his vessel's catch log for the same reason. Congress thus treated both offenders in the same way. It understood, in enacting § 1519, that destroying evidence is destroying evidence, whether or not that evidence takes documentary form.

II

A

The plurality searches far and wide for anything-anything-to support its interpretation of § 1519. But its fishing expedition comes up empty.

The plurality's analysis starts with § 1519's title: "Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy." See ante,at 1083; see also ante,at 1090 (opinion of ALITO, J.). That's already a sign something is amiss. I know of no other case in which we have begunour interpretation of a statute with the title, or relied on a title to override the law's clear terms. Instead, we have followed "the wise rule that the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text." Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.,331 U.S. 519, 528-529, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947).

The reason for that "wise rule" is easy to see: A title is, almost necessarily, an abridgment. Attempting to mention every term in a statute "would often be ungainly as well as useless"; accordingly, "matters in the text ... are frequently unreflected in the headings." Id.,at 528, 67 S.Ct. 1387. Just last year, this Court observed that two titles in a nearby section of Sarbanes-Oxley serve as "but a short-hand reference to the general subject matter" of the provision at issue, "not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text." Lawson v. FMR LLC,571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1158, 1169, 188 L.Ed.2d 158 (2014)(quoting Trainmen,331 U.S., at 528, 67 S.Ct. 1387). The "under-inclusiveness" of the headings, we stated, was "apparent." Lawson,571 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1169. So too for § 1519's title, which refers to "destruction, alteration, or falsification" but not to mutilation, concealment, or covering up, and likewise mentions "records" but not other documents or objects. Presumably, the plurality would not refuse to apply § 1519when a person only conceals evidence rather than destroying, altering, or falsifying it; instead, the plurality would say that a title is just a title, which cannot "undo or limit" more specific statutory text. Ibid.(quoting Trainmen,331 U.S., at 529, 67 S.Ct. 1387). The same holds true when the evidence in question is not a "record" but something else whose destruction, alteration, etc., is intended to obstruct justice.

The plurality next tries to divine meaning from § 1519's "position within Chapter *109573 of Title 18." Ante,at 1083. But that move is yet odder than the last. As far as I can tell, this Court has never once suggested that the section number assigned to a law bears upon its meaning. Cf. Scalia, supra,at xi-xvi (listing more than 50 interpretive principles and canons without mentioning the plurality's new number-in-the-Code theory). And even on its own terms, the plurality's argument is hard to fathom. The plurality claims that if § 1519applied to objects generally, Congress would not have placed it "after the pre-existing § 1516, § 1517, and § 1518" because those are "specialized provisions." Ante,at 1084. But search me if I can find a better place for a broad ban on evidence-tampering. The plurality seems to agree that the law properly goes in Chapter 73-the criminal code's chapter on "obstruction of justice." But the provision does not logically fit into any of that chapter's pre-existing sections. And with the first 18 numbers of the chapter already taken (starting with § 1501 and continuing through § 1518), the law naturally took the 19th place. That is standard operating procedure. Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, all of Chapter 73 was ordered chronologically: Section 1518 was later enacted than § 1517, which was later enacted than § 1516, which was ... well, you get the idea. And after Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress has continued in the same vein. Section 1519is thus right where you would expect it (as is the contemporaneously passed § 1520)-between § 1518 (added in 1996) and § 1521 (added in 2008).2

The plurality's third argument, relying on the surplusage canon, at least invokes a known tool of statutory construction-but it too comes to nothing. Says the plurality: If read naturally, § 1519"would render superfluous" § 1512(c)(1), which Congress passed "as part of the same act." Ante,at 1085. But that is not so: Although the two provisions significantly overlap, each applies to conduct the other does not. The key difference between the two is that § 1519protects the integrity of "matter [s] within the jurisdiction of any [federal] department or agency" whereas § 1512(c)(1)safeguards "official proceeding[s]" as defined in § 1515(a)(1)(A). Section 1519's language often applies more broadly than § 1512(c)(1)'s, as the plurality notes. For example, an FBI investigation counts as a matter within a federal department's jurisdiction, but falls outside the statutory definition of "official proceeding" as construed by courts. See, e.g.,United States v. Gabriel,125 F.3d 89, 105, n. 13 (C.A.2 1997). But conversely, § 1512(c)(1)sometimes reaches more widely than § 1519. For example, because an "official proceeding" includes any "proceeding before a judge or court of the United States," § 1512(c)(1)prohibits tampering with evidence in federal litigation between private parties. See § 1515(a)(1)(A); United States v. Burge,711 F.3d 803, 808-810 (C.A.7 2013); United States v. Reich,479 F.3d 179, 185-187 (C.A.2 2007)(SOTOMAYOR, J.). By contrast, § 1519wouldn't ordinarily operate in that context because *1096a federal court isn't a "department or agency." See Hubbard v. United States,514 U.S. 695, 715, 115 S.Ct. 1754, 131 L.Ed.2d 779 (1995).3So the surplusage canon doesn't come into play.4Overlap-even significant overlap-abounds in the criminal law. See Loughrin v. United States,573 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, n. 4, 134 S.Ct. 2384, 2390-2391, n. 4, 189 L.Ed.2d 411 (2014). This Court has never thought that of such ordinary stuff surplusage is made. See ibid.;Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain,503 U.S. 249, 253, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992).

And the legislative history to which the plurality appeals, see ante,at 1081, only cuts against it because those materials show that lawmakers knew that § 1519and § 1512(c)(1)share much common ground. Minority Leader Lott introduced the amendment that included § 1512(c)(1)(along with other criminal and corporate fraud provisions) late in the legislative process, explaining that he did so at the specific request of the President. See 148 Cong. Rec. 12509, 12512 (2002) (remarks of Sen. Lott). Not only Lott but several other Senators noted the overlap between the President's package and provisions already in the bill, most notably § 1519. See id.,at 12512 (remarks of Sen. Lott); id.,at 12513 (remarks of Sen. Biden); id.,at 12517 (remarks of Sens. Hatch and Gramm). The presence of both § 1519 and § 1512(c)(1) in the final Act may have reflected belt-and-suspenders caution: If § 1519contained some flaw, § 1512(c)(1)would serve as a backstop. Or the addition of § 1512(c)(1)may have derived solely from legislators' wish "to satisfy audiences other than courts"-that is, the President and his Justice Department. Gluck & Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside, 65 Stan. L.Rev. 901, 935 (2013)(emphasis deleted). Whichever the case, Congress's consciousness of overlap between the two provisions removes any conceivable reason to cast aside § 1519's ordinary meaning in service of preventing some statutory repetition.

Indeed, the inclusion of § 1512(c)(1)in Sarbanes-Oxley creates a far worse problem for the plurality's construction of § 1519than for mine. Section 1512(c)(1)criminalizes the destruction of any "record, document, or other object"; § 1519of any "record, document, or tangible object." On the plurality's view, one "object" is really an object, whereas the other is only an object that preserves or stores information. But "[t]he normal rule of statutory construction assumes that identical words used in different parts of the same act," passed at the same time, "are intended to have the same meaning." Sorenson v.

*1097Secretary of Treasury,475 U.S. 851, 860, 106 S.Ct. 1600, 89 L.Ed.2d 855 (1986)(internal quotation marks omitted). And that is especially true when the different provisions pertain to the same subject. See supra,at 1083. The plurality doesn't-really, can't-explain why it instead interprets the same words used in two provisions of the same Act addressing the same basic problem to mean fundamentally different things.

Getting nowhere with surplusage, the plurality switches canons, hoping that noscitur a sociisand ejusdem generis will save it. See ante, at 1085 - 1087; see alsoante,at 1089 (opinion of ALITO, J.). The first of those related canons advises that words grouped in a list be given similar meanings. The second counsels that a general term following specific words embraces only things of a similar kind. According to the plurality, those Latin maxims change the English meaning of "tangible object" to only things, like records and documents, "used to record or preserve information." Ante,at 1085.5But understood as this Court always has, the canons have no such transformative effect on the workaday language Congress chose.

As an initial matter, this Court uses noscitur a sociisand ejusdem generis to resolve ambiguity, not create it. Those principles are "useful rule[s] of construction where words are of obscure or doubtful meaning." Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States,261 U.S. 514, 520, 58 Ct.Cl. 708, 43 S.Ct. 428, 67 L.Ed. 778 (1923). But when words have a clear definition, and all other contextual clues support that meaning, the canons cannot properly defeat Congress's decision to draft broad legislation. See, e.g., Ali,552 U.S., at 227, 128 S.Ct. 831(rejecting the invocation of these canons as an "attempt to create ambiguity where the statute's text and structure suggest none").

Anyway, assigning "tangible object" its ordinary meaning comports with noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis when applied, as they should be, with attention to § 1519's subject and purpose. Those canons require identifying a common trait that links all the words in a statutory phrase. See, e.g., Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson,559 U.S. 280, 289, n. 7, 130 S.Ct. 1396, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010); Ali, 552 U.S., at 224-226, 128 S.Ct. 831. In responding to that demand, the plurality characterizes records and documents as things that preserve information-and so they are. But just as much, they are things that provide information, and thus potentially serve as evidence relevant to matters under review. And in a statute pertaining to obstruction of federal investigations, that evidentiary function comes to the fore. The destruction of records and documents prevents law enforcement agents from gathering facts relevant to official inquiries. And so too does the destruction of tangible objects-of whatever *1098kind. Whether the item is a fisherman's ledger or an undersized fish, throwing it overboard has the identical effect on the administration of justice. See supra,at 1094. For purposes of § 1519, records, documents, and (all) tangible objects are therefore alike.

Indeed, even the plurality can't fully credit its noscitur/ejusdem argument. The same reasoning would apply to every law placing the word "object" (or "thing") after "record" and "document." But as noted earlier, such statutes are common: The phrase appears (among other places) in many state laws based on the Model Penal Code, as well as in multiple provisions of § 1512. See supra,at 1092 - 1093. The plurality accepts that in those laws "object" means object; its argument about superfluity positively dependson giving § 1512(c)(1)that broader reading. See ante, at 1085, 1087. What, then, is the difference here? The plurality proposes that some of those statutes describe less serious offenses than § 1519. See ante,at 1087. How and why that distinction affects application of the noscitur a sociisand ejusdem generiscanons is left obscure: Count it as one more of the plurality's never-before-propounded, not-readily-explained interpretive theories. See supra,at 1094, 1094 - 1095, 1096 - 1097. But in any event, that rationale cannot support the plurality's willingness to give "object" its natural meaning in § 1512, which (like § 1519) sets out felonies with penalties of up to 20 years. See §§ 1512(a)(3)(C), (b), (c). The canons, in the plurality's interpretive world, apparently switch on and off whenever convenient.

And the plurality's invocation of § 1519's verbs does nothing to buttress its canon-based argument. See ante,at 1085 - 1086;ante,at 1089 - 1090 (opinion of ALITO, J.). The plurality observes that § 1519prohibits "falsif[ying]" or "mak[ing] a false entry in" a tangible object, and no one can do those things to, say, a murder weapon (or a fish). Ante,at 1085. But of course someone can alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, or cover up such a tangible object, and § 1519prohibits those actions too. The Court has never before suggested that all the verbs in a statute need to match up with all the nouns. See Robers v. United States,572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1854, 1858, 188 L.Ed.2d 885 (2014)("[T]he law does not require legislators to write extra language specifically exempting, phrase by phrase, applications in respect to which a portion of a phrase is not needed"). And for good reason. It is exactly when Congress sets out to draft a statute broadly-to include every imaginable variation on a theme-that such mismatches will arise. To respond by narrowing the law, as the plurality does, is thus to flout both what Congress wrote and what Congress wanted.

Finally, when all else fails, the plurality invokes the rule of lenity. See ante,at 1087. But even in its most robust form, that rule only kicks in when, "after all legitimate tools of interpretation have been exhausted, 'a reasonable doubt persists' regarding whether Congress has made the defendant's conduct a federal crime." Abramski v. United States,573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2281, 189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014)(SCALIA, J., dissenting) (quoting Moskal v. United States,498 U.S. 103, 108, 111 S.Ct. 461, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990)). No such doubt lingers here. The plurality points to the breadth of § 1519, see ante,at 1087, as though breadth were equivalent to ambiguity. It is not. Section 1519is very broad. It is also very clear. Every traditional tool of statutory interpretation points in the same direction, toward "object" meaning object. Lenity offers no *1099proper refuge from that straightforward (even though capacious) construction.6

B

The concurring opinion is a shorter, vaguer version of the plurality's. It relies primarily on the noscitur a sociisand ejusdem generiscanons, tries to bolster them with § 1519's "list of verbs," and concludes with the section's title. See supra,at 1094, 1097 - 1098, 1098 (addressing each of those arguments). (Notably, even the concurrence puts no stock in the plurality's section-number and superfluity claims.) From those familiar materials, the concurrence arrives at the following definition: " 'tangible object' should mean something similar to records or documents." Ante,at 1090 (opinion of ALITO, J.). In amplifying that purported guidance, the concurrence suggests applying the term "tangible object" in keeping with what "a neighbor, when asked to identify something similar to record or document," might answer. Ante,at 1089. "[W]ho wouldn't raise an eyebrow," the concurrence wonders, if the neighbor said "crocodile"? Ante,at 1089. Courts sometimes say, when explaining the Latin maxims, that the "words of a statute should be interpreted consistent with their neighbors." See, e.g.,United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 105, 120 S.Ct. 1135, 146 L.Ed.2d 69 (2000). The concurrence takes that expression literally.

But § 1519's meaning should not hinge on the odd game of Mad Libs the concurrence proposes. No one reading § 1519needs to fill in a blank after the words "records" and "documents." That is because Congress, quite helpfully, already did so-adding the term "tangible object." The issue in this case is what that term means. So if the concurrence wishes to ask its neighbor a question, I'd recommend a more pertinent one: Do you think a fish (or, if the concurrence prefers, a crocodile) is a "tangible object"? As to that query, "who wouldn't raise an eyebrow" if the neighbor said "no"?

In insisting on its different question, the concurrence neglects the proper function of catchall phrases like "or tangible object." The reason Congress uses such terms is precisely to reach things that, in the concurrence's words, "do[ ] not spring to mind"-to my mind, to my neighbor's, or (most important) to Congress's. Ante,at 1089 (opinion of ALITO, J.). As this Court recently explained: "[T]he whole value of a generally phrased residual [term] is that it serves as a catchall for matters not specifically contemplated-known unknowns." Beaty,556 U.S., at 860, 129 S.Ct. 2183. Congress realizes that in a game of free association with "record" and "document," it will never think of all the other things-including crocodiles and fish-whose destruction or alteration can (less frequently but just as effectively) thwart law enforcement. Cf. United States v. Stubbs,11 F.3d 632, 637-638 (C.A.6 1993)(dead crocodiles used as *1100evidence to support smuggling conviction). And so Congress adds the general term "or tangible object"-again, exactly because such things "do[ ] not spring to mind."7

The concurrence suggests that the term "tangible object" serves not as a catchall for physical evidence but to "ensure beyond question" that e-mails and other electronic files fall within § 1519's compass. Ante,at 1089. But that claim is eyebrow-raising in its own right. Would a Congress wishing to make certain that § 1519applies to e-mails add the phrase "tangible object" (as opposed, say, to "electronic communications")? Would a judge or jury member predictably find that "tangible object" encompasses something as virtual as e-mail (as compared, say, with something as real as a fish)? If not (and the answer is not), then that term cannot function as a failsafe for e-mails.

The concurrence acknowledges that no one of its arguments can carry the day; rather, it takes the Latin canons plus § 1519's verbs plus § 1519's title to "tip the case" for Yates. Ante,at 1089. But the sum total of three mistaken arguments is ... three mistaken arguments. They do not get better in the combining. And so the concurrence ends up right where the plurality does, except that the concurrence, eschewing the rule of lenity, has nothing to fall back on.

III

If none of the traditional tools of statutory interpretation can produce today's result, then what accounts for it? The plurality offers a clue when it emphasizes the disproportionate penalties § 1519imposes if the law is read broadly. Seeante,at 1087 - 1088. Section 1519, the plurality objects, would then "expose[ ] individuals to 20-year prison sentences for tampering with any physical object that might have evidentiary value in anyfederal investigation into any offense." Ante,at 1088. That brings to the surface the real issue: overcriminalization and excessive punishment in the U.S. Code.

Now as to this statute, I think the plurality somewhat-though only somewhat-exaggerates the matter. The plurality omits from its description of § 1519the requirement that a person act "knowingly" and with "the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence" federal law enforcement. And in highlighting § 1519's maximum penalty, the plurality glosses over the absence of any prescribed minimum. (Let's not forget that Yates's sentence was not 20 years, but 30 days.) Congress presumably enacts laws with high maximums and no minimums when it thinks the prohibited conduct may run the gamut from major to minor. That is assuredly true of acts obstructing justice. Compare this case with the following, all of which properly come within, but now fall outside, § 1519: McRae,702 F.3d, at 834-838(burning human body to thwart murder investigation); Maury,695 F.3d, at 243-244(altering cement mixer to impede inquiry into amputation of employee's fingers); United States v. Natal,2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108852, *24-*26 (D.Conn., Aug. 7, 2014) (repainting van to cover up evidence of fatal arson). Most district judges, as Congress knows, will recognize differences between such cases and prosecutions like this one, *1101and will try to make the punishment fit the crime. Still and all, I tend to think, for the reasons the plurality gives, that § 1519is a bad law-too broad and undifferentiated, with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentencers too much discretion. And I'd go further: In those ways, § 1519is unfortunately not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.

But whatever the wisdom or folly of § 1519, this Court does not get to rewrite the law. "Resolution of the pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly is for Congress." Rodgers,466 U.S., at 484, 104 S.Ct. 1942. If judges disagree with Congress's choice, we are perfectly entitled to say so-in lectures, in law review articles, and even in dicta. But we are not entitled to replace the statute Congress enacted with an alternative of our own design.

I respectfully dissent.

Justice Scalia

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, and in which Justice Thomas joins as to all but Part IV.

We consider whether the term “proceeds” in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(1), means “receipts” or “profits.”

I

From the 1970’s until 1994, respondent Santos operated a lottery in Indiana that was illegal under state law. See Ind. Code § 35-45-5-3 (West 2004). Santos employed a number of helpers to run the lottery. At bars and restaurants, Santos’s runners gathered bets from gamblers, kept a portion of the bets (between 15% and 25%) as their commissions, and delivered the rest to Santos’s collectors. Collectors, one of whom was respondent Diaz, then delivered the money to Santos, who used some of it to pay the salaries of collectors (including Diaz) and to pay the winners.

These payments to runners, collectors, and winners formed the basis of a 10-count indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming Santos, Diaz, and 11 others. A jury found Santos guilty of one count of conspiracy to run an illegal gambling business (18 U. S. C. § 371), one count of running an illegal *510gambling business (§ 1955), one count of conspiracy to launder money (§ 1956(a)(l)(A)(i) and § 1956(h)), and two counts of money laundering (§ 1956(a)(l)(A)(i)). The court sentenced Santos to 60 months of imprisonment on the two gambling counts and to 210 months of imprisonment on the three money-laundering counts. Diaz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money, and the District Court sentenced him to 108 months of imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. United States v. Febus, 218 F. 3d 784 (CA7 2000). We declined to review the case. 531 U. S. 1021 (2000).

Thereafter, respondents filed motions under 28 U. S. C. § 2255, collaterally attacking their convictions and sentences. The District Court rejected all of their claims but one, a challenge to their money-laundering convictions based on the Seventh Circuit’s subsequent decision in United States v. Scialabba, 282 F. 3d 475 (2002), which held that the federal money-laundering statute’s prohibition of transactions involving criminal “proceeds” applies only to transactions involving criminal profits, not criminal receipts. Id., at 478. Applying that holding to respondents’ cases, the District Court found no evidence that the transactions on which the money-laundering convictions were based (Santos’s payments to runners, winners, and collectors and Diaz’s receipt of payment for his collection services) involved profits, as opposed to receipts, of the illegal lottery, and accordingly vacated the money-laundering convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the Government’s contention that Scialabba was wrong and should be overruled. 461 F. 3d 886 (CA7 2006). We granted certiorari. 550 U. S. 902 (2007).

II

The federal money-laundering statute prohibits a number of activities involving criminal “proceeds.” Most relevant to this case is 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), which criminalizes *511transactions to promote criminal activity.1 This provision' uses the term “proceeds” in describing two elements of the offense: The Government must prove that a charged transaction “in fact involve[d] the proceeds of specified unlawful activity” (the proceeds element), and it also must prove that a defendant knew “that the property involved in” the charged transaction “representad] the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” (the knowledge element). § 1956(a)(1).

The federal money-laundering statute does not define “proceeds.” When a term is undefined, we give it its ordinary meaning. Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U. S. 179, 187 (1995). “Proceeds” can mean either “receipts” or “profits.” Both meanings are accepted, and have long been accepted, in ordinary usage. See, e. g., 12 Oxford English Dictionary 544 (2d ed. 1989); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1542 (2d ed. 1987); Webster’s New International Dictionary 1972 (2d ed. 1954) (hereinafter Webster’s 2d). The Government contends that dictionaries generally prefer the “receipts” definition over the “profits” definition, but any preference is too slight for us to conclude that “receipts” is the primary meaning of “proceeds.”

“Proceeds,” moreover, has not acquired a common meaning in the provisions of the Federal Criminal Code. Most leave the term undefined. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1963; 21 U. S. C. § 853. Recognizing the word’s inherent ambiguity, Congress *512has defined “proceeds” in various criminal provisions, but sometimes has defined it to mean “receipts” and sometimes “profits.” Compare 18 U. S. C. § 23390(e)(3) (2000 ed., Supp. V) (receipts), § 981(a)(2)(A) (2000 ed.) (same), with § 981(a)(2)(B) (profits).

Since context gives meaning, we cannot say the money-laundering statute is truly ambiguous until we consider “proceeds” not in isolation but as it is used in the federal money-laundering statute. See United Sav. Assn, of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988). The word appears repeatedly throughout the statute, but all of those appearances leave the ambiguity intact. Section 1956(a)(1) itself, for instance, makes sense under either definition: One can engage in a financial transaction with either receipts or profits of a crime; one can intend to promote the carrying on of a crime with either its receipts or its profits; and one can try to conceal the nature, location, etc., of either receipts or profits. The same is true of all the other provisions of this legislation in which the term “proceeds” is used. They make sense under either definition. See, for example, § 1956(a)(2)(B), which speaks of “proceeds” represented by a “monetary instrument or funds.”

Justice Alito’s

dissent (the principal dissent) makes much of the fact that 14 States' that use and define the word “proceeds” in their money-laundering statutes,2 the Model *513Money Laundering Act, and an international treaty on the subject, all define the term to include gross receipts. See post, at 533-535. We do not think this evidence shows that the drafters of the federal money-laundering statute used “proceeds” as a term of art for “receipts.” Most of the state laws cited by the dissent, the Model Act, and the treaty postdate the 1986 federal money-laundering statute by several years, so Congress was not acting against the backdrop of those definitions when it enacted the federal statute. If anything, they show that “proceeds” is ambiguous and that others who believed that money-laundering statutes ought to include gross receipts sought to clarify the ambiguity that Congress created when it left the term undefined.3

Under either of the word’s ordinary definitions, all provisions of the federal money-laundering statute are coherent; *514no provisions are redundant; and the statute is not rendered utterly absurd. From the face of the statute, there is no more reason to think that “proceeds” means “receipts” than there is to think that “proceeds” means “profits.” Under a long line of our decisions, the tie must go to the defendant. The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476, 485 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931); United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347-349 (1971). This venerable rule not only vindicates the fundamental principle that no citizen should be held accountable for a violation of a statute whose commands are uncertain, or subjected to punishment that is not clearly prescribed. It also places the weight of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress’s stead. Because the “profits” definition of “proceeds” is always more defendant-friendly than the “receipts” definition, the rule of lenity dictates that it should be adopted.

Ill

Stopping short of calling the “profits” interpretation absurd, the Government contends that the interpretation should nonetheless be rejected because it fails to give the federal money-laundering statute its proper scope and because it hinders effective enforcement of the law. Neither contention overcomes the rule of lenity.

A

According to the Government, if we do not read “proceeds” to mean “receipts,” we will disserve the purpose of the federal money-laundering statute, which is, the Government says, to penalize criminals who conceal or promote their illegal activities. On the Government’s view, “[t]he gross receipts of a crime accurately reflect the scale of the criminal activity, because the illegal activity generated all of the *515funds.” Brief for United States 21; see also post, at 585-537 (Alito, J., dissenting).

When interpreting a criminal statute, we do not play the part of a mindreader. In our seminal rule-of-lenity decision, Chief Justice Marshall rejected the impulse to speculate regarding a dubious congressional intent. “[Probability is not a guide which a court, in construing a penal statute, can safely take.” United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 105 (1820). And Justice Frankfurter, writing for the Court in another case, said the following: “When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83 (1955).

The statutory purpose advanced by the Government to construe “proceeds” is a textbook example of begging the question. To be sure, if “proceeds” meant “receipts,” one could say that the statute was aimed at the dangers of concealment and promotion. But whether “proceeds” means “receipts” is the very issue in the case. If “proceeds” means “profits,” one could say that the statute is aimed at the distinctive danger that arises from leaving in criminal hands the yield of a crime. A rational Congress could surely have decided that the risk of leveraging one criminal activity into the next poses a greater threat to society than the mere payment of crime-related expenses and justifies the money-laundering statute’s harsh penalties.

If we accepted the Government’s invitation to speculate about congressional purpose, we would also have to confront and explain the strange consequence of the “receipts” interpretation, which respondents have described as a “merger problem.” See, e. g., Brief for Respondent Diaz 34. If “proceeds” meant “receipts,” nearly every violation of the illegal-lottery statute would also be a violation of the money-laundering statute, because paying a winning bettor is a transaction involving receipts that the defendant intends to promote the carrying on of the lottery. Since few lotter*516ies, if any, will not pay their winners, the statute criminalizing illegal lotteries, 18 U. S. C. § 1955, would “merge” with the money-laundering statute. Congress evidently decided that lottery operators ordinarily deserve up to 5 years of imprisonment, § 1955(a), but as a result of merger they would face an additional 20 years, § 1956(a)(1). Prosecutors, of course, would acquire the discretion to charge the lesser lottery offense, the greater money-laundering offense, or both — which would predictably be used to induce a plea bargain to the lesser charge.

The merger problem is not limited to lottery operators. For a host of predicate crimes, merger would depend on the manner and timing of payment for the expenses associated with the commission of the crime. New crimes are entirely free of cost, and costs are not always paid in advance. Anyone who pays for the costs of a crime with its proceeds — for example, the felon who uses the stolen money to pay for the rented getaway car — would violate the money-laundering statute. And any wealth-acquiring crime with multiple participants would become money laundering when the initial recipient of the wealth gives his confederates their shares.4 Generally speaking, any specified unlawful activity, an episode of which includes transactions which are not elements of the offense and in which a participant passes receipts on to someone else, would merge with money laundering. There are more than 250 predicate offenses for the money-laundering statute, see Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, M. Motivans, Money Laundering Offenders, 1994-2001, p. 2 (2003), online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ pdf/mloOl.pdf (as visited May 29, 2008, and available in Clerk *517of Court’s case file), and many foreseeably entail such transactions, see 18 U. S. C. § 1956(c)(7) (2000 ed. and Supp. V) (establishing as predicate offenses a number of illegal trafficking and selling offenses, the expenses of which might be paid after the illegal transportation or sale).

The Government suggests no explanation for why Congress would have wanted a transaction that is a normal part of a crime it had duly considered and appropriately punished elsewhere in the Criminal Code to radically increase the sentence for that crime. Interpreting “proceeds” to mean “profits” eliminates the merger problem. Transactions that normally occur during the course of running a lottery are not identifiable uses of profits and thus do not violate the money-laundering statute. More generally, a criminal who enters into a transaction paying the expenses of his illegal activity cannot possibly violate the money-laundering statute, because by definition profits consist of what remains after expenses are paid. Defraying an activity’s costs with its receipts simply will not be covered.

The principal dissent suggests that a solution to the merger problem may be found in giving a narrow interpretation to the “promotion prong” of the statute: A defendant might be deemed not to “promote” illegal activity “by doing those things ... that are needed merely to keep the business running,” post, at 547-548, because promotion (presumably) means doing things that will cause a business to grow. See Webster’s 2d, at 1981 (giving as one of the meanings of “promote” “[t]o contribute to the growth [or] enlargement” of something). (This argument is embraced by Justice Breyer’s dissent as well. See post, at 530.) The federal money-laundering statute, however, bars not the bare act of promotion, but engaging in certain transactions “with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i) (2000 ed.) (emphasis added). In that context the word naturally bears one of its other meanings, such as “[t]o contribute to the . . . prosper*518ity” of something, or to “further” something. See Webster’s 2d, at 1981. Surely one promotes “the carrying on” of a gambling enterprise by merely ensuring that it continues in business.5 In any event, to believe that this “narrow” interpretation of “promote” would solve the merger problem one must share the dissent’s misperception that the statute applies just to the conduct of ongoing enterprises rather than individual unlawful acts. If the predicate act is theft by an individual, it makes no sense to ask whether an expenditure was intended to “grow” the culprit’s theft business. The merger problem thus stands as a major obstacle to the dissent’s interpretation of “proceeds.”

