Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cybercrime jurisdiction

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The principles that govern a sovereign’s exercise of jurisdiction to prohibit conduct and to sanction those who violate such prohibitions are well-established as to conduct occurring in the real, physical world. These principles evolved over the last several millennia, as law increased in sophistication and life became more complex. Real-world crime is, almost exclusively, a local phenomenon; the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) are all physically present at a specific geographical point when a crime is committed. The principles that govern the exercise of criminal jurisdiction are therefore predicated on the assumption that “crime” is a territorial phenomenon. Cybercrime makes these principles problematic in varying ways and in varying degrees. Unlike real-world crime, it is not physically grounded; cybercrime increasingly tends not to occur in a single sovereign territory. The perpetrator of a cybercrime may physically be in Country A, while his victim is in Country B, or his victims are in Countries B, C, D and so on. The perpetrator may further complicate matters by routing his attack on the victim in Country B through computers in Countries F and G. The result of these and other cybercrime scenarios is that the cybercrime is not committed “in” the territory of a single sovereign state; instead, “pieces” of the cybercrime occur in territory claimed by several different sovereigns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, e.g., “Love Bug” Investigation Turns to 2 Computer School Students in Philippines, CNN (May 11, 2000), http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/southeast/05/10/ilove.you.02/.

  2. Sasser Creator Avoids Jail Term, BBC News (July 8, 2005), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4659329.stm.

  3. See, e.g., IC3 2004 Internet Fraud – Crime Report 10, http://www1.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/2004_IC3Report.pdf.

  4. See generally R. Thomas Rankin, “Space Tourism,” 36 Suffolk University Law Review 695 (2003).

  5. See, e.g., Peter Finn, “Neo-Nazis Skirt German Law, Put Net Sites in U.S.,” Arizona Republic/Gazette, December 26, 2000.

  6. See Ruth Rissing-van Saan, “The German Federal Supreme Court and the Prosecution of International Crimes Committed in the Former Yugoslavia,” 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 381 (2005).

  7. Black’s Law Dictionary, “Jurisdiction” (8th ed. 2004).

  8. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 401 (1987).

  9. American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 401(a) (1987).

  10. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 401(b) (1987).

  11. American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 401(c) (1987).

  12. See, e.g., Joan Fitzpatrick, “Sovereignty, Territoriality, and the Rule of Law,” 25 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 303 (2002). See also Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime Article 22(1) (CETS No. 185) (November 23, 2001).

  13. American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 206 comment b (1987).

  14. American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 356 (1909).

  15. See, e.g., United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, Article 4 (2000).

  16. Nationality has historically been a secondary basis of criminal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 12, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/10 (1998).

  17. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 402 (1987). See also United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, Article 15 (2000).

  18. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 402 (1987). See also Ray August, “International Cyber-jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis” 39 American Business Law Journal 531 (2002).

  19. American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, “Introductory Note” (1987).

  20. American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 421(1) (1987).

  21. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 421(2) (1987). See also United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, Article 15 (2000).

  22. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 421(2) (1987). See also Ashton Investments, Ltd. v. OJSC Russian Aluminum (Rusal), et al., [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm) ¶¶ 59–61 (October 18, 2006), http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2006/2545.html; Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 673, 683–686, 634 S.E.2d 357, 360–363 (Va. App. 2006); State v. Rupnick, 280 Kan. 720, 741–742, 125 P.3d 541, 555–556 (Kan. 2005).

  23. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 431(1) (1987).

  24. Roger O’Keefe, “Universal Jurisdiction,” 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 735, 740 (2004).

  25. See American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Section 431(3) (1987).

  26. See, e.g., United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, Article 4 (2000).

  27. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner, “Toward A Criminal Law for Cyberspace: Distributed Security,” 10 Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law 1 (2004).

  28. See, e.g., State v. Cline, 2005 WL 2858109 (Ohio Court of Appeals 2005).

  29. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner, “Toward A Criminal Law for Cyberspace: Distributed Security,” 10 Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law 1 (2004).

  30. See, e.g., Stephanie Nolen, “Nigerian E-Mail Scammers Feeding on Greed, Gullibility,” Globe and Mail (December 5, 2005).

  31. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner & Joseph J. Schwerha IV, “Transnational Evidence Gathering and Local Prosecution f International Cybercrime,” 20 John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 347 (2002).

  32. The discussion assumes that Australia seeks to assert adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction, having already exercised jurisdiction to proscribe the activity in question.

  33. For a review of Australian law on this issue, see Gregor Urbas and Peter Grabosky, “Australia” in Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey (Bert-Jaap Koops & Susan W. Brenner, eds., 2006). See, e.g., Ashton Investments, Ltd. v. OJSC Russian Aluminum (Rusal), et al., [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm) pp. 59–61 (October 18, 2006), http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2006/2545.html.

