US citizens subject to US law anywhere in the world?

There was some discussion recently about a proposed law which would make it illegal to plan or conspire to violate the US CSA abroad from inside the US, even if it is not actually illegal in the country it happens in. It appeared to be inspired by a very specific case, but could apply to something as silly as going to Canada to buy some Tylenol with codeine.

Several people mentioned they believed that US citizens where already beholden to US laws worldwide, but obviously this is only enforced in extreme cases. All I could find was a mention on a US state department site that says just because something is legal in the country you are in don’t assume it is legal for you to do, it was referring to buying pirated DVDs I think and I can’t find it now.

I read an article on Gary Glitter a few years back that mentioned the arrest of a US citizen on pedophelia charges when he returned from a similar “pleasure tour”.

Canada has a “sex tourism” law, and IIRC Britain and several other countries do to (including the USA, I think). But in these cases, it’s not asserting jurisdiction for existing laws; it’s a specific law that says “doing X anywhere in the world can be prosecuted in this country”.

One example:
Technically, although an American citizen cannot even purchase or smoke a Cuban cigar while traveling abroad, there may not be any practical way to enforce the restriction.
Excerpted from: Cuban Cigars and the Updated Laws

Missed the edit window…

Relevant code:

“31 C.F.R. PART 515—CUBAN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS
§ 515.204 Importation of and dealings in certain merchandise.
(a) 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:
(1) Is of Cuban origin;…”
Emphases are mine. Excerpted from: PART 515—CUBAN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS :: PART 515--CUBAN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS :: CHAPTER V--OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY :: Title 31 - Money and Finance: Treasury :: Code of Federal Regulations :: Regulations :: Law :: Justia

When in Toronto, I’ve been known to pick up a bottle of 50 2+2’s for my own use. Man, this would suck. They help manage the pain of a broken back better than anything else, and the caffeine in the pills makes one not groggy.

Here is more info on the proposed law in question:

I don’t think it’s actually “having sex with minors overseas” that gets them, it’s “leaving the country for the purpose of having sex with minors” that is the actual letter of the law. It’s a fine distinction, to be sure, but I suppose if one plays one’s cards right and doesn’t, say, come home on a flight from Pnomh Penh with a laptop full of child porn, he could get away with it pretty easily.

Only some laws are extraterritorial like this, not all. I don’t know of an exhaustive list, but the ones mentioned in this thread: sex tourism and the Cuban embargo are two. It is also a federal crime to murder a U.S. national outside the borders of the U.S. But generally, no, laws only are in force within U.S. borders.

Changed in 2003 in the U.S. Child sex tourism - Wikipedia

It is now illegal to have sex with a minor overseas regardless of intent when leaving the U.S.

Still, unless there’s some evidence against you (for example, a computer full of pictures of you engaging in sex with little kids), it’s going to be a difficult case to send to trial.

Absolutely. Just like smoking a Cohiba while sitting in your hotel room in the Bahamas will likely not be found out.

But the new law has more teeth in that if officials find out that you had sex with a child in Thailand, you can be prosecuted. Before, they had to prove that you left the United States for the expressed purpose of having sex with children.

You could come back and say that you went on a business trip and during your down time had a harem of 12 year olds. No crime. Today it is.

Don’t get caught bribing a foreign official by the US.

Sarbannes-Oxley applies.

So does filing and paying taxes. IIRC only the US, North Korea and South Africa has this requirement that citizens living abroad still have to pay their home country taxes.

So does the Treasury department requirement for filing if you have more than USD10,000 in assets overseas (that applies both if you live in the US or abroad).

Sarbanes–Oxley Act at least according to wiki set new standards and laws for the boards of US publically owned corporations, are you saying these standards still apply if one of the board members of a US corp is outside the US(citizen or not) or that S-O applies even to a US citizen who is a member of the board of an overseas corporation?

Is this not circular relative to the OP? The OP is essentially asking whether you are subject to US jurisdiction when physically outside the US. One would assume diplomats or troops overseas might have a difficult time explaining the odd Cuban cigar, but ordinary citizens that do not enjoy any special legal status when overseas should not have a problem.

I’m sure there are other issues. Plotting with a foreign power against the US government whilst overseas is not exactly going to be viewed well on your return.

If that’s the question, then the answer would be no. When in a foreign country, Americans are subject to the laws of that country. See, for example, R. v. Kear (1989), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 574. From a commentary on that case (scroll down to “The Tale of Daniel Kear”), see this link. The pertinent part:

Underlining in the original; bolding mine. This case stands for the principle that US laws (in this case, those allowing bounty hunting) do not extend to other countries; and further, indicates that other countries’ laws override US laws outside the US. The same applies to constitutional rights–Americans do not have the right to bear arms outside the US; though, in Canada anyway, they do have the same right to silence upon arrest by lawful authorities, and to consult with a lawyer, among other similarities. The upshot is that, Americans, you can purchase and smoke all the Cuban cigars you want in Canada, the UK, Mexico, Germany, etc. etc. etc., all outside US jurisdiction. American law does not exist in Canada, as I imagine it does not exist in many parts of the world; and it is worthwhile to note that many countries, Canada among them, have passed legislation negating the US’s attempts at extraterritoriality. For example, the American Helms-Burton act (aka the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021–6091) has been negated in Canada by the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-29 at section 7.1:

This would seem to answer the question of whether a US citizen is subject to US jurisdiction while outside the US. He or she is not. He or she is within the jurisdiction of the country (and subdivision, as in Canadian provinces or Australian states) where he or she happens to be.

But don’t light that Cohiba up just yet, or buy those 222s. Once an American is within the borders of the US, he or she is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Importing Cuban cigars, 222s with codeine, or (I’d imagine) even a receipt from the “Kids R Us” brothel in a foreign land, will land an American in trouble upon re-entering the US.

The fact is that if you, as an American, plan on returning to the US with your illegal-in-the-US goods, or evidence that you engaged in activity that the US deems illegal, you will be in trouble once you re-enter the US. It would seem to me that this is the only way that the US can enforce its extraterritorial laws: when Americans return with evidence that they have violated American law when outside the US.

FWIW China Guy is actually reporting on two different things in his post. The requirement to report overseas assets if it’s more than $10,000 is not from Sarbanes-Oxley. I know because every goddamn year I have to fill out like 8-9 of those TD-90-22-1 forms due to assets I have in Europe.

This isn’t completely true. South Africa will tax you on your worldwide income only if it considers you a resident of South Africa. When I moved to the US in 2004 I didn’t need to pay South African taxes on my US salary. Source: “Tax Brochure for Non-Residents” from http://www.sars.gov.za/home.asp?pid=44773.

The bounty hunter case is interesting. As mentioned, the extradition law says the act has to be illegal in both countries; so the key failing was that a bounty hunter empowered in the USA is still NOT empowered to act the same in Canada. Therefore, he committed kidnap in Canada, same act as kidnap in the USA. A logical decision - after all, the reciprocal implication would be that if Canada empowered someone to seize fugitives, they could act in the USA with impunity; basically, law enforecement could cross the border to grab whomever they wanted with impunity, thereby voiding the need for an extradition treaty.

An interesting question is whether court orders are also enforceable. Quite a few years ago, Ontario prosecutors messed up and made a deal with Karla Homolka, assuming she was a battered wife coerced by her husband (Paul Bernardo). When they discovered she was in fact an active participant in 3 murders, and later another sexual assault, all on video, the court ordered that details of her plea deal were not to be made public. However, websites in the US decided that did not apply to them. Cable systems in Canada were put in the position of having to block US channels that contained commentary on the case and trying to block web sites.

Similarly, Canada forbade reporting of election results before the polls closed (progressively across the time zones). This became a joke with the web and then Twitter. The question is whether a gag order in one country can be applied in another country.

See also United States v. Elcom Ltd. - Wikipedia - Skylarov did his programming in Russia, as an employee of a company that sold a product considered infringing in the USA; they nabbed him during a visit to the USA to present a paper. For that he was held in prison for months, coerced into providing testimony, and finally allowed to go home after 6 months - for a case that eventually found that Elcomsoft did not violate DMCA.