United States v. Bowman
43 S. Ct. 39, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2344, 260 U.S. 94 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal criminal statute is presumed to apply extraterritorially to the conduct of U.S. citizens if the crime is not logically dependent on its location and is enacted to protect the government itself from fraud or obstruction, even if the statute lacks express language about its geographic scope.
Facts:
- The United States government owned the steamship Dio through its full ownership of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation ('Fleet Corporation').
- Wry, the ship's master, and Bowman, its engineer, were both American citizens.
- While on board the Dio, Wry and Bowman conspired to defraud the Fleet Corporation.
- The plan involved ordering 1,000 tons of fuel oil in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, but only accepting 600 tons, while arranging to be paid for the full 1,000 tons.
- They recruited Hawkinson, an American agent for the Standard Oil Company in Rio, and Millar, a British merchant in Rio, to help execute the scheme.
- An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, a wireless telegram ordering the fuel, was sent from the Dio while it was on the high seas.
Procedural Posture:
- Wry, Bowman, Hawkinson, and Millar were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to defraud a U.S. government-owned corporation.
- A defendant filed a demurrer (a motion to dismiss), arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the crime was committed entirely outside the territory of the United States.
- The District Court sustained the demurrer, holding that the criminal statute did not apply extraterritorially, and dismissed the indictment.
- The United States, as the prosecuting party, filed a writ of error directly appealing the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal criminal statute prohibiting conspiracy to defraud a corporation in which the United States is a stockholder apply to the conduct of U.S. citizens that occurs on the high seas and in a foreign country, even if the statute does not explicitly state that it applies extraterritorially?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taft
Yes. A federal criminal statute prohibiting conspiracy to defraud a government-owned corporation applies to the conduct of U.S. citizens on the high seas and in foreign countries. The Court distinguished between two types of criminal statutes for the purpose of determining their territorial reach. Crimes against private individuals or property, which affect the peace and good order of the community, are presumed to be strictly territorial unless Congress explicitly states otherwise. However, statutes criminalizing acts against the government itself, such as fraud or obstruction, are not logically dependent on their location for jurisdiction. To limit the application of such statutes to the U.S. territory would severely curtail their effectiveness, as many frauds against the government can be committed abroad, especially by its own citizens. Therefore, for statutes protecting the government's operations and integrity, legislative intent for extraterritorial application can be inferred from the nature of the offense, even without express language.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant canon of construction for federal criminal statutes, creating a presumption of extraterritoriality for laws designed to protect the U.S. government's sovereign interests. By bifurcating crimes into those that are inherently local and those that target the government itself, the Court provided a framework for extending U.S. jurisdiction over its citizens abroad without explicit statutory text. This precedent has become foundational for prosecuting a wide range of offenses committed by U.S. nationals overseas, including fraud, bribery of officials, and other crimes against the government. It ensures that citizens cannot use foreign locations as a shield to defraud the entity to which they owe allegiance.