  34. See, e.g., Florida Statutes Annotated Section 910.005(2); Montana Code Annotated Section 46-2-101(2).

  35. See, e.g., U.S. v. Pizdrint, 938 F. Supp. 1110 (M.D. Fla. 1997); U.S. v. Yousef, 927 F. Supp. 673 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). See also Ashton Investments, Ltd. v. OJSC Russian Aluminum (Rusal), et al., [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm) pp. 59–61 (October 18, 2006), http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2006/2545.html.

  36. For more on this issue, see Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey (Bert-Jaap Koops & Susan W. Brenner, eds., 2006).

  37. See Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime Article 22 (CETS No. 185) (November 23, 2001).

  38. Ibid.

  39. Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-27-606. See also North Carolina General Statutes Annotated Section 14-453.2.

  40. Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated Section 708–895. See also 21 Oklahoma Statutes Annotated Section 1957.

  41. See Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-45-21.

  42. See Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated Section 762.10b.

  43. Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.11(7).

  44. See Susan W. Brenner & Bert-Jaap Koops, “Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction,” 4 Journal of High Technology Law 1 (2004). Singapore and Malaysia also have very expansive cybercrime jurisdictional statutes. See id.

  45. West Virginia Code Section 61-3C-20.

  46. See note 45, supra.

  47. See, e.g., U.S. Secret Service, Public Awareness Advisory Regarding “4-1-9” or “Advance Fee Fraud” Schemes, http://www.secretservice.gov/alert419.shtml.

  48. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner & Bert-Jaap Koops, “Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction,” 4 Journal of High Technology Law 1 (2004).

  49. Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime Article 22(5) (ETS No. 185) (November 23, 2001).

  50. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, Article 15 ¶ 5 (2001), http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/res5525e.pdf.

  51. Roger S. Clark, The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 50 Wayne Law Review 161, 181 (2004).

  52. See The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (2001), http://www.princeton.edu/~lapa/unive_jur.pdf.

  53. See, e.g., American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 28(a) (1971).

  54. See, e.g., John Tagliabue, “Top Italian Court Upholds Arrest Warrant for Abbas,” New York Times (October 31, 1985).

  55. 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(e)(11).

  56. See, e.g., 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(5)(B) (non-monetary damage).

  57. See, e.g., The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction 32 (2001), http://www.princeton.edu/~lapa/unive_jur.pdf (Principle 8, subparagraph (b)). See also Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime Article 22(1) (CETS No. 185) (November 23, 2001).

  58. See, e.g., Antonio Cassese, “Is The Bell Tolling For Universality? A Plea for A Sensible Notion of Universal Jurisdiction, 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 589, 593 (2003).

  59. See generally Explanatory Report, Convention on Cybercrime Article 22 ¶ 236 (ETS No. 185), http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/185.htm.

  60. Geoffrey R. Watson, “The Passive Personality Principle,” 28 Texas International Law Journal 1, 17 (1993).

  61. See Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime Article 22 ¶ 3 (ETS No. 185) (November 23, 2001), http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm.

  62. See, e.g., Alex Schmid, “Terrorism – The Definitional Problem,” 36 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 391, 395 (2004).

  63. See, e.g., Karene Jullien, “The Recent International Efforts To End Commercial Sexual Exploitation Of Children,” 31 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 579, 595 (2003).

  64. See, e.g., The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction 32 (2001), http://www.princeton.edu/~lapa/unive_jur.pdf (Principle 8, subparagraph (f)).

  65. See, e.g., id. See also Adam Taylor, “Anti-Gun Messages Might Resurface,” Ohio News Journal (December 2, 2003), 2003 WLNR 12888988.

  66. See, e.g., Lynn Burke, “Love Bug Case Dead in Manila,” Wired News (August 21, 2000).

  67. See, e.g., “‘Love Bug’ Investigation Turns To 2 Computer School Students In Philippines,” CNN (May 11, 2000), http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/southeast/05/10/ilove.you.02/.

  68. See, e.g., “Love Bug Suspect Detained,” BBC News (May 8, 2000), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/740558.stm.

  69. See 18 U.S. Code Section 1030.

  70. See, e.g., Senate Approves Sen. Chambliss Amendment To Bring Foreign Criminals To Justice, U.S. Federal News (July 20, 2005).

  71. See, e.g., The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction 32 (2001), http://www.princeton.edu/~lapa/unive_jur.pdf (Principle 8, subparagraph (g)).

  72. See, e.g., The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction 32 (2001), http://www.princeton.edu/~lapa/unive_jur.pdf (Principle 8, subparagraph (h)).

  73. See, e.g., Frederick I. Lederer, “The Potential Use of Courtroom Technology in Major Terrorism Cases,” 12 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 887 (2004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Dayton School of Law, Dayton, OH, USA

    Susan W. Brenner

Authors
  1. Susan W. Brenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan W. Brenner.

Additional information

Susan Brenner is a NCR Distinguished Professor of Law & Technology, University of Dayton School of Law.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brenner, S.W. Cybercrime jurisdiction. Crime Law Soc Change 46, 189–206 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9063-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9063-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation