United States v. Campbell
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81918
D.D.C.2011Background
- Campbell, an Australian, worked for IOM in Afghanistan on USAID-funded CHEF contracts.
- Indictment charges Campbell with conspiring to solicit a bribe under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) for contracts totaling over $5,000.
- Subcontracts to ABC were awarded under CHEF; Campbell served on a panel selecting subcontractors.
- An undercover USAID-IG agent met Campbell in Kabul, who sought $190,000 cash to favor ABC.
- Campbell accepted $10,000 in cash and discussed a $180,000 future payment; he proposed a nighttime meeting.
- The government seeks to prosecute Campbell in the United States under § 666 despite Afghanistan-based conduct; Campbell moves to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extratrerritorial reach of § 666 | Bowman-based extraterritoriality governs § 666. | Morrison requires explicit text for extraterritorial reach; Bowman should be limited. | Extraterritorial prosecution permitted for this statute and facts. |
| Non-citizen extraterritorial jurisdiction | Bowman extends to non-U.S. citizens when statute targets government interests. | Citizenship should bar extraterritorial reach absent explicit intent. | Non-citizen defendant may be prosecuted under § 666 in these facts. |
| Due process nexus | Nexus to U.S. financing and American interests suffices. | No sufficient nexus; risk of arbitrariness or unfairness. | Prosecution satisfies due process under either nexus or fairness approach. |
| Customary international law | Protective principle allows U.S. jurisdiction over conduct abroad harming national interests. | International-law limits could bar extraterritorial reach. | Protective principle supports prosecution. |
| Agent of an organization receiving federal funds | Campbell acted as an IOM agent for CHEF contracts. | He may not have been an IOM employee; Indictment non-factual on this point. | Sufficiency of indictment to allege agency is unresolved; denial without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922) (extraterritoriality for offenses affecting government interests)
- Delgado-Garcia v. United States, 374 F.3d 1337 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (extraterritorial reach of § 1324; contextual and textual factors)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) (presumption against extraterritorial application; requires textual intent)
- Cotten v. United States, 471 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1973) (extraterritorial application of § 641; government-protective rationale)
- United States v. Ayesh, 762 F. Supp. 2d 832 (E.D. Va. 2011) (extraterritorial reach for government-related crimes)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (due process nexus and substantive national interest considerations)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) (presumed respect for international-law limits on prescribing)
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (legislation to protect federal funds from corruption)