Meh, if you’re a smart criminal you’ve got your money stashed away in numerous bank accounts in the Caribbean which only you can access. As long as your bribes to local government officials are more than any price on your head, your safe 
Definately safer than on the high seas where you’d have to be armed and defend yourself from any one that decided an international criminal in the open ocean is easy game.
To get back to the OP’s original scenario-why wouldn’t the US just send the Coast Guard or the Navy out to arrest the guy and return him to the US? I understand that on the high seas he’s not within any US jurisdiction (or is he? I don’t know maritime law), but he’s also not within the jurisdiction of anywhere else. The reason someone can hide in a non-extradition nation is that, for the most part, states respect the sovereignty of other nations and won’t violate that sovereignty just to arrest their own citizens. But there’s no sovereignty to protect on the open seas (at least in general). I think that’s at least part of the reason that any nation is allowed to take action against piracy for example.
Or am I mistaken. Would the simple act of being on a ship registered in a foreign state prevent (legally at least) the US from boarding and arresting the fugitive in international waters?
Why not? L. Ron Hubbard did. It wasn’t worth mounting an expedition against him, and when he wore out his welcome in one country, he sailed off for another with his “fleet”. There were warrants out for Scientology members and sentences in absentia
Presumably if the coast guard seized someone in International waters and bought them back to the US for trial, a good lawyer could get you off on the grounds that it was an illegal seizure (they had no jurisdiction where they nabbed you).
If you were guilty of white collar crimes you should be safe, but if you’d murdered a US citizen or were accused of another crime which the US claims universal jurisdiction on then you’d probably be in trouble.
I think the OP meant permanently, not just until they are able to catch you and probably with not so much desperation.
Hubbard could stay at sea as long as he wanted – he lived out there for decades, not just “until supplies ran out”, and there was always some other country he could dock at.
Near the end of his life, he apparently decided to come back to the US under an alias, first in Clearwater Florida, then out in California. Maybe he missed American TV or fast food, or something. But AFAIK his fleet still exists and sails the world.
Although not precisely the same thing asked by the OP, I’ve heard that George Soros keeps his marijuana plants on a boat that he keeps in international waters. When he’s on land, he’s legal - because the plants are still at sea. But, he can visit them whenever he chooses & isn’t in anyone’s jurisdiction.
This hypothetical is misplaced. Firstly you are always under the jurisdiction of the country whose flag you fly
UNCOLS Art 92
Missed Edit
Furthermore under Article 105, for piracy (which has a pretty expansive definition) ANY state can arrest.
So Mr Madoff if his super yatch is flying the US flag will find himself arrested by SEAL Team 6. If it is flying a foreign flag (say Panama or Liberia), he is under their jurisdiction and if he is important enough he can be arrested if their is sufficient pressure. Sailing without a flag is difficult at the best of times and downright illegal in many places, makes him a tempting target to be declared a pirate, if he commits the sligtest infraction at sea (as many things are only for legal for a flagged ship).
[QUOTE=Coremelt]
If you can make it to one of the countries listed here, you can live in plain site if you’re wanted by the US:
http://www.panamalaw.org/USA_and_ext…_treaties.html
Extradition through proper and correct legal means would not be possible in these countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome e Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen, Yemen South, Zaire & Zimbabwe
[/QUOTE]
Actually all an extradition treaty does is make the process simpler/codifys it in relation to the contracting states of a treaty. You can be and are still extradited sans a treaty and where a person is a convicted criminal and or accused or a particularly henious crime with a lot of evidence, the other state will fall over itself to so extradite, for the simple reason that no one wants to become a magnate for some other country’s escaped criminals and absconders and bail jumpers.
I don’t recall any of my sources ever saying where Hubbard’s ships were registered, and i can’t find anything on the internet , but it’s clear that, if they were registered, the home country didn’t care too much about what happened on board. Sciemntology had legal run-ins in several ports, but as far as I know no “Home Country” ever called them on it.
Why bother to “seize” someone on the high seas? Just run a destroyer alongside and “accidentally” let go the anchor. Move off a hundred yards or so and wait for the distress call. Then it’s a “rescue.”
Of course, if the yacht is big enough, you might have to “accidentally” ram it, or lose a torpedo. There are always ways for clever sailors to disable another ship.
You’re kidding about the first sentence, right?
I was thinking along the same lines.
An “excersise” 550mi off the coast of california was a complete success with 11 targets destroyed in record time. One Destroyer suffered minor damage when a “weapons malfunction” resulted in it being struck by several small caliber weapons. No sailors were injured in the incident.
The OP is talking about a white collar criminal, not someone wanted for the “whargabl on terrorism”
Oh man, I love this! So he just takes his private helicopter? I wonder if he brings back misdemeanour-level quantities (less than 35 grams in most places IIRC) or just “parties” on the boat itself.
So, on the overall issue of floating around in international waters, or relocating in another country, it looks like one could at best not feel completely secure for a variety of reasons.
So if a billionaire white collar criminal type knew the jig could be up at any time and wanted an escape plan to be ready to go, what would be the best move? Hole up in a safe house like that Mafia boss who lasted years in Italy before they got him? But then again, they *did *get him.
What about this idea instead, if you were dead set on never going to prison, but could handle being cut off from humanity (seeing it as preferable to taking any chance of going to prison):
You have an elabourate underground bunker built somewhere super secret and remote (use whatever shell companies within shell companies to do it, with construction workers brought in blindfolded, etc. etc. so no one would ever be able to put two and two together). It’s supplied with enough food, water, and electrical generation capacity to last you indefinitely. It would basically be a luxury mansion, underground.
You go down there, and maybe (this would admittedly be extreme) even set off some explosive charges in the entry tunnel to ensure no one could come down after you without massively drilling (assuming they had an idea where to drill; you could also have a bunch of identical decoy shafts that also had explosive charges set off in them at the same time). Or maybe have the entry point to the bunker be underwater, and you have to scuba dive down to enter it? (I know this is all very James Bond; but if you’re a billionaire fugitive it seems to me you could actually be a little James Bond-ish.)
Oooh, or what about a submarine instead of a yacht, Captain Nemo style? Or would the Navy find you?
Look, if they are after you, they WILL catch you. And in the example above, building bunkers of that description take special equipment, deep bunkers calls for persons who have expertise; means only a special few. So any agency worth its salt should be able to find you.
He wouldn’t be a very good lawyer if he didn’t know that the USCG has jurisdiction in international waters. Fawaz Younis was arrested in international waters (the Mediterranean Sea) by the FBI in 1987. I don’t believe the court threw out his case because the FBI had no jurisdiction in international waters.
A country can exert its jurisdiction over its citizens in the high seas. Just because you’re at sea doesn’t mean that you can ignore all laws. First, obviously, your’re subject to the laws of the seas, so any country can exert jurisdiction over you if you violate them (basically, piracy and illegal radio broadcasts). You’re also subject to jus cogens, customary international law, and treaty law - mostly this means kidnapping, torture, genocide, violation of mineral or fishing rights, and environmental issues / endangered species laws or whatever (also trying to place missile structures on Antartica).
But, more to your point, you’re still subject to three types of other jurisdictions, from a criminal law point of view. Your own country can exert its jurisdiction over you whenever it wants to. Strong examples include the US criminalizing its own citizens’ actions abroad in regard to Cuban cigars and child prostitution, as well as corporate criminal responsibility for bribery of government officials. Next, you can have jurisdiction asserted against you by the country whose citizen you commit a crime against. So, if you kill a Frenchman on the high seas, France can charge you with murder. Finally, if you are on a vessel, you are also subject to the laws of the country with which the vessel is registered. So, if you are a US citizen, and you kill a Frenchman on a vessel registered in Greece, then the US, Greece, and France all would have the capacity to exert jurisdiction over you, according to customary international law. Of course, the choice of whether to exert that jurisdiction is a question of state law (state means country here, not state as in US states). But, to the OP, if you’re out in the middle of the sea, and wanted by the US, they have every right to come get you, and you’d actually be better off in a country with non-extradition policy.
Too much like work. If you know the jig is about up and you have billions to work with, there are several other interesting options. Skip to a country that is civilized and safe and bribe the snot out of the government. That will slow down extradition a bit. Then give half your ill-gotten gains to big charitable organizations with good lawyers. That will slow things down even more. Then spend a billion or so helping the CIA set up front companies and other such “patriotic” activities. Kick back with a mai tai and enjoy.