美國《反海外索賄法》的“長臂管轄”及其違法性

The“Long-arm Jurisdiction”of U.S. Foreign Extortion Prevention Act and Its Illegitimacy

美國2023年《反海外索賄法》確立了對外國官員索賄犯罪的刑事管轄權。其管轄措施是合法的域外管轄，還是“長臂管轄”，值得剖析。在犯罪主體上，該法落實了相關多邊反腐敗公約義務，但其對“外國官員”的定義超出了現有公約規定；在犯罪方式上，該法以“使用郵件或州際商務途徑或工具”為連結點，部分符合主觀或客觀屬地管轄權，而部分構成對屬地管轄權的過度擴張；在犯罪對象上，該法以“美國人”為連結點，符合消極屬人管轄權，而以“發行人”或其他“國內關聯者”為連結點，構成對消極屬人管轄權的過度擴張。對於該法的合理之處，我國可考慮適當借鑒，確立並行使對外國官員索賄罪的域外管轄權，以維護我國海外反腐敗利益、促進反腐敗國際法治。

The U.S. Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) of 2023 establishes criminal jurisdiction over the offense of extortion by foreign officials. It comes the interesting question of whether the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the FEPA is legitimate under international law or it is just so-called“long-arm jurisdiction”deemed as illegal. For the subject of the crime, the FEPA implements the obligations of relevant multilateral anti-corruption conventions but defines“foreign official”quite broadly, which goes beyond the definition in U.N. Convention Against Corruption. For the manner of the crime,“by making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce”also has broad meanings, which may extend the territorial jurisdiction too far. For the target of the crime, the DOJ has the passive personal jurisdiction on foreign corruptions if they are solicited from U.S. citizens or nationals, but when it comes to the“issuer”and“domestic concerns”other than U.S. citizens or nationals, its jurisdiction cannot be justified by the passive personality principle in the contemporary international law. China may consider making appropriate reference to the reasonable aspects of the FEPA, establish and implement extraterritorial jurisdiction over the corruption committed by foreign officials, in order to protect our interests of overseas anti- corruption and promote the international rule of law against corruption.