31 CFR 515.204 applies worldwide (text in spoiler), except as exempted by the Dept. of Treasury. From 1963 until 2015 there was no such exemption. On December 17, 2014 President Obama announced some Cuba policy changes[1]. On January 16, 2015 the Treasury made an exemption for the importation of up to $400 in Cuban goods per person, of which only $100 could be alcohol or tobacco and only then if for personal purposes[2]. On October 17, 2016 the Treasury removed those monetary limits[3].
515.204 Importation of and dealings in certain merchandise.
[LIST=a][li]Except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instrumentality designated by him) by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, no person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States may purchase, transport, import, or otherwise deal in or engage in any transaction with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise:[/li][ol][li]Is of Cuban origin; or[/li][li]Is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or[/li][li]Is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba.[/ol][/li][li][Reserved][/LIST][/li]
~Max
Are you sure of it? I’m pretty certain it’s not the case here, and that you can’t be prosecuted in France for a crime commited in another nation if you’ve been already tried for this crime in this nation. And being sentenced twice for the same crime (or more, let’s assume that the victim is from a third country for instance and that country too prosecutes the culprit) seems pretty unjust.
The point is that a sovereign nation has no superior to tell it that it cannot try a person who has already been convicted in another country or tell it that it cannot charge its own citizens for smoking Cuban cigars or having sex with an underaged prostitute in other countries.
France may voluntarily limit itself and not prosecute someone who has already been tried in another country, but who is going to tell Egypt or the United States that you may not prosecute that person?
Not only are Egypt and the US separate sovereigns who can each prosecute, but the individual states are as well. It is well-established that both the federal government and a state government can separately try a person for the same act. (The federal government needs a jurisdictional hook, though). Often the federal government defers if there is a state prosecution, or vice versa. But it comes up, often in high profile cases – Michael Vick was prosecuted for his dog fighting ring by both the feds and the state of Virginia – or when the first prosecution fails – e.g., the federal trial of the officers who beat Rodney King.
I don’t see how #2 can apply to smoking a gift cigar abroad, as it requires a transaction involving property subject to US jurisdiction. It might cover buying a cigar using US-based property, but how would it apply to an entirely extraterritorial gift transaction?
ETA:. Sorry Nars – I deleted as soon as I realized the law under discussion was from before the change. I didn’t see you had replied.
Good catch, but I don’t think it is reasonable for “transactions” in section 201 to include “transfers” of property (including gifts) while “transactions” in section 204 does not. My construction of 201 was to show that gifts are transactions.