Federal Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction: Legislation in the 109th Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Jan. 16, 2007 |
| Report Number |
RL33658 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Sept. 21, 2006 (18 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Crime is usually territorial. It is ordinarily a matter of the law of the place where it occurs. Nevertheless, a surprising number of American criminal laws apply outside of the United States. Application is generally a question of legislative intent, expressed or implied.
Three statutes enacted in the 109th Congress have sections that enjoy extraterritorial application. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 109-177, includes a handful of crimes that feature explicit extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, P.L. 109-164, carries the Mann Act (18 U.S.C. ch. 117) and the peonage laws (18 U.S.C. ch. 77) overseas under certain circumstances. The Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act, P.L. 109-476 outlaws various forms of fraud associated with the acquisition of telephone and e-mail records and states that extraterritorial jurisdiction exists over such offenses.
Comparable legislation pending at adjournment of the 109th Congress included:
Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R. 4437)(House passed);
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611)(Senate passed);
H.R. 5212 (relating to sexual offenses under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act);
S. 1226 (relating to human trafficking by federal contractors);
S. 2402 (relating to money laundering);
S. 12 (relating to war profiteering);
S. 2356 (relating to war profiteering);
S. 2361 (relating to war profiteering);
H.R. 4682 (relating to war profiteering);
S. 2368 (relating to alien smuggling);
S. 2377 (relating to alien smuggling);
S. 2454 (relating to alien smuggling).
In some instances the explicit statements of extraterritorial jurisdiction would have replicated the coverage the courts would have otherwise recognized. In some instances they would have expanded extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond that which the courts would have recognize in the absence of a statement; in still others they apparently would have curtailed it by mentioning some of the traditional grounds implicitly recognized and failing to mention others.