Justice Breyer admits that the merger problem casts doubt on the Government’s position, post, at 529, but believes there are “other, more legally felicitous” solutions to the problem, post, at 530. He suggests that the merger problem could be solved by holding that “the money laundering offense and the underlying offense that generated the money to be laundered must be distinct in order to be separately punishable.” Ibid. The insuperable difficulty with this solution is that it has no basis whatever in the words of the statute. Even assuming (as one should not) the propriety of a judicial rewrite, why should one believe that Congress wanted courts to avoid the merger problem in that unusual fashion, rather than by adopting one of the two possible meanings of an ambiguous term? Justice Breyer pins *519hope on the possibility, “if the ‘merger’ problem is essentially a problem of fairness in sentencing,” that the United States Sentencing Commission might revise its recommended sentences for money laundering. Ibid. See also principal dissent, post, at 547 (in agreement). Even if that is a possibility, it is not a certainty. And once again, why should one choose this chancy method of solving the problem, rather than interpret ambiguous language to avoid it? In any event, as noted, supra, at 515-516, the merger problem affects more than just sentencing; it affects charging decisions and plea bargaining as well.

B

The Government also argues for the “receipts” interpretation because — quite frankly — it is easier to prosecute. Proving the proceeds and knowledge elements of the federal money-laundering offense under the “profits” interpretation will unquestionably require proof that is more difficult to obtain. Essentially, the Government asks us to resolve the statutory ambiguity in light of Congress’s presumptive intent to facilitate money-laundering prosecutions. That position turns the rule of lenity upside down. We interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of defendants, not prosecutors.

It is true that the “profits” interpretation demands more from the Government than the “receipts” interpretation. Not so much more, however, as to render such a disposition inconceivable — as proved by the fact that Congress has imposed similar proof burdens upon the prosecution elsewhere. See 18 U. S. C. § 1963(a) (criminal forfeiture provision requiring determination of “gross profits or other proceeds”); 21 U. S. C. § 853(a) (same).6 It is untrue that the added burdens *520“serve no discernible purpose.” Post, at 542 (Alito, J., dissenting). They ensure that the severe money-laundering penalties will be imposed only for the removal of profits from criminal activity, which permit the leveraging of one criminal activity into the next. See supra, at 515.

In any event, the Government exaggerates the difficulties. The “proceeds of specified unlawful activity” are the proceeds from the conduct sufficient to prove one predicate offense. Thus, to establish the proceeds element under the “profits” interpretation, the prosecution needs to show only that a single instance of specified unlawful activity was profitable and gave rise to the money involved in a charged transaction. And the Government, of course, can select the instances for which the profitability is clearest. Contrary to the principal dissent’s view, post, at 536, 540-542, the fact-finder will not need to consider gains, expenses, and losses attributable to other instances of specified unlawful activity, which go to the profitability of some entire criminal enterprise. What counts is whether the receipts from the charged unlawful act exceeded the costs fairly attributable to it.7

*521When the Government charges an “enterprise” crime as the predicate offense, see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1956(c)(7)(C), it will have to prove the profitability of only the conduct sufficient to violate the enterprise statute. That is typically defined as a “continuing series of violations,” 21 U. S. C. § 848(c)(2), which would presumably be satisfied by three violations, see Richardson v. United States, 526 U. S. 813, 818 (1999). Thus, the Government will have to prove the profitability of just three offenses, selecting (again) those for which profitability is clearest. And of course a prosecutor will often be able to charge the underlying crimes instead of the overarching enterprise crime.

As for the knowledge element of the money-laundering offense — knowledge that the transaction involves profits of unlawful activity — that will be provable (as knowledge must almost always be proved) by circumstantial evidence. For example, someone accepting receipts from what he knows to be a long-continuing drug-dealing operation can be found to know that they include some profits. And a jury could infer from a long-running launderer-criminal relationship that the launderer knew he was hiding the criminal’s profits. Moreover, the Government will be entitled to a willful blindness instruction if the professional money launderer, aware of a high probability that the laundered funds were profits, deliberately avoids learning the truth about them — as might be the case when he knows that the underlying crime is one that is rarely unprofitable.

IV

Concurring in the judgment, Justice Stevens expresses the view that the rule of lenity applies to this case because there is no legislative history reflecting any legislator’s belief *522about how the money-laundering statute should apply to lottery operators. See post, at 526, 528. The rule of lenity might not apply, he thinks, in a case involving an organized crime syndicate or the sale of contraband because the legislative history supposedly contains some views on the meaning of “proceeds” in those circumstances.8 See post, at 525-526, and n. 3. In short, Justice Stevens would interpret “proceeds” to mean “profits” for some predicate crimes, “receipts” for others.

Justice Stevens’ position is original with him; neither the United States nor any amicus suggested it; it has no precedent in our cases. Justice Stevens relies on the proposition that one undefined word, repeated in different statutory provisions, can have different meanings in each provision. See post, at 525, and n. 2. But that is worlds apart from giving the same word, in the same statutory provision, different meanings in different factual contexts. Not only have we never engaged in such interpretive contortion; just over three years ago, in an opinion joined by Justice Stevens, we forcefully rejected it.. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371 (2005), held that the meaning of words in a statute cannot change with the statute’s application. See id., at 378. To hold otherwise “would render every statute a chameleon,” id., at 382, and “would establish within our jurisprudence ... the dangerous principle that judges can give the same statu*523tory text different meanings in different cases,” id., at 386. Precisely to avoid that result, our cases often “give a statute’s ambiguous language a limiting construction called for by one of the statute’s applications, even though other of the statute’s applications, standing alone, would not support the same limitation. The lowest common denominator, as it were, must govern.” Id., at 380 (emphasis added).

Our obligation to maintain the consistent meaning of words in statutory text does not disappear when the rule of lenity is involved. To the contrary, we have resolved an ambiguity in a tax statute in favor of the taxpayer in a civil case because the statute had criminal applications that triggered the rule of lenity. See United States v. Thompson/ Center Arms Co., 504 U. S. 505, 517-518, and n. 10 (1992) (plurality opinion). If anything, the rule of lenity is an additional reason to remain consistent, lest those subject to the criminal law be misled. And even if, as Justice Stevens contends, post, at 524, statutory ambiguity “effectively” licenses us to write a brand-new law, we cannot accept that power in a criminal case, where the law must be written by Congress. See United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812).

We think it appropriate to add a word concerning the stare decisis effect of Justice Stevens’ opinion. Since his vote is necessary to our judgment, and since his opinion rests upon the narrower ground, the Court’s holding is limited accordingly. See Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 193 (1977). But the narrowness of his ground consists of finding that “proceeds” means “profits” when there is no legislative history to the contrary. That is all that our judgment holds. It does not hold that the outcome is different when contrary legislative history does exist. Justice Stevens’ speculations on that point address a case that is not before him, are the purest of dicta, and form no part of today’s holding. Thus, as far as this particular statute is concerned, counsel remain free to argue Justice Stevens’ view (and to explain *524why it does not overrule Clark v. Martinez, supra). They should be warned, however: Not only do the Justices joining this opinion reject that view, but so also (apparently) do the Justices joining the principal dissent. See post, at 532, 546.

V

The money-laundering charges brought against Santos were based on his payments to the lottery winners and his employees, and the money-laundering charge brought against Diaz was based on his receipt of payments as an employee. Neither type of transaction can fairly be characterized as involving the lottery’s profits. Indeed, the Government did not try to prove, and respondents have not admitted, that they laundered criminal profits. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in the judgment.

When Congress fails to define potentially ambiguous statutory terms, it effectively delegates to federal judges the task of filling gaps in a statute. See Commissioner v. Fink, 483 U. S. 89,104 (1987) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“In the process of legislating it is inevitable that Congress will leave open spaces in the law that the courts are implicitly authorized to fill”). Congress has included definitions of the term “proceeds” in some criminal statutes,1 but it has not done so in 18 U. S. C. § 1956 (2000 ed. and Supp. V), the money laundering statute at issue in this case. That statute is somewhat unique because it applies to the proceeds of a varied and lengthy list of specified unlawful activities, see § 1956(c)(7) (defining “specified unlawful activity” to include, inter alia, *525controlled substance violations, murder, bribery, smuggling, various forms of fraud, concealment of assets, various environmental offenses, and health care offenses).

Although it did not do so, it seems clear that Congress could have provided that the term “proceeds” shall have one meaning when referring to some specified unlawful activities and a different meaning when referring to others. In fact, in the general civil forfeiture statute, §981, Congress did provide two different definitions of “proceeds,” recognizing that — for a subset of activities — “proceeds” must allow for the deduction of costs. Compare § 981(a)(2)(A) (2000 ed.) (defining “proceeds” in cases involving illegal goods and services to mean “property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly ... not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense”) with § 981(a)(2)(B) (defining “proceeds” with respect to lawful goods sold in an illegal manner as the amount of money acquired “less the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services”).

We have previously recognized that the same word can have different meanings in the same statute.2 If Congress could have expressly defined the term “proceeds” differently when applied to different specified unlawful activities, it seems to me that judges filling the gap in a statute with such a variety of applications may also do so, as long as they are conscientiously endeavoring to carry out the intent of Congress. Therefore, contrary to what Justice Alito and the plurality state, see post, at 546 (dissenting opinion); ante, at 522-523 (plurality opinion), this Court need not pick a single definition of “proceeds” applicable to every unlawful activity, no matter how incongruous some applications may be.

As Justice Alito rightly argues, the legislative history of §1956 makes it clear that Congress intended the term *526“proceeds” to include gross revenues from the sale of contraband and the operation of organized crime syndicates involving such sales.3 But that history sheds no light on how to identify the proceeds of many other types of specified unlawful activities. For example, one specified unlawful activity is the conduct proscribed by § 541, “Entry of goods falsely classified.” Section 541 provides that “[w]hoever knowingly effects any entry of goods, wares, or merchandise, at less than the true weight or measure thereof, or upon a false classification as to quality or value, or by the payment of less than the amount of duty legally due, shall be ... imprisoned not more than two years.” Conceivably the “proceeds” stemming from a violation of § 541 could be either the money realized by misstating the value — that is, the amount by which the criminal “profits” by paying reduced duties — or the total price at which the goods are later sold, even though the misclassification had only a trivial impact on that price.

Just as the legislative history fails to tell us how to calculate the “proceeds” of violations of § 541, it is equally silent on the proceeds of an unlicensed stand-alone gambling venture. The consequences of applying a “gross receipts” definition of “proceeds” to the gambling operation conducted by respondents are so perverse that I cannot believe they were contemplated by Congress, particularly given the fact that nothing in Justice Alito’s thorough review of the legislative history indicates otherwise.4

Constrained by a holding that the payment of expenses constitutes “promotion,”5 Justice Alito’s opinion runs *527squarely into what can be characterized as the “merger” problem. Allowing the Government to treat the mere payment of the expense of operating an illegal gambling business as a separate offense is in practical effect tantamount to double jeopardy, which is particularly unfair in this case because the penalties for money laundering are substantially more severe than those for the underlying offense of operating a gambling business. A money laundering conviction increases the statutory maximum from 5 to 20 years, and the Sentencing Commission has prescribed different Guidelines ranges for the two crimes.6 When a defendant has a significant criminal history or Guidelines enhancements apply, the statutory cap of five years in § 1955 is an important limitation on a defendant’s sentence — a limitation that would be eviscerated if Justice Alito’s definition of “proceeds” were applied in this case.

Justice Alito and Justice Breyer suggest that the advisory nature of the Guidelines post-Booker, United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005), or the possibility of an amendment to the money laundering Guideline, would soften this blow, post, at 547 (opinion of Alito, J.); post, at 530-531 (dissenting opinion of Breyer, J.), and indeed they could. But the result in the case at hand might not be softened at all *528by resort to Booker because respondents’ direct appeal was decided in 2000, several years prior to our decision in Booker. If Justice Alito’s opinion were to carry the day, both respondents would return to prison to serve the remainder of their lengthy sentences.

The revenue generated by a gambling business that is used to pay the essential expenses of operating that business is not “proceeds” within the meaning of the money laundering statute. As the plurality notes, there is “no explanation for why Congress would have wanted a transaction that is a normal part of a crime it had duly considered and appropriately punished elsewhere in the Criminal Code to radically increase the sentence for that crime.” Ante, at 517. This conclusion dovetails with what common sense and the rule of lenity would require. Faced with both a lack of legislative history speaking to the definition of “proceeds” when operating a gambling business is the “specified unlawful activity” and my conviction that Congress could not have intended the perverse result that would obtain in this case under Justice Alito’s opinion, the rule of lenity may weigh in the determination. And in that respect the plurality’s opinion is surely persuasive.7 Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.

*529Justice Breyer,

dissenting.

I join Justice Alito’s dissent while adding the following observations about what has been referred to as the “‘merger problem.’” Ante, at 515 (plurality opinion). Like the plurality, I doubt that Congress intended the money laundering statute automatically to cover financial transactions that constitute an essential part of a different underlying crime. Operating an illegal gambling business, for example, inevitably involves investment in overhead as well as payments to employees and winning customers; a drug offense normally involves payment for drugs; and bank robbery may well require the distribution of stolen cash to confederates. If the money laundering statute applies to this kind of transaction (i. e., if the transaction is automatically a “financial transaction” that “involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity” made “with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity”), then the Government can seek a heavier money laundering penalty (say, 20 years), even though the only conduct at issue is conduct that warranted a lighter penalty (say, 5 years for illegal gambling). 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(1).

It is difficult to understand why Congress would have intended the Government to possess this punishment-transforming power. Perhaps for this reason, the Tenth Circuit has written that “Congress aimed the crime of money laundering at conduct that follows in time the underlying crime rather than to afford an alternative means of punishing the prior ‘specified unlawful activity.’” United States v. Edgmon, 952 F. 2d 1206, 1214 (1991). And, in 1997, the United States Sentencing Commission told Congress that it agreed with the Department of Justice that “money laundering cannot properly be charged for ‘merged’ transactions that are part of the underlying crime.” Report to Congress: *530Sentencing Policy for Money Laundering Offenses, including Comments on Dept. of Justice Report, p. 16 (Sept. 1997), online at http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/launder.pdf (as visited May 20, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).

Thus, like the plurality, I see a “merger” problem. But, unlike the plurality, I do not believe that we should look to the word “proceeds” for a solution. For one thing, the plurality’s interpretation of that word creates the serious logical and practical difficulties that Justice Alito describes. See post, at 537-542 (dissenting opinion) (describing difficulties associated with proof and accounting). For another thing, there are other, more legally felicitous places to look for a solution. The Tenth Circuit, for example, has simply held that the money laundering offense and the underlying offense that generated the money to be laundered must be distinct in order to be separately punishable. Edgmon, supra, at 1214. Alternatively the money laundering statute’s phrase “with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity” may not apply where, for example, only one instance of that underlying activity is at issue. (The Seventh Circuit on a prior appeal in this case rejected that argument, and thus we do not consider it here. See United States v. Febus, 218 F. 3d 784, 789 (2000).)

Finally, if the “merger” problem is essentially a problem of fairness in sentencing, the Sentencing Commission has adequate authority to address it. Congress has instructed the Commission to “avoi[d] unwarranted sentencing disparities” among those “found guilty of similar criminal conduct. ” 28 U. S. C. § 991(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added); see also § 994(f) (instructing the Commission to pay particular attention to those disparities). The current money laundering Guideline, United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2S1.1 (Nov. 2007), by making no exception for a situation where nothing but a single instance of the underlying crime has taken place, would seem to create a serious and unwarranted disparity among defendants who have engaged in *531identical conduct. My hope is that the Commission’s past efforts to tie more closely the offense level for money laundering to the offense level of the underlying crime, see id., Supp. to App. C, Arndt. 634 (Nov. 2001), suggest a willingness to consider directly this kind of disparity. Such an approach could solve the “merger” problem without resort to creating complex interpretations of the statute’s language. And any such solution could be applied retroactively. See 28 U. S. C. § 994(u).

In light of these alternative possibilities, I dissent.

Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

Fairly read, the term “proceeds,” as used in the principal federal money laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a), means “the total amount brought in,” the primary dictionary definition. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1807 (1976) (hereinafter Webster’s 3d). See also Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1542 (2d ed. 1987) (“the total amount derived from a sale or other transaction”). The plurality opinion, however, makes no serious effort to interpret this important statutory term. Ignoring the context in which the term is used, the problems that the money laundering statute was enacted to address, and the obvious practical considerations that those responsible for drafting the statute almost certainly had in mind, that opinion is quick to pronounce the term hopelessly ambiguous and thus to invoke the rule of lenity. Concluding that “proceeds” means “profits,” the plurality opinion’s interpretation would frustrate Congress’ intent and maim a statute that was enacted as an important defense against organized criminal enterprises.

Fortunately, Justice Stevens’ opinion recognizes that the .term “proceeds” “include[s] gross revenues from the sale of contraband and the operation of organized crime syndicates involving such sales.” Ante, at 526 (opinion concur*532ring in judgment).1 I cannot agree with Justice Stevens’ approach insofar as it holds that the meaning of the term “proceeds” varies depending on the nature of the illegal activity that produces the laundered funds, but at least that approach preserves the correct interpretation of the statute in most of the cases that were the focus of congressional concern when the money laundering statute was enacted.

I

A

While the primary definition of the term “proceeds” is “the total amount brought in,” I recognize that the term may also be used to mean “net profit,” Webster’s 3d 1807, and I do not suggest that the question presented in this case can be answered simply by opening a dictionary. When a word has more than one meaning, the meaning that is intended is often made clear by the context in which the word is used, and thus in this case, upon finding that the term “proceeds” may mean both “the total amount brought in” and “net profit,” the appropriate next step is not to abandon any effort at interpretation and summon in the rule of lenity. Rather, the next thing to do is to ask what the term “proceeds” customarily means in the context that is relevant here — a money laundering statute.

The federal money laundering statute is not the only money laundering provision that uses the term “proceeds.” On the contrary, the term is a staple of money laundering laws, and it is instructive that in every single one of these provisions in which the term “proceeds” is defined — and there are many — the law specifies that “proceeds” means “the total amount brought in.”

*533The leading treaty on international money laundering, the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (Convention), Nov. 15, 2000, 2225 U. N. T. S. 209 (Treaty No. 1-39574), which has been adopted by the United States and 146 other countries,2 is instructive. This treaty contains a provision that is very similar to § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). Article 6.1 of the Convention obligates signatory nations to criminalize “[t]he ... transfer of property, knowing that such property is the proceeds of crime, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of helping any person who is involved in the commission of the predicate offence to evade the legal consequences of his or her action.” Id., at 277 (emphasis added). The Convention defines the term “proceeds” to mean “any property derived from or obtained, directly or indirectly, through the commission of an offence.” Id., at 275 (Art. 2(e)). The money laundering provision of the Convention thus covers gross receipts.3 The term “proceeds” is given a similarly broad scope in the Model Money Laundering Act (Model Act). See President’s Commission on Model State Drug Laws, Economic Remedies § C (1993). Section 5(a)(1) of the Model Act criminalizes transactions involving property that is “the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity,” and the Model Act defines “proceeds” as “property acquired or derived directly *534or indirectly from, produced through, realized through, or caused by an act or omission ... including] any property of. any kind,” §4(a).

Fourteen States have money laundering statutes that define the term “proceeds,” and in every one of these laws the term is defined in a way that encompasses gross receipts. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-2314(N)(3) (West 2001), 13-2317(F)(4)(b) (West Supp. 2007); Ark. Code Ann. §5-42-203(5) (2006); Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11370.9(h)(1) (West 2007); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§708A-2, 708A-3 (2006 Supp.); Ind. Code §§35-45-15-4, 35-45-15-5 (West 2004); Iowa Code §§706B.1(1), 706B.2 (2005); La. Stat. Ann. § 14:230(A)(4) (West 2004); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 750.41lj(f), 750.411k (West 2004); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§30-51-2(E), 30-51-4(A) (2004); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1315.51(H), 1315.55 (Lexis 2006) ; Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§34.01(4), 34.02 (West Supp. 2007) ; Utah Code Ann. §§76-10-1902(9), 76-10-1903 (Lexis 2007); Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-246.2, 18.2-246.3 (Lexis 2004); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.83.010(5), 9A.83.020 (2006). Cf. N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:21-25(d) (West 2005).4

This pattern of usage is revealing. It strongly suggests that when lawmakers, knowledgeable about the nature and problem of money laundering, use the term “proceeds” in a *535money laundering provision, they customarily mean for the term to reach all receipts and not just profits.5

B

There is a very good reason for this uniform pattern of usage. Money laundering provisions serve two chief ends. First, they provide deterrence by preventing drug traffickers and other criminals who amass large quantities of cash from using these funds “to support a luxurious lifestyle” or otherwise to enjoy the fruits of their crimes. Model Act, Policy Statement, at C-105. See President’s Commission on Organized Crime, Interim Report to President and Attorney General, The Cash Connection: Organized Crime, Financial Institutions, and Money Laundering 7-8 (Oct. 1984) (hereinafter Interim Report); Aranson, Bouker, & Hannan, Money Laundering, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 721, 722 (1994); H. R. Rep. No. 99-746, p. 16 (1986) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.). Second, they inhibit the growth of criminal enterprises by preventing *536the use of dirty money to promote the enterprise’s growth. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §§ 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), (a)(2)(A), and (a)(3)(A); Model Act §§ 5(a)(2), (4); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:21-25(b)(1); Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§34.02(a)(3)-(4).

Both of these objectives are frustrated if a money laundering statute is limited to profits. Dirty money may be used to support “a luxurious lifestyle” and to grow an illegal enterprise whenever the enterprise possesses large amounts of illegally obtained cash. And illegal enterprises may acquire such cash while engaging in unlawful activity that is unprofitable.

Suppose, for example, that a drug cartel sends a large shipment of drugs to this country, a good part of the shipment is intercepted, the remainder is sold, the cartel ends up with a net loss but with a large quantity of cash on its hands, and the cartel uses the cash in financial transactions that are designed to conceal the source of the cash or to promote further crime. There is no plausible reason why Congress would not have wanted the money laundering statute to apply to these financial transactions. If the cartel leaders use the money to live in luxury, this provides an incentive for these individuals to stay in the business and for others to enter. If the cartel uses the money to finance future drug shipments or to expand the business, public safety is harmed.

It is certainly true that Congress, in enacting the federal money laundering statute, was primarily concerned about criminal enterprises that realize profits. A criminal operation that consistently loses money will not last very long and thus presents a lesser danger than a profitable operation. But narrowing a money laundering statute so that it reaches only profits produces two perverse results that Congress cannot have wanted. First, it immunizes successful criminal enterprises during those periods when they are operating temporarily in the red. Second, and more important, it introduces pointless and difficult problems of proof. Because *537the dangers presented by money laundering are present whenever criminals have large stores of illegally derived funds on their hands, there is little reason to require proof— which may be harder to assemble than the plurality opinion acknowledges — that the funds represent profits.

C

The implausibility of a net income interpretation is highlighted in cases involving professionals and others who are hired to launder money. Those who are knowledgeable about money laundering stress the importance of prosecuting these hired money launderers. See, e. g., Depts. of Treasury and Justice, The 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy, pp. ix-x, 1-2 (Sept. 2001), online at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/ml2001.pdf; Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, 1996-1997 Report on Money Laundering Typologies 7 (Feb. 1997), online at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/31/29/34043795.pdf; Butterworths International Guide to Money Laundering Law and Practice 629 (T. Graham 2d ed. 2003); Ratliff, Third-Party Money Laundering: Problems of Proof and Prosecutorial Discretion, 7 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 173 (1996); Sultzer, Money Laundering: The Scope of the Problem and Attempts to Combat It, 63 Tenn. L. Rev. 143, 147-148 (1995); H. R. Rep., at 16-17.

A net income interpretation would risk hamstringing such prosecutions. To violate 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(1), a defendant must “kno[w] that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity.” A professional money launderer is not likely to know (or perhaps even to care) whether the enterprise is operating in the black when the funds in question were acquired. Therefore, under a net income interpretation, financial specialists and others who are hired to launder funds would generally be beyond the reach of the statute, something that Congress almost certainly did not intend.

*538It is revealing that the money laundering statute explicitly provides that a money launderer need only know that “the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of [specified illegal] activity.” § 1956(c)(1). Thus, the prosecution is not required to prove that a hired money launderer knew that funds provided for laundering derived from, say, drug sales as opposed to gambling. There is no reason to think that hired money launderers are more likely to know whether funds include profits than they are to know the nature of the illegal activity from which the funds were derived. Consequently, § 1956(c) suggests that Congress did not intend to require proof that a hired money launderer knew that funds provided for laundering included profits.

The plurality opinion dismisses these concerns with the observation that a jury may infer that a hired launderer knew that funds included profits if the launderer had a long-running relationship with the entity or person providing the funds or knew that the entity or person had been involved in the illegal enterprise for a lengthy period. See ante, at 521. But what about the case where the launderer accepts a million dollars of drug money on a single occasion? And even if there would be legally sufficient evidence to support an inference of the requisite knowledge under the circumstances that the plurality opinion posits, the requirement of convincing a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds included profits would pose a troublesome and (in light of the aim of the money laundering statute) pointless obstacle.

D

Even in cases in which the defendants are alleged to have been involved in the underlying criminal activity, a net income interpretation would produce nettlesome problems that Congress cannot have wanted. These problems may be especially acute in the very cases that money laundering statutes principally target, that is, cases involving large-scale *539criminal operations that continue over a substantial period of time, particularly drug cartels and other organized crime syndicates.

The federal money laundering statute was enacted in the wake of an influential report by the President’s Commission on Organized Crime that focused squarely on criminal enterprises of this type. See Interim Report 7-8 (described in S. Rep. No. 99-433, pp. 2-4 (1986) (hereinafter S. Rep.) and H. R. Rep., at 16). The Commission identified drug traffickers and other organized criminal groups as presenting the most serious problems. See Interim Report 7. The Commission found that “narcotics traffickers, who must conceal billions of dollars in cash from detection by the government, create by far the greatest demand for money laundering schemes” but that “numerous other types of activities typical of organized crime, such as loansharking and gambling, also create an appreciable demand for such schemes.” Ibid. To illustrate the scope and nature of the money laundering problem, a section of the Interim Report was devoted to case studies, most of which involved the laundering of drug money. Id., at 29-49.

As a prime example of the problem of money laundering, the report discussed the so-called “Pizza Connection” case that was prosecuted in federal court in New York City in the 1980’s. In that case, the evidence showed that the Sicilian Mafia and organized crime elements in the United States, over a period of many years, imported huge amounts of heroin into this country, sold the heroin here, accumulated millions of dollars of cash, and then laundered the funds by smuggling them overseas in suitcases or funneling the money through a maze of bank accounts. See id., at 31-35; United States v. Casamento, 887 F. 2d 1141, 1148-1149 (CA2 1989).

Following the issuance of the Interim Report, Congress turned its attention to the problem of money laundering, and much of the discussion focused on the need to prevent laundering by drug and organized crime syndicates. See, e. g., *540S. Rep., at 3 (discussing “organized crime ‘businesses’ such as gambling, prostitution, and loansharking”), 4 (“Money laundering is a crucial financial underpinning of organized crime and narcotics trafficking” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hearing on Money Laundering Legislation before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1985) (statement of Chairman Thurmond), 29 (statement of Sen. Biden), 30 (statement of Sen. DeConcini), 31 (statement of Sen. D’Amato), 53 (statement of Assistant Attorney General Trott).

In light of these concerns, it is most unlikely that Congress meant to enact a money laundering statute that would present daunting obstacles in the very sort of cases that had been identified as presenting the most pressing problems, that is, cases, like the “Pizza Connection” case, in which law enforcement intercepts cash or wire transfers of funds derived from drug sales or other unlawful activity that occurred over a period of time. The plurality opinion’s interpretation of the term “proceeds,” however, would often produce such problems. Tracing funds back to particular drug sales and proving that these sales were profitable will often prove impossible. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S. 321, 351-352 (1998) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Indeed, it will often be hard even to establish with any precision the period of time during which the drug sales occurred. But assuming that the Government can prove roughly when the funds were acquired, the next hurdle would be to show that the drug ring had net income during the time when the funds were acquired.

“Net income” means “[t]he excess of revenues over all related expenses for a given period.” R. Estes, Dictionary of Accounting 88 (1981) (emphasis deleted). There are no generally accepted accounting principles for determining the net income of illegal enterprises, and therefore, in order to apply a net income interpretation, special accounting rules would have to be developed.

*541In the drug-money cases that I have been discussing, the courts would have to decide whether the drug syndicate’s net income should be calculated on an annual, quarterly, or some other basis. In addition, the courts would be forced to devise rules for determining the scope of the enterprise for which the net income calculation must be performed. Suppose, for example, that there were connections of an uncertain nature or degree between drug operations in different cities or countries. Rules would be needed to determine whether affiliated criminal groups should be regarded as one enterprise or several. And proof regarding the connections between such operations would often be very difficult to obtain. Criminal enterprises do not have papers of incorporation, partnership agreements, or (in most instances) other documents establishing precise business relationships.

Rules would also be needed in order to determine whether particular illegal expenditures should be considered as expenses. In the “Pizza Connection” case, the Sicilian Mafia used its income for such things as the murder of magistrates, police officers, witnesses, and rivals. See, e. g., Casamento, supra, at 1154-1156; United States v. Gambino, 809 F. Supp. 1061,1065-1068 (SDNY 1992). Are these expenditures simply a cost of engaging in the drug trade? Are they business expenses?

If a net income interpretation were taken to its logical conclusion, it presumably would be necessary as well to work out rules for the depreciation of instrumentalities of crime that must occasionally be replaced due to the efforts of law enforcement. But it seems quite implausible that Congress wanted courts or juries in money laundering cases to grapple with questions such as the useful life of, say, a drug processing plant or laboratory or the airplanes and boats that are used to smuggle drugs. And assuming that the accounting issues can ultimately be resolved by the courts, there would remain serious problems of proof. Illegal enterprises gener*542ally do not keep books and records like legitimate businesses do.

It is tempting to dismiss many of the problems noted above on the ground that “everyone knows” that drug cartels, organized crime syndicates, and the like make a profit. But such groups may not operate in the black at all times, and in any event, if net income is an element of the money laundering offense, the prosecution must prove net income beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot simply ask the jury to take notice of the fact that these groups are profitable.

My point in citing the accounting and proof problems that would be produced by a net income interpretation is not that the “‘receipts’” interpretation is preferable because “it is easier to prosecute,” ante, at 519 (plurality opinion), but that creating these obstacles would serve no discernible purpose. Even if a drug or gambling ring was temporarily operating in the red during a particular period, the laundering of money acquired during that time would present the same dangers as the laundering of money acquired during times of profit. It is therefore implausible that Congress wanted to throw up such pointless obstacles.

The plurality opinion attempts to minimize all these problems by stating that “to establish the proceeds element under the ‘profits’ interpretation, the prosecution needs to show only that a single instance of specified unlawful activity was profitable and gave rise to the money involved in a charged transaction.” Ante, at 520. This suggestion ignores both the language of the money laundering statute, which makes no reference to an “instance” of unlawful activity, and the realities of money laundering prosecutions. The prototypical money laundering case is not a case in which a defendant engages in a single, discrete criminal act and then launders the money derived from that act — for example, a cáse in which a “felon . . . uses . . . stolen money to pay for the rented getaway car.” Ante, at 516. Rather, the proto*543typical case involves mimerous criminal acts that occur over a period of time and the accumulation of funds from all these acts prior to laundering — for example, the organized crime syndicate or drug cartel that amasses large sums before engaging in a laundering transaction.

Take, for example, a case in which a defendant is charged with doing what was done in the “Pizza Connection” case— transferring millions of dollars of drug money overseas, knowing that the funds represent the proceeds of drug trafficking (“some form of unlawful activity”) and that the transfer was designed to conceal the origin of the funds. See 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(2)(B). In such a case, it is unrealistic to think that individual dollars can be traced back to individual drug sales — or that Congress wanted to require such tracing.

Although the plurality opinion begins by touting the “single instance” theory as a cure for the accounting and proof problems that a “profits” interpretation produces, the plurality’s application of the “single instance” theory to the case at hand shows that this theory will not work. In this case, the “unlawful activity” that produced the funds at issue in the substantive money laundering counts was the operation of the Santos lottery,6 and it is hardly apparent what constitutes a “single instance” of running a gambling business. Did each lottery drawing represent a separate “instance”? Each wager? And how long does each gambling “instance” last? A day? A week? A month?

When the plurality opinion addresses these questions, it turns out that “a single instance” means all instances that are charged, i. e., it means that the Government had to show that receipts exceeded costs during the time the defendant allegedly conducted, financed, etc., the gambling operation. See ante, at 520-521, n. 7. Here, since the Indictment alleged that the Santos lottery continued for more than 6 years (“[beginning in or about January 1989 and continuing to in *544or about December 1994, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury”),7 the plurality would apparently compel the Government to prove that the lottery was profitable over this entire period.

If this is where the “single instance” theory leads, the theory plainly does not solve the accounting and proof problems we have noted. And the plurality’s suggestion that the Government had to show that the gambling operation was profitable for this entire period leads to preposterous results. Suppose that the lottery was profitable for the first five years and, at the end of each year, respondents laundered funds derived from the business. Suppose that in the sixth year the business incurred heavy losses — losses so heavy that they wiped out all of the profits from the first five years. According to the plurality, if respondents were found to have operated the lottery during the entire 6-year period, then the financial transactions that occurred at the end of years one, two, three, four, and five would not violate the money laundering statute, even though an accounting done at those times would have come to the conclusion that the funds included profits. That result makes no sense.

Whenever a money laundering indictment charges that the laundered funds derived from- an “unlawful activity” that comprehends numerous acts that occurred over a considerable period of time — and that is precisely the situation in many of the types of cases that the money laundering statute principally targeted — the plurality opinion’s interpretation will produce difficulties. I have already discussed drug and gambling cases, and similar problems will arise in cases in which the unlawful activity is a form of fraud. For example, the unlawful activity in mail fraud (18 U. S. C. § 1341) is the scheme to defraud, not the individual mailings carried out in furtherance of the scheme. See Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1,19 (1999); United States v. Mankarious, 151 F. 3d 694 *545(CA7 1998). In such a case, what will constitute the “single instance of unlawful activity”? Will each mailing be a separate “instance”? The same problem arises with other fraud predicates, including wire fraud (§ 1343), see, e. g., United States v. Zvi, 168 F. 3d 49 (CA2 1999), and financial institution fraud (§ 1344), see, e. g., United States v. Farr, 69 F. 3d 545, 1995 WL 638249 (CA9 1995) (unpublished).

The plurality opinion suggests that the application of a profits interpretation will be easy in cases in which the financial transactions are payments of “expenses.” Ante, at 516-517. But it may be no small matter to determine whether particular payments are for “expenses.” When the manager of a gambling operation distributes cash to those who work in the operation, the manager may be paying them the rough equivalent of a salary; that is, the recipients may expect to receive a certain amount for their services whether or not the operation is profitable. On the other hand, those who work in the operation may have the expectation of receiving a certain percentage of the gross revenue (perhaps even in addition to a salary), in which case their distribution may include profits. Such was the case in Santos’ lottery, where the runners were paid a percentage of gross revenue. See Indictment 5; 16 Tr. 1399 (Oct. 9, 1997).

The plurality opinion cites 18 U. S. C. § 1963(a) and 21 U. S. C. § 853(a) for the proposition that Congress has “elsewhere” imposed the burden of proving that illegally obtained funds represent profits, but the plurality opinion’s examples are inapposite. Ante, at 519-520. Neither of these provisions, however, requires a determination of net income. Both provisions permit a fine in the amount of “not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.” 18 U. S. C. § 1963(a). Thus, the term “proceeds” as used in these provisions is not limited to profits.8

*546For all these reasons, I am convinced that the term “proceeds” in the money laundering statute means gross receipts, not net income. And contrary to the approach taken by Justice Stevens, I do not see how the meaning of the term “proceeds” can vary depending on the nature of the illegal activity that produced the laundered funds.

II

A

It is apparent that a chief reason for interpreting the term “proceeds” to mean net income in all money laundering cases (the approach taken in the plurality opinion) or in some money laundering cases (the approach taken by Justice Stevens) is the desire to avoid a “merger” problem in gambling cases — that is, to avoid an interpretation that would mean that every violation of §1955 (conducting an illegal gambling business) would also constitute a violation of the money laundering statute, which carries a much higher maximum penalty (20 as opposed to 5 years’ imprisonment). This concern is misplaced and provides no justification for hobbling a statute that applies to more than 250 predicate offenses and not just running an illegal gambling business.

*547First, the so-called merger problem is fundamentally a sentencing problem, and the proper remedy is a sentencing remedy. While it is true that the money laundering statute has a higher maximum sentence than the gambling business statute, neither statute has a mandatory minimum. Thus, these statutes do not require a judge to increase a defendant’s sentence simply because the defendant was convicted of money laundering as well as running a gambling business. When the respondents were convicted, their money laundering convictions resulted in higher sentences only because of the money laundering Sentencing Guideline, United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2S1.1 (Nov. 1997) (USSG), which, in the pre-Booker 9 era, was mandatory. I agree with Justice Breyer, ante, at 530-531 (dissenting opinion), that if a defendant is convicted of money laundering for doing no more than is required for a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1955, the defendant’s sentence should be no higher than it would have been if the defendant had violated only that latter provision. Insofar as the Guidelines previously required — and now advise in favor of — a stiffer sentence, the obvious remedy is an amendment of the money laundering Guideline. And of course, now that the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, a sentencing judge could impose the sentence called for by the Guideline that applies to the gambling business provision, see USSG § 2E3.1(a)(l) (Nov. 2007), or an entirely different sentence.

Second, the merger problem that the plurality opinion and Justice Stevens seek to avoid assumes the correctness of the interpretation of the promotion prong of the money laundering statute that the Seventh Circuit adopted in Santos’ direct appeal, i e., that a defendant “promotes” an illegal gambling business by doing those things, such as paying employees and winning bettors, that are needed merely to keep *548the business running. As Santos’ brief puts it, the merger problem arises when the interpretation of “proceeds” as gross receipts is “[cjombined with the Government’s broad application of the ‘promotion’ prong of the money laundering statute.” Brief for Respondent Santos 6. But the meaning of the element of promotion is not before us in this case, and it would not make sense to allow our interpretation of “proceeds” to be dictated by an unreviewed interpretation of another statutory element.

Third, even if there is a merger problem, it occurs in only a subset of money laundering cases. The money laundering statute reaches financial transactions that are intended to promote more than 250 other crimes, ante, at 516 (plurality opinion), as well as transactions that are intended to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of illegally obtained funds. See 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a). The meaning of the term “proceeds” cannot vary from one money laundering case to the next, and the plurality opinion and Justice Stevens inappropriately allow the interpretation of that term to be controlled by a problem that may arise in only a subset of cases.

B

The plurality opinion defends its interpretation by invoking the rule of lenity, but the rule of lenity does not require us to put aside the usual tools of statutory interpretation or to adopt the narrowest possible dictionary definition of the terms in a criminal statute. On the contrary, “[b]ecause the meaning of language is inherently contextual, we have declined to deem a statute ‘ambiguous’ for purposes of lenity merely because it was possible to articulate a construction more narrow than that urged by the Government.” Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 108 (1990) (citing McElroy v. United States, 455 U. S. 642, 657-658 (1982)). As I have explained above, the meaning of “proceeds” in the money laundering statute emerges with reasonable clarity when *549the term is viewed in context, making the rule of lenity inapplicable.

* * *

For these reasons, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and I therefore respectfully dissent.

González, J.

¶1 — Petitioner Derrick Robert Evans stole a business check from the small business where he worked, made the check out to himself for $500, then forged a signature on the check and cashed it. Evans was charged with identity theft and convicted after a bench trial. See RCW 9.35.020(1) (“No person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit... any crime.”); see also RCW 9.35.005(4) (citing RCW 9A.04.110); RCW 9A.04.110(17) (defining “person” to include “any natural person and, where relevant, a corporation”). Evans now challenges his conviction on the ground that RCW 9.35.020 (the identity theft statute) criminalizes theft of a natural person’s identity but does not criminalize theft of a corporate identity — or, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

¶2 We reject Evans’s arguments and affirm the Court of Appeals. The plain language and legislative history of the identity theft statute demonstrate that theft of a corporate identity is a crime. The identity theft statute provided fair warning to Evans and other persons and contains suffi*191ciently objective standards for purposes of enforcement. We thus affirm Evans’s conviction.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 In October 2009, Evans stole a business check from his employer, a small company called Allube Inc., which was engaged in the business of automobile maintenance and repair in Grays Harbor County, Washington. Evans forged a name on the stolen check and cashed it for $500. He was charged with second degree identity theft in violation of RCW 9.35.020(3). Evans was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to 6 months in jail, followed by 12 months of community custody.

¶4 Evans appealed, arguing that the identity theft statute either does not proscribe theft of a corporate identity or is unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals upheld Evans’s conviction in a published opinion, holding that RCW 9.35.020 proscribes theft of a corporate identity, provides fair warning that theft of a corporate identity is a crime, and establishes sufficient standards for enforcement. State v. Evans, 164 Wn. App. 629, 265 P.3d 179 (2011). We granted discretionary review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5 Issues of statutory construction and constitutionality are questions of law subject to de novo review. State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wn.2d 528, 531, 98 P.3d 1190 (2004).

III. ANALYSIS

¶6 We reject Evans’s arguments. First, the plain language and legislative history of the identity theft statute establish that the statute protects both individual and corporate identities. The legislature intended to protect small businesses and other corporations as well as natural persons from the substantial harms caused by identity *192theft, whether in the form of stolen checks, fraudulent loans, or the myriad other ways identity theft can occur.

¶7 Second, as a matter of due process, the identity theft statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The statute provides fair warning to Evans and others that theft of a corporate identity can be punished as a crime. The mere fact that a term or phrase requires interpretation is not sufficient to render a criminal statute void for vagueness. Further, application of the statute to theft of corporate identities is not inherently subjective. The relevant standards are clear and workable, and there is no substantial risk of arbitrary enforcement. We affirm Evans’s conviction for these reasons.

1. Statutory Interpretation

¶8 We must determine, according to our established principles of statutory interpretation, whether the identity theft statute is intended to protect corporations from theft of the corporate identity. The purpose of statutory interpretation is “to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” State v. Sweany, 174 Wn.2d 909, 914, 281 P.3d 305 (2012); State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003); In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 121 Wn.2d 655, 663, 853 P.2d 444 (1993).

¶9 When possible, we derive legislative intent solely from the plain language enacted by the legislature, considering the text of the provision in question, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815, 820, 239 P.3d 354 (2010); Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Plain language that is not ambiguous does not require construction. State v. Delgado, 148 Wn.2d 723, 727, 63 P.3d 792 (2003); State v. Wilson, 125 Wn.2d 212, 217, 883 P.2d 320 (1994).

¶10 If more than one interpretation of the plain language is reasonable, the statute is ambiguous and we must *193then engage in statutory construction. City of Seattle v. Winebrenner, 167 Wn.2d 451, 456, 219 P.3d 686 (2009); State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005). We may then look to legislative history for assistance in discerning legislative intent. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d at 820; State v. Bash, 130 Wn.2d 594, 601, 925 P.2d 978 (1996).

¶11 If a penal statute is ambiguous and thus subject to statutory construction, it will be “strictly construed” in favor of the defendant. State v. Hornaday, 105 Wn.2d 120, 127, 713 P.2d 71 (1986); Wilson, 125 Wn.2d at 216-17; Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d at 601. This means that we will interpret an ambiguous penal statute adversely to the defendant only if statutory construction “clearly establishes” that the legislature intended such an interpretation. Winebrenner, 167 Wn.2d at 462. Otherwise, if the indications of legislative intent are “insufficient to clarify the ambiguity,” we will then interpret the statute in favor of the defendant. In re Post Sentencing Review of Charles, 135 Wn.2d 239, 250 & n.4, 252-53, 955 P.2d 798 (1998). This is known as “the rule of lenity.” Id. at 250 n.4; Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d at 601. Requiring a relatively greater degree of confidence when resolving ambiguities within penal statutes against criminal defendants helps further the separation of powers doctrine and guarantees that the legislature has independently prohibited particular conduct prior to any criminal law enforcement. See United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348-49, 92 S. Ct. 515, 30 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1971); United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 76, 95, 5 L. Ed. 37 (1820); cf. State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884, 901, 279 P.3d 849 (2012) (noting “the substantial liberty interests at stake” within the criminal justice system and the “ ‘awesome consequences’ ” of criminal prosecution and thus “the need for numerous checks against corruption, abuses of power, and other injustices” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Pettitt, 93 Wn.2d 288, 294-95, 609 P.2d 1364 (1980))).

¶12 In sum, our interpretation of a penal statute will be either the only reasonable interpretation of the plain lan*194guage or, if there is no single reasonable interpretation of the plain language, then whichever interpretation is clearly established by statutory construction or, if there is no such clearly established interpretation, then whichever reasonable and justifiable interpretation is most favorable to the defendant. As explained below, although the plain language of the identity theft statute is ambiguous on its own, the relevant legislative history clearly establishes that the legislature intended to protect small businesses and other corporations from identity theft. Thus, the rule of lenity does not apply and we interpret the statute adversely to Evans.

a. Plain Language

¶13 The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 does not resolve whether corporations are included within the class of potential direct victims of identity theft. The statute prohibits any “person” from obtaining or using a “means of identification” or “financial information” of “another person, living or dead,” with the intent to commit a crime. RCW 9.35.020. Although “person” often refers to an individual human being, “its meaning varies within the RCW” in distinct legal contexts and for particular purposes. Segaline v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 169 Wn.2d 467, 473, 238 P.3d 1107 (2010). For purposes of chapter 9.35 RCW, “person” is defined by reference to RCW 9A.04.110, which defines “person” as “any natural person and, where relevant, a corporation, joint stock association, or an unincorporated association.” RCW 9A.04.110(17); see RCW 9.35.005(4). Although corporations, “by their very nature as artificial creatures, are impersonal, possessing neither emotions nor sentiments,” Grayson v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 72 Wn.2d 999, 1014, 436 P.2d 756 (1967) (Hale, J., dissenting), the “ ‘corporate personality is a fiction’ ” sometimes “ ‘intended to be acted upon as though it were a fact,’ ” Tyee Constr. Co. v. Dulien Steel Prods., Inc., 62 Wn.2d 106, 112, 381 P.2d 245 (1963) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, *195316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)). Because the legislature, for purposes of the identity theft statute, has specifically defined the term “person” to include corporations “where relevant,” we must adhere to that definition for purposes of statutory interpretation and consider whether corporations are relevant in the context of identity theft. See State v. Sullivan, 143 Wn.2d 162, 175, 19 P.3d 1012 (2001); State v. Yancy, 92 Wn.2d 153, 156, 594 P.2d 1342 (1979); cf. J.L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Sec. Co., 9 Wn.2d 45, 69, 113 P.2d 845 (1941) (“ ‘All fictions of law have been introduced for the purpose of convenience and to subserve the ends of justice.’ ” (quoting State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St. 137, 177, 30 N.E. 279 (1892))).

¶14 Corporations, especially small businesses, are clearly relevant in this context as potential direct victims of identity theft. A third party’s use of a corporation’s “means of identification” or “financial information” easily could “result in significant harm to [the corporation’s] privacy, financial security, and other interests” — precisely the type of harm that the identity theft statute is intended to prevent. RCW 9.35.001; see, e.g., United States v. Hilton, No. 5:10CR2, 2010 WL 2926055, at *3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75082, at *8 (W.D.N.C. July 23, 2010) (unpublished) (“[Corporate identity theft is no less damaging than personal identity theft, as this case illustrates. The alleged theft of the Woodsmiths Company name in this case is claimed to have led to the ruin of the company and the loss of jobs for all of its employees.”); State v. McVay, noted at 157 Wn. App. 1004, 2010 WL 2904148, at *1, 2, 2010 Wash. App. LEXIS 1548, at *1-5 (unpublished)1 (corporation was direct victim of identity *196theft); State v. Meske, noted at 149 Wn. App. 1002, 2009 WL 449071, at *1, 2009 Wash. App. LEXIS 593, at *1 (unpublished) (same); cf. Steele v. State, 85 Wn.2d 585, 592-93, 537 P.2d 782 (1975) (noting that corporations are afforded a limited “ ‘right to privacy’ ” under the law (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652, 70 S. Ct. 357, 94 L. Ed. 401 (1950))). Indeed, both “financial information” and “means of identification” are defined to include items that would be considered personal and sensitive information for a corporation as a legal person. See RCW 9.35.005(1) (“financial information” includes “[a]ccount numbers and balances [,] . . . [c]odes, passwords, . . . tax identification numbers, . . . and other information held for the purpose of account access or transaction initiation”); RCW 9.35.005(3) (“means of identification” includes “[a] current or former name of the person, telephone number, an electronic address, ... or tax identification number”); see also RCW 9.35.001 (legislature intended to prevent misuse of “personal and sensitive information”).

¶15 Under RCW 9.35.020(1), a victim of identity theft must be “another person, living or dead,” and corporations can qualify in one of two ways. First, all corporations simply can be considered dead in at least one sense of the term. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 579 (2002) (defining “dead” as “incapable of feeling or of being stirred emotionally or intellectually” or instead as “not naturally endowed with life : inanimate, inert”). Second, in the alternative, a corporation considered a “person” also can be considered “living or dead” depending on whether it remains in operation or instead has been dissolved. See, e.g., Weymouth v. Oudin, 56 Wash. 315, 315, 105 P. 1027 (1909) (“[A] corporation . . . was dissolved by decree .... But though the legal entity is dead, the present action goes to show that its discordant elements still live.”). In this sense, “living” can be defined as “active, effective, [and] functioning,” while “dead” can be defined as “lacking power or effect,” as in “a dead law” or a dead human being. Webster’s, *197 supra, at 579, 1324. On numerous occasions, Washington courts have referred to corporations as living or dead in this manner. See Ballard Square Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Dynasty Constr. Co., 158 Wn.2d 603, 621, 146 P.3d 914 (2006) (J.M. Johnson, J., concurring) (acknowledging the “common law notion that a corporation died at dissolution”); Pacesetter Real Estate, Inc. v. Fasules, 53 Wn. App. 463, 468, 767 P.2d 961 (1989) (noting that “once [the] reinstatement period passes, [a] corporation is ‘dead’ ” (quoting Globe Constr. Co. v. Yost, 173 Wash. 522, 527, 23 P.2d 892 (1933))); Clark v. Groger, 102 Wash. 188, 192, 172 P. 1164 (1918) (argument regarding a “dead corporation’s debts”); State ex rel. Dyer v. Middle Kittitas Irrig. Dist., 56 Wash. 488, 495, 106 P. 203 (1910) (“The real defendant is the corporation, which still lives and which must act through agents.”); Hawley v. Bonanza Queen Mining Co., 61 Wash. 90, 91, 111 P. 1073 (1910) (“ ‘The complete dissolution of a corporation destroys its capacity to be sued at law because a judgment can no more be rendered against a dead corporation than against a dead man.’ ”); Oilure Mfg. Co. v. Pidduck-Ross Co., 38 Wash. 137, 143, 80 P. 276 (1905) (denoting where the “plaintiff company lives and does business”); Sherron Assocs. Loan Fund V v. Galaxy Gaming Corp., noted at 140 Wn. App. 1013, 2007 WL 2358592, at *3, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 2479, at *9 (unpublished)2 (“Dead corporations may have successors just as dead people do.”); cf., e.g., Wachovia Sec., LLC v. Banco Panamericano, Inc., 674 F.3d 743, 753 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Loop’s counsel also represented that Loop was a ‘dead company.’ ”); Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. Vilsack, 563 F.3d 822, 836 (9th Cir. 2009) (transaction “was attempting to resurrect a dead company”); Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 811, 94 S. Ct. 2191, 40 L. Ed. 2d 566 (1974) (noting that “appellee union remains very much a live organization”); In re United Sec. Trust Co., 321 Pa. 276, *198285, 184 A. 106 (1936) (“[D]esirable uniformity of administration will be attained by applying the Bankruptcy Rule in all cases of the distribution of the assets of insolvents whether living or dead, individual or corporate, and ... the Bankruptcy Rule should hereafter be considered of general application.” (emphasis added)). Under either of these reasonable interpretations, a corporation considered a “person” also can be considered “living or dead” and thus a corporation can be a victim of identity theft under RCW 9.35.020. Cf. Popular Merch. Co. v. “21” Club, Inc., 343 F.2d 1011, 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (holding that corporations were included within statutory phrase “persons living or dead”).

¶16 An alternative interpretation, excluding corporations as potential victims, is also reasonable based on the plain language of the identity theft statute. “Living or dead” can refer specifically to biologically active or previously biologically active beings, which would apply only to natural persons and not corporations. See Webster’s, supra, at 579, 1324 (defining “living” as “not dead” and “exhibiting the life or motion of nature,” and defining “dead” as “having ended existence as a living or growing thing — used of organisms”). Related provisions do lend support to this interpretation. The statutory definition of “means of identification” provides some examples relevant only to natural persons, although the list is not exclusive or exhaustive, and as noted above, it includes some examples applicable to corporations as well. See RCW 9.35.005(3) (“means of identification” includes “a social security [number]” and “unique biometric data”). Likewise, “financial information” is defined as “information identifiable to the individual,” RCW 9.35.005(1) (emphasis added), and “individual” ordinarily refers to an individual human being, see, e.g., RCW 19-.215.010(3), but that is not always the case, see, e.g., Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 428-29 & n.13, 118 S. Ct. 2091, 141 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1998) (“[I]n the context of the entire section Congress undoubtedly intended the word 'individual’ to be construed as synonymous with the word *199‘person.’ ”). Adding to the potential confusion, “means of identification” is defined as information “personal to or identifiable with an individual or other person . . . .” RCW 9.35.005(3) (emphasis added). Although interpreting “living or dead” to exclude corporations as potential victims of identity theft would be relatively contrary to the apparent purposes of the identity theft statute, this interpretation does appear to be at least reasonable. Thus, we must turn to legislative history to resolve the ambiguity.

b. Legislative History

¶17 The legislative history of the identity theft statute clearly indicates that the legislature intended to protect small businesses and other corporations from identity theft. The crime of identity theft was first established in 1999, Laws of 1999, ch. 368, § 3, and then amended in relevant part in 2001, Laws of 2001, ch. 217, §§ 1, 7, 9. The legislative history also includes various relevant and probative committee hearings and floor debates concerning these enactments. Cf. Cosmo. Eng’g Grp., Inc. v. Ondeo Degremont, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 292, 304, 149 P.3d 666 (2006) (relying on relevant recordings of committee hearings and floor debates to discern legislative intent); Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 104-05, 829 P.2d 746 (1992) (court will consider all materials that are “sufficiently probative” of legislative intent). This legislative history clearly establishes the legislature’s intent to prevent harm to small businesses and other corporations caused by identity theft.

¶18 As originally enacted, the crime of identity theft included corporations as potential victims. The crime consisted of the “use” or “transfer” of any “means of identification” of “another person,” and the phrase “living or dead” was absent. Laws of 1999, ch. 368, § 3(1). Although the term “person” was not defined, a related provision of the same section made clear that businesses were included. See id. § 3(4) (“If the person violating this section is a business that *200repeatedly violates this section, that person also violates the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW.” (emphasis added)); see also id. § 3(1) (prohibiting any “person” from stealing the identity of “another person”); cf. Medcalf v. Dep’t of Licensing, 133 Wn.2d 290, 301, 944 P.2d 1014 (1997) (“We are bound to construe the word ... as having the same meaning in each subsection of the same statutory section.”).3 Leading up to this initial enactment, the legislature had been presented with testimony from a small number of actual victims of identity theft. See Hr’g on H.B. 1250 Before the H. Fin. Insts. & Ins. Comm. (Feb. 9, 1999), audio recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network, available at http://www.tvw.org; see also Hr’g on S.B. 1250 Before the S. Commerce, Trade, Hous., & Fin. Insts. Comm. (Mar. 23, 1999).4 The primary and most vocal witness testified that a large bundle of her checks had been stolen and then distributed among a large number of people and used at various commercial establishments; this created an administrative nightmare and damaged the victim’s credit rating. H. Fin. Insts. & Ins. Comm., supra, at 4 min., 52 sec. The same harms could easily befall a small business; indeed, the same victim testified that her investigation uncovered numerous other victims of identity theft, including one person she identified as a merchant. S. Commerce, Trade, Hous., & Fin. Insts. Comm., supra, at 1 hr., 11 min., 15 sec. Although the focus clearly was on natural persons as victims, small businesses and other corporations were also relevant and there was no reason to exclude them from the protection of the statute — and as noted above, the plain language of the bill demonstrates that they were indeed included. The bill moved through committee easily and was passed unanimously and without substantial discussion or debate before the House or Sen*201ate. Laws of 1999, ch. 368; see H. Floor Debate on Substitute H.B. 1250 (Mar. 4, 1999), at 1 hr., 9 min., 36 sec.; S. Floor Debate on Substitute H.B. 1250 (Apr. 14,1999,1:30 p.m.), at 2 hr., 54 min., 53 sec.; H. Floor Debate on Substitute H.B. 1250 (Apr. 23, 1999, 1:30 p.m.), at 2 min., 45 sec.

¶19 In 2001, the legislature sought to broaden and strengthen the identity theft provisions and related statutory provisions — not to exclude small businesses from the ambit of the statute. The 2001 amendments in part expanded (1) the type of underlying activity prohibited, to include “obtaining” and “possessing” in addition to “using” or “transferring;” (2) the information and items protected, to include “financial information” in addition to “means of identification;” and (3) the necessary mens rea, from the intent to unlawfully harm or commit a felony to the intent to commit any crime. See Laws of 2001, ch. 217, § 9(1). Accordingly, the bill was described to the legislature as strengthening the identity theft provisions. See, e.g., H. Floor Debate on Engrossed Substitute S.B. 5449 (Apr. 11, 2001, 10:00 a.m.), at 51 min., 54 sec. Testimony to the legislature in support of the 2001 amendments identified various potential forms of identity theft, including credit card fraud, theft of communication services, banking fraud, and loan fraud — forms of identity theft that clearly and directly threaten small businesses and other corporations as well as natural persons. See Hr’g on S.B. 5449 Before the S. Labor, Commerce, & Fin. Insts. Comm. (Jan. 29,2001), at 41 min., 22 sec. — 43 min., 40 sec. One witness in support of the amendments emphasized that strengthening the identity theft provisions was important for those who rely on “revolving lines of credit,” such as “ranchers and farmers,” noting that “in the farming and ranching business, we can ill-afford any more losses.” Id. at 32 min., 39 sec. — 33 min., 44 sec. Further, a representative from the Association of Washington Businesses noted that one of its member businesses had been a victim of identity theft. Id. at 1 hr., 4 min., 12 sec. The initial proponent of the bill in the *202House even opened his remarks by noting that identity theft is “a crime that victimizes both consumers and businesses” and that it was “a growing crime.” H. Floor Debate on Substitute H.B. 1250 (Apr. 11, 2001, 10:00 a.m.), at 51 min., 38 sec.; cf. In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795, 807-08, 854 P.2d 629 (1993) (noting that the “remarks of... a prime sponsor and drafter of the bill” can assist in determining legislative intent). The 2001 amendments were passed unanimously in the House and Senate. Laws of 2001, ch. 217. The legislature clearly did not intend to exclude small businesses and other corporations from the protections of the identity theft statute.

¶20 The phrase “living or dead” was also added by the 2001 enactment, but that phrase was not mentioned or discussed before any committee or on the floor of the House or the Senate. See S. Labor, Commerce, & Fin. Inst. Comm., supra, at 1 sec.; Hr’g on Engrossed Substitute S.B. 5449 Before the H. Fin. Insts.& Ins. Comm. (Mar. 28, 2001), at 26 min., 17 sec.; S. Floor Debate (Mar. 13, 2001,4:00 p.m.), at 1 hr., 50 min., 42 sec.; H. Floor Debate on Engrossed Substitute H.B. 5449 (Apr. 11, 2001, 10:00 a.m.), at 51 min., 19 sec.; S. Floor Debate (Apr. 16, 2001), at 2 hr., 14 min., 45 sec. The addition of the phrase obviously was meant to clarify that the class of potential victims under the statute was broader than what otherwise might have been thought. Numerous federal courts have had to address whether dead persons can be victims under the federal identity theft statute precisely because of the absence of any such clarification. See United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jimenez, 507 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007). The legislative history shows that the legislature intended to broaden and strengthen the identity theft provisions, in part to protect small businesses and other corporations, and the phrase “living or dead” was meant to ensure a broad rather than a narrow reading of the identity *203theft statute. It would be unjustifiable in light of the legislative history to interpret the phrase “living or dead” as narrowing the class of potential victims of identity theft by excluding corporations.

¶21 Given the testimony and remarks before the legislature, the types of harms the legislature was seeking to prevent, the context of the prior version of the statute protecting corporations as victims, and the apparent motivation underlying the 2001 amendments, the legislative history clearly establishes that the “living or dead” provision was intended only to ensure a broad scope to the identity theft statute, not to exclude corporations as potential victims. Thus, “living or dead” must be interpreted to describe corporations as well as natural persons, both of which are classes of potential victims of identity theft under RCW 9.35.020. The rule of lenity does not apply.

2. Vagueness

¶22 The identity theft statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The mere need for statutory construction does not render a statute unconstitutional. To the contrary, “no more than a reasonable degree of certainty can be demanded” and “one who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take the risk that he may cross the line.” Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 340, 72 S. Ct. 329, 96 L. Ed. 367 (1952). The identity theft statute gives fair warning that misappropriation of a corporate check with the intent to commit a crime is criminal conduct subject to prosecution, and the statute provides sufficiently objective standards for purposes of enforcement. Thus, the identity theft statute is not unconstitutionally vague.

a. Fair Warning

¶23 The identity theft statute provides the “fair warning” that is required by the due process clause in order to enforce criminal laws. Fair warning is required “so citizens *204‘may plan their activity accordingly and freely enjoy those activities which are not expressly illegal.’ ” Sullivan, 143 Wn.2d at 181 (quoting State v. Crediford, 130 Wn.2d 747, 766, 927 P.2d 1129 (1996) (Sanders, J., concurring)). Although no citizen is likely to review all penal statutes, requiring that penal statutes give fair warning in advance allows for criminal laws to be subjected to general public scrutiny and allows each person to investigate if he or she is unsure about the legality of certain conduct. Thus, a penal statute must “define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary persons can understand what conduct is proscribed,” but this test “does not require impossible standards of specificity or absolute agreement because some measure of vagueness is inherent in the use of our language.” Id. at 181-82.

¶24 We have found statutes to be unconstitutionally vague for failure to provide fair warning only in “exceptional cases,” City of Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22, 28, 759 P.2d 366 (1988), such as when important statutory terms were extremely hazy and remained entirely undefined, see State v. Williams, 144 Wn.2d 197, 204-06, 26 P.3d 890 (2001) (“mental health”); City of Bellevue v. Lorang, 140 Wn.2d 19, 30, 992 P.2d 496 (2000) (“legitimate communication”); State v. Richmond, 102 Wn.2d 242, 244, 683 P.2d 1093 (1984) (“lawful excuse”); City of Seattle v. Pullman, 82 Wn.2d 794, 798, 514 P.2d 1059 (1973) (“loitering”), or when prohibited conduct was defined by reference to an ever-changing federal publication not readily available to the public, see State v. Dougall, 89 Wn.2d 118, 121-22, 570 P.2d 135 (1977) (“It is unreasonable to expect an average person to continually research the Federal Register to determine what drugs are controlled substances____”), or when an important term involved too many variables and its application would be uncertain in any given case, City of Seattle v. Rice, 93 Wn.2d 728, 731-32, 612 P.2d 792 (1980) (“lawful order”). In contrast, we have not found statutes to be unconstitutionally vague simply because of the presence of ambiguity and the *205need for statutory construction. See In re Contested Election of Schoessler, 140 Wn.2d 368, 388-91, 998 P.2d 818 (2000); State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 500-02, 647 P.2d 6 (1982); Yancy, 92 Wn.2d at 156-57; Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 601.

¶25 Evans complains about the definition of “person” including corporations only “where relevant” and the need to interpret the phrase “living or dead,” and argues that the identity theft statute is unconstitutionally vague as a result. This argument fails because “[t]he fact that a statute requires interpretation does not make it void for vagueness.” Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm’t Co., 106 Wn.2d 1, 12, 721 P.2d 1 (1986). “Few statutes could withstand a test so strict.” Id.

¶26 The legislature is free to define the term “person” to include corporations “where relevant.” The meaning of any given term is allowed to depend on context, including related statutes and underlying legislative purposes. See State v. Watson, 160 Wn.2d 1, 8, 11, 154 P.3d 909 (2007); Haley v. Med. Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 741, 818 P.2d 1062 (1991) (“If a statute can be interpreted so as to have as a whole the required degree of specificity, then it can withstand a vagueness challenge despite its use of a term which, when considered in isolation, has no determinate meaning.”). Further, the concept of relevance is easily understood and applied. See In re Pers. Restraint of Adolph, 170 Wn.2d 556, 569 n.l, 243 P.3d 540 (2010) (applying statute allowing the admission of certain records into evidence only “where relevant” (emphasis omitted)). Defining the term “person” to include corporations where relevant provides the “sufficiently definite warning” that due process requires, even if the relevance of corporations may sometimes be relatively uncertain in particular contexts. Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231, 71 S. Ct. 703, 95 L. Ed. 886 (1951); see Eze, 111 Wn.2d at 27 (“ ‘[I]f men of ordinary intelligence can understand a penal statute, notwithstanding some possible areas of disagreement, it is not wanting in certainty.’ ” (quoting State v. Maciolek, 101 *206Wn.2d 259, 265, 676 P.2d 996 (1984))); Watson, 160 Wn.2d at 11 (statute is not unconstitutionally vague so long as “[o]rdinary people need not guess blindly at [its] meaning”); Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d at 266 (statute is not unconstitutionally vague “if the general area of conduct against which it is directed is made plain”).

¶27 Likewise, the need to interpret the phrase “living or dead” does not render the identity theft statute so vague as to be unconstitutional. A statute that is facially ambiguous often still provides fair warning of a broad, reasonable interpretation of the statute. That is why the rule of lenity is applied in favor of the defendant only after considering both plain language and legislative history to resolve apparent ambiguities. See State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536, 546, 242 P.3d 876 (2010); Charles, 135 Wn.2d at 250 n.4; Winebrenner, 167 Wn.2d at 462. The average person is not expected to research legislative history to determine the meaning of a penal statute; the statute need only give fair warning. The identity theft statute defines the term “person” to include corporations and then denotes potential victims of identity theft as any persons “living or dead,” which reasonably could include corporations. Thus, the identity theft statute provides fair warning that corporations are potential victims of identity theft.

¶28 The doctrine of unconstitutional vagueness is concerned with inherently hazy or variable (as opposed to merely ambiguous) terms. In this case, the identity theft statute protects any “person, living or dead” and the term “person” includes corporations insofar as they are relevant. The statute makes clear the general area of conduct that is prohibited and the plain language also clearly suggests, even if not definitively, that theft of a corporate identity is included within that prohibition. The mere fact that there are two reasonable interpretations of the statute’s plain language — including or excluding corporations as victims— does not render the statute void for vagueness. In sum, the statute provides fair warning that obtaining or using a *207corporate check with the intent to commit fraud, theft, or any other crime is itself punishable as a crime.

b. Arbitrary Enforcement

¶29 The identity theft statute also provides sufficiently objective standards for purposes of enforcement. The mere fact that statutory construction is necessary to determine whether corporations are included in the class of victims does not render the statute unconstitutional due to a risk of arbitrary enforcement.

¶30 Due process requires criminal statutes to establish workable standards that ensure the law will be enforced “in a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory manner.” City of Spokane v. Neff, 152 Wn.2d 85, 89, 93 P.3d 158 (2004). A lack of objective standards allows “police officers, judge, and jury to subjectively decide what conduct the statute proscribes ... in any given case.” Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d at 267. We have found statutes unconstitutionally vague in this regard when they have relied upon “inherently subjective terms” that are amenable to numerous varying and arbitrary interpretations from one case to another. Id. (citing cases); see also, e.g., Neff, 152 Wn.2d at 91 (“known prostitute”); Pullman, 82 Wn.2d at 799 (“loitering”).

¶31 The identity theft statute does not rely on any such inherently subjective terms — it simply involves a phrase that is ambiguous on its face as between two discrete alternatives but that is resolved by the legislative history of the statute. The statute is limited in its ambiguity prior to construction, establishes objective standards by which a defendant’s guilt can be measured and, once properly construed, is straightforward and unambiguous. The identity theft statute is not unconstitutionally vague.

IV. CONCLUSION

f 32 We affirm the Court of Appeals and uphold Evans’s conviction. The identity theft statute includes corporations *208as potential victims of identity theft. The statute provides fair warning and establishes objective standards to determine guilt.

Madsen, C.J.; C. Johnson, Owens, Fairhurst, J.M. Johnson, and Stephens, JJ; and Chambers, J. Pro Tem., concur.

Wiggins, J.

¶33 (dissenting) — The legislature appropriately limited victims of identity theft to natural persons by using the language “another person, living or dead” in RCW 9.35.020(1) to refer to identity theft victims. Corporations do not live or die but come in and out of existence through the statutorily defined means of incorporation and dissolution. Other statutes that define aspects of life or death refer consistently to natural processes, illustrating that the legislature cannot realistically be said to speak of corporations in metaphors of life or death. Also, several other provisions of the statutory scheme governing identity crimes and pertinent legislative history demonstrate a sustained focus on natural persons, not corporations, as victims of identity theft. Even if the legislature did intend to include corporate victims of identity theft, it did not express that intent clearly. At the very least, the identity theft statute is ambiguous in this regard and requires the application of the rule of lenity in Derrick Robert Evans’s favor. This court should reverse the Court of Appeals and vacate Evans’s conviction of identity theft for stealing, forging a name on, and cashing a corporate check. I dissent.

DISCUSSION

I. The phrase “person, living or dead” in RCW 9.35.020(1) is meant to exclude corporations

¶34 The definition of “person” for the purpose of the identity theft statutes includes corporations only “where relevant.” RCW 9A.04.110(17); RCW 9.35.005(4). The legislature’s inclusion of the phrase “another person, living or *209dead” in RCW 9.35.020(1) in the pertinent provision of the identity theft statute expresses an intent to exclude corporations as not relevant because corporations are neither living nor dead. Life and death are natural processes that do not apply to corporations, irrespective of the occasional analogy or colloquialism present in our case law. This court should reject a reading of RCW 9.35.020(1) that supports the inclusion of corporations as “person [s], living or dead” whose identities are stolen.

A. The statutes governing corporations do not refer to corporations in terms of being alive or dead

¶35 Corporations exist in Washington only by virtue of the statutes that govern them, whether Title 23B RCW, the Washington Business Corporation Act (WBCA); chapter 24.03 RCW, the Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act (WNPCA); or Title 35 RCW, regarding municipal corporations. These enactments are thus the most appropriate places to determine whether corporations should ever be considered living or dead. Not once in the WBCA, WNPCA, or Title 35 RCW are corporations referred to as alive, living, having life, dead, deceased, or having died. Rather, corporations come into existence by incorporation and cease to exist through dissolution.5 Therefore, they should not be considered living or dead persons under RCW 9.35.020(1).

¶36 Business corporations begin their existence by becoming incorporated. RCW 23B.02.030(1) provides that “the corporate existence begins when the articles of incorporation are filed” with the secretary of state. The same is true of nonprofit corporations. See RCW 24.03.150. Unless the articles of incorporation provide otherwise, for-profit and nonprofit corporations have “perpetual existence and succession in [their] corporate name.” RCW 23B.02.020(3)(c); RCW 23B.03.020(1); see also RCW 24.03.035(1). Thus, corporations remain incorporated, not living. They come into *210existence not by being alive but upon the filing of a specific document with the secretary of state.

¶37 During their existence, corporations do not possess the independence of living beings. Rather, “[a]ll corporate powers [are] exercised by or under the authority of the corporation’s board of directors.” RCW 23B.08.010(2)(a); see also RCW 24.03.095 (“The affairs of a [nonprofit] corporation shall be managed by a board of directors.”). Similarly, corporate affairs are “managed under the direction of [a corporation’s] board of directors, which [has] exclusive authority as to substantive decisions concerning management of the corporation’s business.” RCW 23B.08.010(2)(b). A corporation is entirely controlled by its board of directors rather than by its own choices or instincts. In this way, corporations are also distinct from living persons.

¶38 Given their perpetual existence, corporations do not die. Instead, someone must dissolve them. Dissolution of business corporations typically occurs in one of two ways. First, the corporation’s board of directors “may propose dissolution for submission to the shareholders.” RCW 23B.14.020(1). Two-thirds of the authorized shareholders then must approve the proposed dissolution. RCW 23B-.14.020(5). Second, the secretary of state has the power to administratively dissolve corporations for failure to pay license fees, to deliver the initial or annual report to the secretary of state, or to maintain a registered agent. RCW 23B.14.200(l)-(3). Similarly, nonprofit corporations are dissolved voluntarily by a vote of the members or resolution of the board of directors, RCW 24.03.220(l)-(2), or involuntarily by decree of the superior court, RCW 24.03.250, .266. Corporate dissolution that occurs at the vote of shareholders or directors, or by the hand of the secretary of state or a superior court judge, does not remotely resemble death. After all, even upon dissolution, a corporation “continues its corporate existence ... to wind up and liquidate its business *211and affairs.” RCW 23B.14.050U); see also RCW 24.03.245.6 This can hardly be said of living beings after they die.

