4 ms·

You don't need to be in a country to commit crimes in that country. A lot of financial crime wouldn't be a prosecuted in that case.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
That seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners
- nix23 6y ago
  True, that Country can make a Penalty application and your getting prosecuted in your country.
- tw04 6y ago
  We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books: https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-years-for-cybercrime/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y... There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted. Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?
  - buckminster 6y ago
    Extradition requires dual criminality. If you can extradite you can prosecute the offence locally.
    - detaro 6y ago
      I don't think that's universally true? E.g. reading the judgement here, when evaluating the charges regarding the conspiracy to obtain national security documents, does not ask "is stealing US national security documents against UK law", but rather "if Manning had been a UK army member, targeting the UK, would this have been against UK law", finding that would be the case and thus accepting the conspiracy charges as fulfilling dual criminality. But you couldn't prosecute Assange in the UK for conspiracy to steal documents from the US and damage done to US national security, but at best for damage done to UK national security through that. (It's possible I am misunderstanding something?)
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    What you are arguing is moral myopia. Countries are sovereign, a Nigerian person living in Nigeria is only beholden to laws of Nigeria. In your world, you can accuse someone who lives in Mongolia of a crime that doesn't even exist is Mongolian legal system, such as some peculiarities of US copyright or packaging of lobsters. You seem to think they should be flown to the US to be tried at your convenience to in a language they don't speak, in a legal system they don't understand at their expense? You could prosecute him in Australia for hacking in whatever form it broke Australian law. How can any non-US citizen be held responsible for some vague 'damage to US national security' if they have nothing to do with the US? Why should a hypothetical person living in Nigeria be responsible for US, UK, Russian, Saudi, Israeli and everyone else's national security?
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      I mean, if I make war on a foreign country, I don't think "I'm don't live there" is a valid defense against retaliation.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Laws and customs of war are not about justice, presumption of innocence, due process or fair trial. I have no idea why you would compare the two, to me this speak to lack of clarity you have on this issue. An individual can't 'make war', only countries can do that. We are talking about an allegation (not proven!) of a crime, highly political in nature to boot, not 'retaliation'
xg15 6y ago
I agree there a valid cases for such a rule: In a world that has global communication and logistics available for practically everyone, you can potentially cause a lot of harm in a country without ever stepping foot in it. On the other hand, this is also a very obvious slippery slope if now the jurisdiction of any country were to be applied globally. What if a country abuses this to get rid of political opponents, to gain an economic advantage or to cover up its own crimes? (See e.g. the recent threats from China about showing solidarity with the Hong Kong movement even outside of China. See the US covering up war crimes.) What happens if two countries have mutually exclusive laws? (e.g. at least for some time, it was a crime in Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide while in France it was a crime to not acknowledge it) If we don't want this to devolve simply to "rule of the strongest", more detailed rules are needed.
- nix23 6y ago
  That's why you should just make extradition contracts with country's that have a fair and ~humane justice system.
JAlexoid 6y ago
Service related activities are treated a little different. Service is considered to be delivered in the country where the service beneficiary is. That's why financial services cannot be delivered cross border, without legal approval in the "destination" country. On the other hand sales of goods is something that happens in the seller's country - that's how companies in countries without consumer protection can just tell you to STFU on thing you bought from them.
worik 6y ago
A lot of financial crime does not get prosecuted

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

That seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners

nix23 6y ago
True, that Country can make a Penalty application and your getting prosecuted in your country.
tw04 6y ago
We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books: https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-years-for-cybercrime/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y... There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted. Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?
- buckminster 6y ago
  Extradition requires dual criminality. If you can extradite you can prosecute the offence locally.
  - detaro 6y ago
    I don't think that's universally true? E.g. reading the judgement here, when evaluating the charges regarding the conspiracy to obtain national security documents, does not ask "is stealing US national security documents against UK law", but rather "if Manning had been a UK army member, targeting the UK, would this have been against UK law", finding that would be the case and thus accepting the conspiracy charges as fulfilling dual criminality. But you couldn't prosecute Assange in the UK for conspiracy to steal documents from the US and damage done to US national security, but at best for damage done to UK national security through that. (It's possible I am misunderstanding something?)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  What you are arguing is moral myopia. Countries are sovereign, a Nigerian person living in Nigeria is only beholden to laws of Nigeria. In your world, you can accuse someone who lives in Mongolia of a crime that doesn't even exist is Mongolian legal system, such as some peculiarities of US copyright or packaging of lobsters. You seem to think they should be flown to the US to be tried at your convenience to in a language they don't speak, in a legal system they don't understand at their expense? You could prosecute him in Australia for hacking in whatever form it broke Australian law. How can any non-US citizen be held responsible for some vague 'damage to US national security' if they have nothing to do with the US? Why should a hypothetical person living in Nigeria be responsible for US, UK, Russian, Saudi, Israeli and everyone else's national security?
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    I mean, if I make war on a foreign country, I don't think "I'm don't live there" is a valid defense against retaliation.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Laws and customs of war are not about justice, presumption of innocence, due process or fair trial. I have no idea why you would compare the two, to me this speak to lack of clarity you have on this issue. An individual can't 'make war', only countries can do that. We are talking about an allegation (not proven!) of a crime, highly political in nature to boot, not 'retaliation'

xg15 6y ago

I agree there a valid cases for such a rule: In a world that has global communication and logistics available for practically everyone, you can potentially cause a lot of harm in a country without ever stepping foot in it. On the other hand, this is also a very obvious slippery slope if now the jurisdiction of any country were to be applied globally. What if a country abuses this to get rid of political opponents, to gain an economic advantage or to cover up its own crimes? (See e.g. the recent threats from China about showing solidarity with the Hong Kong movement even outside of China. See the US covering up war crimes.) What happens if two countries have mutually exclusive laws? (e.g. at least for some time, it was a crime in Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide while in France it was a crime to not acknowledge it) If we don't want this to devolve simply to "rule of the strongest", more detailed rules are needed.

nix23 6y ago
That's why you should just make extradition contracts with country's that have a fair and ~humane justice system.

JAlexoid 6y ago

Service related activities are treated a little different. Service is considered to be delivered in the country where the service beneficiary is. That's why financial services cannot be delivered cross border, without legal approval in the "destination" country. On the other hand sales of goods is something that happens in the seller's country - that's how companies in countries without consumer protection can just tell you to STFU on thing you bought from them.

worik 6y ago

A lot of financial crime does not get prosecuted