Key Takeaways
- U.S. criminal laws apply only inside the United States unless Congress clearly says they reach conduct abroad.
- Prosecutors most often reach foreign conduct through a U.S. connection, such as an American offender or victim, harm to the United States, or use of the U.S. financial system.
- Recent laws extend U.S. reach over war criminals found in the United States and foreign officials who demand bribes, while FCPA enforcement priorities narrowed in 2025.
How can American prosecutors charge a foreign banker for conduct in Switzerland, or an executive for a bribe paid in Asia? Why does U.S. criminal law seem to have such a long jurisdictional arm?
In this TalksOnLaw Brief, Alex Spiro, a trial lawyer, former Manhattan prosecutor, and partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, explains the legal principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction: when U.S. law reaches conduct that happens outside the United States, and what kind of connection to the United States prosecutors look for.
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
Spiro starts with the default rule. Most U.S. criminal law is territorial, meaning it applies to conduct inside the United States. Courts apply a presumption against extraterritoriality: unless Congress makes clear that a law reaches conduct abroad, it does not. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that presumption in cases such as Morrison v. National Australia Bank, RJR Nabisco v. European Community, and Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International.
Citizens, Victims, and Harm to the United States
Spiro then describes the main categories in which U.S. law does travel. First, the United States regulates its own citizens abroad, so an American traveling overseas is not beyond the reach of U.S. law. Second, a foreign national whose conduct targets an American, such as making false statements to an American investor, can face U.S. charges. Third, conduct that harms the United States itself can be charged. For securities fraud and insider trading, the reach of U.S. law often turns on whether the securities or transactions involved have a domestic connection, which is the focus of Morrison.
In practice, the most common hook is the financial system. Wire transfers through U.S. banks and other links in the chain of commerce allow prosecutors to bring a wide range of foreign conduct within U.S. jurisdiction. He points to the Swiss bank secrecy cases, in which Swiss bankers following Swiss law were prosecuted because their conduct touched the U.S. banking and tax system, and to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which can reach bribery even where the conduct is tolerated locally and can land executives in prison.
Crimes Against Everyone
Finally, Spiro describes a category of conduct so shocking to the conscience, such as war crimes, that it is treated as a harm to everyone, including the United States. Prosecutors do not pursue bar fights in Dublin, he notes, but in cases like these a foreign citizen acting against foreign victims abroad can still face U.S. jurisdiction.
What to Know Now
Spiro’s framework still describes how prosecutors approach cases abroad, and several developments have sharpened it. The Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act of 2023 expanded the federal war crimes statute to reach offenders present in the United States regardless of nationality, and the Justice Department brought its first charges under the War Crimes Act shortly afterward. The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act of 2023 now makes it a federal crime for foreign officials to demand or accept bribes from U.S. companies and others covered by the law.
FCPA enforcement has also shifted. In 2025, the executive branch paused new FCPA enforcement and the Justice Department then issued guidelines focusing cases on conduct tied to cartels and transnational criminal organizations, harm to U.S. businesses, and national security, and dropped some pending matters. The statute itself is unchanged. Supporters see the narrower focus as protecting American competitiveness, while critics warn it weakens the global fight against corruption. Courts, meanwhile, continue to apply the presumption against extraterritoriality carefully, as in United States v. Hoskins, which limited FCPA conspiracy charges against foreign nationals acting abroad.