¶39 Neither can municipal corporations be conceived of as living or dead. Municipal corporations are incorporated when a majority of the votes cast by residents favor incorporation. RCW 35.02.120. During its existence, a municipal corporation is run by a commission consisting of a mayor, a commissioner of finance and accounting, and a commissioner of streets and public improvements, RCW 35.17.010, that “determine [s] what powers and duties are to be performed in each department,... prescribe [s] the powers and duties of the various officers and employees and make[s] such rules and regulations for the efficient and economical conduct of the business of the city ...” RCW 35.17.090. “Cities and towns may disincorporate,” RCW 35.07.010, upon a petition for disincorporation signed by a majority of registered voters, RCW 35.07.020. A receiver is then appointed to wind up affairs. RCW 35.07.150. Like business and nonprofit corporations, municipal corporations cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be considered living or dead.

¶40 The majority grasps at straws to demonstrate that corporations may be considered living or dead for the purpose of the identity theft statute, devoting some two pages of its opinion to citing instances where this court and other courts have metaphorically referred to corporations as such. See majority at 197-98. While courts might use analogies to describe business organizations on occasion, the fact that the statutes governing corporations do not speak in terms of life or death undermines the majority’s reading of RCW 9.35.020(1) to include corporations within a class of “personfs], living or dead.” The more appropriate *212reading of RCW 9.35.020(1) limits the victims of identity theft to natural beings.

B. Where the legislature elsewhere defines “life”or “death,” it refers to the natural processes of natural beings

¶41 In other statutes, the legislature has defined words such as “living” or “dead” to refer solely to the functions of natural beings. For the purposes of the criminal mistreatment chapter, chapter 9A. 42 RCW, the legislature has defined the “ ‘[b]asic necessities of life’ ” as “food, water, shelter, clothing, and medically necessary health care ....” RCW 9A.42.010(1). This definition of life’s necessities contemplates that only natural beings are alive and clearly excludes corporations. Similarly, statutes regarding indigent defense services provide that ‘“[b]asic living costs’ means the average monthly amount spent by the defendant for reasonable payments toward living costs, such as shelter, food, utilities, health care, transportation, clothing, loan payments, support payments, and court-imposed obligations.” RCW 10.101.010(2)(d). This reference to “living costs” demonstrates a legislative understanding that only natural beings, not business organizations, are alive.

¶42 Other statutes clarify that death too is intended to refer to the natural occurrence experienced by living beings. In the personal property statutes, an “ ‘[individual’ ” is defined as a “natural person, living or dead,” RCW 63.60.020(4), and a “ ‘[d]eceased individual’ means any individual . . . who has died within ten years before January 1, 1998, or thereafter,” RCW 63.60.020(1). The term “fetal death” is defined in the vital statistics chapter as “any product of conception that shows no evidence of life after complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.” RCW 70.58.150. “ ‘Evidence of life,’ ” by contrast, “include[s] breathing, beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.” Id. These statutes employing death in definitions provisions refer only to living beings that experience the natural, inevitable process of death.

*213¶43 These examples illustrate that the legislature does not tend to use metaphors of life or death to refer to inanimate objects or organizations. Rather, its uses of words like “living” or “dead” refer to the natural processes of living organisms. These references call into serious doubt any interpretation of “person, living or dead” in RCW 9.35-.020(1) that includes nonliving, inanimate objects such as corporations.

II. Several other sections of the identity theft chapter indicate the legislature’s intent to exclude corporations as victims of identity theft

¶44 In addition to the phrase “living or dead” in RCW 9.35.020(1), other provisions of the identity crimes scheme of chapter 9.35 RCW strongly suggest that the legislature did not intend to make corporations the direct victims of identity theft.

¶45 RCW 9.35.030(1) makes it “unlawful for any person to knowingly use a means of identification or financial information of another person to solicit undesired mail with the intent to annoy, harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass that person.” Corporations, being inanimate and unfeeling, are incapable of being annoyed, harassed, intimidated, tormented, or embarrassed. It seems odd that the legislature would have included corporations in the definition of “another person, living or dead” to make them victims of identity theft but would have excluded them in the very next section of chapter 9.35 RCW from being victims of undesired mail solicitation.

¶46 The legislature has also defined “victim” for the purposes of the identity crimes chapter and has provided victims with a way to obtain information from businesses who may have entered into a transaction with a perpetrator of identity theft.7 But in order for victims to obtain this *214information, the statute requires victims to provide “proof of positive identification,” including “[t]he showing of a government-issued photo identification card . . . .” RCW 9.35.040(2)(a). Victims must also provide a “written statement from the state patrol showing that the state patrol has on file documentation of the victim’s identity pursuant to the personal identification procedures in RCW 43-.43.760.” RCW 9.35.040(2)(c). RCW 43.43.760(1) and (2) contain procedures for victims to request and obtain “an impression of [their] fingerprints.” (Emphasis added.) Needless to say, corporations have no fingerprints or government-issued photo identification cards. Had the legislature intended corporations to be victims of identity theft, it would not have excluded corporations from the only provision of chapter 9.35 RCW that assists victims in investigating and preventing occurrences of identity theft.

¶47 In short, other provisions of chapter 9.35 RCW demonstrate that the legislature intended only natural beings to be victims of identity theft.

III. The statutory and legislative history also point to the exclusion of corporate victims of identity theft

¶48 The various amendments to chapter 9.35 RCW and related legislative history support the exclusion of corporate victims of identity theft. When the legislature enacted these statutes, and each time it has revisited them, it has remained focused on natural persons, not business associations, as the victims of identity theft.

A. 1999 Statute

¶49 Under the original identity theft statute enacted in 1999, it appears that the legislature did intend to include *215businesses in the definition of “person,” at least as persons capable of perpetrating the crime of identity left. See Laws of 1999, ch. 368, § 2(7) (“If the person violating this section is a business that repeatedly violates this section, that person also violates the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW.” (emphasis added)); see also 1999 Final Legislative Report, 56th Wash. Leg., at 49. But while businesses may have qualified as perpetrators of identity theft, there is no indication that they qualified as victims. The original statute prohibited a person from “knowingly us[ing] or knowingly transfer [ring] a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit . . . any felony.” Laws of 1999, ch. 368, § 3. In defining the “ ‘means of identification’ ” of a person, the legislature included the “electronic address or identifier of the individual or any member of his or her family, including the ancestor of such person.” Id. (emphasis added). These references to an individual’s family and ancestors suggest that the legislature did not consider corporations when it defined “means of identification.”

¶50 In the House bill report on Substitute House Bill 1250, the summary of the testimony supporting the bill noted that “[i]t is important that identity theft be defined as a separate crime; often the merchant or the financial institution suffers the loss and the person whose identity is stolen to commit these acts is not considered a victim by law enforcement.” H.B. Rep. on Substitute H.B. 1250, 56th Leg., Reg. Sess., at 2 (Wash. 1999). This portion of the report acknowledges that businesses are harmed by identity theft but seems to consider the interests of businesses separately from the interests of direct victims whose identities are stolen.

¶51 In sum, the 1999 statute and accompanying legislative history may contemplate businesses as persons who perpetrate the crime of identity theft, but not as direct identity theft victims. The 1999 enactment and legislative history thus cannot be read as clearly including corporations as identity theft victims.

*216 B. 2001 Amendments

¶52 In 2001, the legislature revamped the identity theft statutes, inserting new provisions in the identity crimes chapter, chapter 9.35 RCW, that included definitions of “person” and “victim.” Laws of 2001, ch. 217, § l(4)-(5). As discussed above, these definitions were accompanied by provisions that suggested an intent to limit the victims of identity theft to natural persons. The legislative history confirms that the legislature appeared concerned only about consumer victims, not corporate victims, of identity theft.

¶53 The 2001 amendments resulted from a consumer privacy task force formed by the Washington State attorney general. See 2001 Final Legislative Report, 57th Wash. Leg., at 198; S.B. Rep. on Engrossed Substitute S.B. 5449, 57th Leg., Reg. Sess., at 1 (Wash. 2001). The attorney general task force concluded that incidences of identity theft were growing so quickly that “victims need[ed] help in obtaining information to reestablish their identity, deal with creditors, and help assist law enforcement.” 2001 Final Legislative Report, supra, at 198.

¶54 With this focus in mind, the legislature enacted several provisions involving fingerprints and photo identifications, discussed above, that provided a way for identity theft victims to obtain information and gain protection from businesses who had transacted with perpetrators of identity theft. This concern prompted the legislature to clearly place “victims” of identity theft on one side of a transaction and “businesses” on the other. For example, the House bill report notes that “business was quite sensitive to the needs and concerns of victims and the bill strikes a balance between the interests of the two groups. Both victims and businesses are protected.” H.B. Rep. on Engrossed Substitute S.B. 5449, 57th Leg., Reg. Sess., at 5 (Wash. 2001). Similarly, opponents of the bill noted concerns that it “creates disproportionate and inappropriate penalties for *217one of the other victims of identity theft — businesses” S.B. Rep. on Engrossed Substitute S.B. 5449, 57th Leg., Reg. Sess., at 3 (Wash. 2001) (emphasis added). These portions of the legislative history strongly demonstrate that the legislature was concerned with protecting natural persons as direct victims of identity theft and with protecting businesses as indirect victims, but that these were two distinct groups in need of distinct protections.

¶55 The majority contends that the “living or dead” language added to the identity theft statute should support a broad reading of the new amendments that includes corporations. See majority at 202-03. But the insertion of “living or dead” in RCW 9.35.020(1) is consistent with the legislative history that shows that the legislature was focused only on natural persons as identity theft victims. The fact that the legislature distinguished between businesses and victims in its internal reports and memoranda indicates that the legislature was making a similar distinction in the text of the statute.

¶56 The majority also unconvincingly relies on witnesses who testified in support of the 2001 amendments as well as on comments of the “initial proponent” of the bill. Majority at 201-03. Such testimony and comments are simply not good indicators of legislative intent. As the United States Supreme Court has admonished, relying on such testimony gives “unrepresentative committee members — or, worse yet, unelected staffers and lobbyists — both the power and the incentive to attempt strategic manipulations of legislative history to secure results they were unable to achieve through the statutory text.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005); cf. Snow’s Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Morgan, 80 Wn.2d 283, 291, 494 P.2d 216 (1972) (“While statements and opinions of individual legislators generally are not considered by the courts in construing legislation, statements made in answer to questions on the floor by the chairman of the committee in charge of the bill may be *218taken as the opinion of the committee as to the meaning of the bill.”). The majority’s reliance on lay testimony and the comments of certain legislators does not sufficiently demonstrate the legislature’s clear intent to include corporations as victims of identity theft.

¶57 Contrary to the majority’s assertion that the 2001 amendments demonstrate legislative intent to include corporations as potential victims of identity theft, majority at 203, the 2001 legislation points in the other direction. The 2001 amendments and connected legislative history do not support a reading of the identity theft statute that includes corporate victims of identity theft, as discussed above.

C. 2004 and 2008 Amendments

¶58 The legislature again revised the identity theft statutes in 2004 and 2008.8 On both occasions, the legislature added language that appears inconsistent with the inclusion of corporations as victims of identity theft.

¶59 In 2004, the legislature enacted a biometric matching system to reduce fraudulent issuances of driver’s licenses and state identification cards. Laws of 2004, ch. 273, § 1. The legislature indicated that “[t]he most common method of accomplishing identity theft... is by securing a fraudulently issued driver’s license.” Id. In light of this concern, the legislature ordered the Department of Licensing to create a biometric matching system to “allow every person applying for an original, renewal, or duplicate driver’s license or identicard the option of submitting a biometric identifier.” 2004 Final Legislative Report, 58th Wash. Leg., at 120. Given the focus on biometric data to prevent identity theft, the legislature was again concerned only with natural persons as victims of identity theft.

¶60 In 2008, the legislature again revised the identity theft statutes to allow a “person who has learned or *219reasonably suspects that his or her financial information or means of identification has been unlawfully obtained” to obtain a police incident report. Laws of 2008, ch. 207, § 2. The final legislative report pointed out that “identity theft victims must have police reports to freeze their credit, to place long-term fraud alerts on credit reports, and to obtain records of fraudulent accounts from merchants.” 2008 Final Legislative Report, 60th Wash. Leg., at 171. The legislative history also discloses that the amendment requiring a police report was partially responsive to a Federal Trade Commission survey showing that 19 percent of persons surveyed indicated that police refused to take their report of identity theft. Id. The focus on consumers obtaining a police report again demonstrates that the legislature viewed natural persons, not corporations, as the direct victims of identity theft.

¶61 From 1999 to 2008, the legislature' enacted or amended identity theft laws with a focus on everyday consumers — i.e., natural persons — who were victimized by identity theft. This belies the majority’s holding that the legislature intended to include corporations as identity theft victims. We should interpret RCW 9.35.020(1) as excluding corporations from the class of persons victimized by identity theft.

IV. At the very least, the identity theft statute is ambiguous, requiring the application of the rule of lenity

¶62 Even if the legislature did intend to include corporations as victims of identity theft, it did not do so clearly enough to support criminal liability in this case. “ ‘[W]hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. We should not derive criminal outlawry from some ambiguous implication.’ ” State v. Tvedt, 153 Wn.2d 705, 711, 107 P.3d 728 (2005) (quoting United States v. Universal C.I.T. *220 Credit Corp., 344 U.S., 218, 221-22, 73 S. Ct. 227, 97 L. Ed. 260 (1952)). If a criminal statute “is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and, absent legislative intent to the contrary, the rule of lenity requires us to interpret the statute in favor of the defendant.” State v. Coucil, 170 Wn.2d 704, 706-07, 245 P.3d 222 (2010) (citing State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005)).

¶63 Assuming for the sake of argument that it is reasonable to interpret the identity theft statute as including corporations within the class of victims, the statute is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations — one that includes corporate victims and one that does not. This renders the statute ambiguous. The rule of lenity would thus apply, requiring that we interpret the identity theft statute in Evans’s favor. For this reason as well, RCW 9.35.020 must be interpreted to exclude corporations as victims of identity theft.

CONCLUSION

¶64 The text of RCW 9.35.020(1) and of other provisions of the identity crimes statutes of chapter 9.35 RCW supports a conclusion that the legislature did not intend to include corporations as identity theft victims. Tracking the amendments to the identity theft statutes and related legislative history indicates that corporations were excluded from identity theft victimhood. And even if the legislature did intend to include corporations, both interpretations of the statute would be reasonable, making the statute ambiguous and the rule of lenity applicable in Evans’s favor. I would reverse the Court of Appeals and vacate Evans’s conviction.

¶65 I dissent.