The gift that keeps on giving. Does the protection against double jeopardy have any application to international crime?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13590791211266322 |
| Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Pages | 326-331 |
| Published date | 05 October 2012 |
| Author | Tyler W. Hodgson |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
The gift that keeps on giving
Does the protection against double jeopardy
have any application to international crime?
Tyler W. Hodgson
Borden Lander Gervais LLP, Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – Various countries have recently passed anti-corruption and bribery laws that have
international jurisdictional reach. The overlapping jurisdiction of these “long arm” statutes presents
the real possibility that an offender can be twice prosecuted for the same conduct, as recently
demonstrated in the case of US v. Jeong. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the difference of
approach between various nations in their understanding and application of the doctrine of
international double jeopardy.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores the profound divergence in the application
of the doctrine of double jeopardy in an international context, primarily by comparing and contrasting
two representative jurisdictions on the subject, Canada and the USA.
Findings – The dividing line between the approach tointernational double jeopardy by common law
nations is the doctrine of dual sovereignty. Jurisdictions which have not adopted the dual sovereignty
doctrine (such as Canada) are more likely to view a prior verdict from a foreign court as a bar
any further prosecution for the same offence; by contrast, countries that have adopted the dual
sovereignty doctrine (such as the UA) are less likely to view a previous foreign conviction or acquittal
as a bar to further prosecution.
Practical implications – In negotiating a global settlement for acts of corruption or bribery, no
finality can be achieved unless and until a resolution is reached with dual sovereignty jurisdictions.
Originality/value – This paper is of value to any individual or multi-national concern that operates
in more than one jurisdiction, as it outlines the potential dangers associated with reaching a premature
global settlement for acts of bribery and corruption.
Keywords Internationallaw, Criminal law, Bribery, Corruption,Double jeopardy, Conflict of laws,
Dual sovereigntydoctrine, Canada, United Statesof America
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
The recent promulgation of the UK Bribery Act garnered significant industry and medi a
attention, both due to the comprehensive nature of the prohibitions in the Act, as well as
the broad jurisdictional reach of the legislation. Due in large part to the dedicated efforts
of the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) Working
Group[1] to achieve compliance with the Convention on Combating Bribery[2]
(the “Convention”), the jurisdictional reach of the anti-bribery laws of the 38 nations that
have adopted the Convention effectively transcend the globe[3]. Based on the expression
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm
This paper is based on a presentation that was delivered at the 29th International Symposium on
Economic Crime, Jesus College, Cambridge University. The author wishes to thank his wife,
Kelly Hart, as well as Stephanie Young and Parisa Nikfarjam, for their invaluable assistance in
the preparation of this paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone
writing in his individual capacity.
JFC
19,4
326
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol. 19 No. 4, 2012
pp. 326-331
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/13590791211266322
To continue reading
Request your trial