4 ms·
Yes and no, and I used "generally" for good reason. While the DoJ's often-obnoxious international behavior gets plenty of attention, the "how much does this ma
by bell-cot 3y ago
Yes and no, and I used "generally" for good reason.
While the DoJ's often-obnoxious international behavior gets plenty of attention, the "how much does this matter to the US?" threshold for them to get involved rises sharply beyond the US border. And the legal basis for their involvement (Boeing does have lawyers, to argue the details in court) often changes, too.
OR - if a small-time, local crook is robbing US banks, how likely is the DoJ to get involved? (Hint: Answer includes "FBI".) Vs. how many small-time, local bank robbers is the DoJ chasing in Canada? Poland? Thailand?
- alephnerd 3y agoThe US also has the Alien Tort Act from 1789 [0] (one of our oldest acts) that gives Federal Courts jurisdiction in violations of law abroad. It de facto allow foreign nationals to sue parties with sufficient ties to the US (most black money ends up in the US in some way) in Federal Courts for human rights violations committed outside the United States We also have the Magnitsky Act that allows US sanctions on foreign politicians found to have been corrupt (and it's named after the accountant who Jamison Firestone hired to manage his Russian business and who was assassinated for his investigations into corruption and malfeasance) There are a slew of additional laws, acts, and precedents that allow the DoJ to step in (or allow foreign nationals to push the DoJ to step in) if bad practices arise. Unsurprisingly, both China and Russia have been very vocally opposed to both acts, as it makes laundering ill gotten gains much harder. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute