all kinds which affect the peace and good order of the community, must, of course, be
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the government where it may properly exercise it
(jurisdiction). If punishment of them is to be extended to include those committed outside of the
strict territorial jurisdiction, it is natural for Congress to say so in the statute...But the same rule
of interpretation should not be applied to criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically
dependent on their locality for the government's jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right
of the government to defend itself against obstruction or fraud, wherever perpetrated, especially
if committed by its own citizens, officers, or agents...to limit their focus to the strictly territorial
jurisdiction would be greatly to curtail the scope and usefulness of the statute, and leave open a
large immunity for frauds...In such cases, Congress has not thought it necessary to make
specific provisions in the law that the laws shall include the high seas and foreign countries, but
allows it to be inferred from the nature of the offense."
Examples of crimes which apply on an extraterritorial basis include bribery (18 USC Section 201),
conflict of interest (18 USC Section 208), counterfeiting (18 USC Section 25), and false, fictitious, or
fraudulent claims (18 USC Section 287). In U.S. v. Gladue, 4 MJ 1 (CMA 1977), the court explained
that Congress clearly has the power to provide for extraterritorial applicability of a federal criminal
statute. The issue is not whether it CAN do so, but whether it HAS done so.
A good illustration of this principle is U.S. v. Mosley, 14 MJ 852 (ACMR 1982). There the court was
dealing with 18 USC Section 500, which prohibited the forgery and counterfeiting of U.S. Postal Service
money orders. The statute did not specifically state whether or not it applied overseas. The court
explained that it "must examine the thrust of the statute to determine whether the congressional intent
is to protect a governmental rather than (a) private interest." Here the "primary thrust" of the law is the
protection of the U.S. Postal Service. The court, therefore, concluded:
"The United States Government has an absolute duty to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Postal
System, which includes its postal money orders, both within the borders and in foreign
countries...It is reasonable to assume that Congress was aware that the integrity of the postal
system and its money orders would be threatened abroad as well as at home, and it is proper to
infer that Congress intended to protect the government against forgery of these papers
wherever the postal system operated."
The U.S. Government, then, "has a paramount interest in protecting its property, wherever located,
by assertions of its penal laws...laws punishing fraud against the government include by implication
acts committed in foreign countries." Based on these factors, 18 USC Section 500 was deemed to
have extraterritorial effect. Another example is 18 USC Section 2331, which prohibits the commission
of terrorist acts (including murder and certain other
MP1022
1-4
Previous Page
