The Jurisdictional Issue of the U.S. Criminal Charges Against FIFA Officials

[Forever Fulham]

This article does a nice job of explaining the legal grounds.  The why and how of it.
A few on this board have ventured to guess that U.S. is in this only to wreck Russia's World Cup.  They have suggested that this is but an extension of a cold war that they claim was resumed after the takeover of Crimea.  I'm not going to address that theory in depth.  I have no answers other than to suggest readers look at the time line of the investigation which seems to precede Putin's attempts to put the Soviet band back together.  It would appear the U.S. was actively engaged in mustering evidence of a criminal enterprise within FIFA's ranks long before the Russians began invading former Soviet states.  But perhaps recent geopolitical events nudged things along at a more determined pace.  We'll likely never know the answer to that one. 

We all grew up watching detective shows where we learned how the police focus on motive as a sine qua non.  What was the U.S.'s motive to go after a football organization headquartered in Europe?  Posters have speculated that the U.S. has little motive to do so, given its perceived lack of interest in the game, other than bitterness over having lost its bid to host.  Is the use of New York based banks to accomplish the alleged bribes the motive, in and of itself, for the U.S. to have taken this action? 

Forget that the U.S. finished higher than England in the last two World Cups, with the last Cup finding it in nothing less than the Group of Death.  Forget that the growth of youth players in the country keeps exploding each year, that MLS attendance and franchise teams keep rising in number, that second and third tier pro leagues are increasing in number and attendance.  U.S. viewers for international games are enormous.  When the U.S.M.N.T. or the unbelievably successful women's team play in a major cup, the viewership is over the moon.  And in-person attendance rises each year at a stunning rate.  Many of those children who played the game in club football and/or high school football remain fans as adults.  The parents who shlepped them park to park, game venue to game venue, practice after practice, without end -- many of them, too, picked up a love for the game along the way.  (That's my story.)  So, does the U.S. have an interest in seeing the overseers clean up their swamp?  Does that desire go beyond any possible revenge motive?  Who the hell knows.  Here's the article.


The stunning arrests of FIFA's top brass at a glitzy Swiss hotel at dawn on Wednesday were widely heralded as a move against the international soccer juggernaut itself. In Slate, Stefan Fatsis wrote a story with the headline "The American justice system could actually bring down mighty FIFA."* CNN announced that the United States is "bringing down the hammer on FIFA." A New York Times editorial praised the Justice Department for taking "aggressive action" against "FIFA's corruption."
Mark Joseph Stern


Wednesday's bust may lead to the collapse of FIFA—but the legal theory behind the prosecution of FIFA's leaders rests on the opposite premise. The Justice Department says it isn't trying to bring down FIFA; it's trying to save it. And it has decided to do so by arresting, prosecuting, and (with luck) imprisoning a stunning array of the organization's most powerful leaders.
The roots of America's FIFA bust lie in a 1970 law called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Congress passed RICO to help frustrated prosecutors take down the Mafia. Individual mobsters' crimes were often difficult to prosecute in isolation from the Mafia's broader criminal conspiracies. RICO allowed prosecutors to essentially put the Mafia on trial by tying together different mobsters' crimes as part of a broad "criminal enterprise." The law held mob bosses accountable for the criminal acts they ordered their minions to commit, since their coordination furthered the aims of the conspiracy. And once the RICO prosecution got rolling, attorneys could bring into the trial any fact that corroborated the existence or operation of the criminal enterprise.
But RICO reaches far beyond the Mafia. Almost any association of people can qualify as an "enterprise" prosecutable under the law, from anti-abortion activists to police officers. And once someone is a member of that "enterprise," he or she is responsible for the entirety of the conspiracy's actions—so long as he or she was aware of the general purpose of the enterprise and agreed to further it in some way.

The Justice Department's main charge against FIFA's officials isn't very pretty.
Given all the speculation over the years about bribes, vote trading, game throwing, and other potentially criminal behavior, it might sound like FIFA fits the definition of a corrupt organization. Counterintuitive as it may seem, though, the Justice Department hasn't alleged that FIFA is a criminal enterprise. Rather, it has alleged that FIFA is the victim of a criminal enterprise—the group of corrupt officials who secured bribes and kickbacks through years of fraud and racketeering. Altogether these officials allegedly illegally solicited well over $150 million in exchange for exclusive media and marketing rights of international soccer tournaments. The Justice Department isn't prosecuting them for that purported fraud alone. It is prosecuting them for allegedly participating in a criminal enterprise to defraud FIFA.

This charge is at the heart of the monster 161-page indictment released Wednesday. "The damage inflicted by the defendants and their co-conspirators," the indictment declares, "was far-reaching":

By conspiring to enrich themselves ... the defendants deprived FIFA, the confederations, and their constituent organizations—and, therefore, the national member associations, national teams, youth leagues, and development programs that rely on financial support from their parent organizations—of the full value of [their] rights. ...uch deprivations inflicted significant reputational harm on the victimized institutions, damaging their prospects for attracting conscientious members and leaders and limiting their ability to operate effectively and carry out their core mission.

The Justice Department's main charge against FIFA's officials isn't very pretty. America is not attempting to topple a bloated, unprincipled organization. Rather, it is attempting to protect that horrible organization from its even more unscrupulous officials. These men owed a duty to FIFA to carry out their jobs honorably and conduct their business legally. Instead, they allegedly conspired to bribe their way to millions in personal wealth. The money they're accused of pocketing should have gone to FIFA. Instead, prosecutors say, it went into their bank accounts.

And therein lies the second key to the Justice Department's strategy. Many of the indicted officials are foreign nationals who have never lived in the United States. So how does the United States—and the Eastern District of New York in particular—have jurisdiction to prosecute them?

As it turns out, FIFA officials didn't accept bribes in briefcases filled with cash: They allegedly had the money wired to them. And the banks that transferred the money keep their servers in—you guessed it—New York City. Thus, if an official had bribes wired to his bank account, his funds were routed through servers located in the Eastern District of New York—giving the U.S. jurisdiction to prosecute the crime. As FBI Director James Comey explained, "If you touch our shores with your corrupt enterprise, whether that's through meetings or using our world-class financial system, you will be held accountable."

Even if some officials had kept their money out of American banks, however, the U.S. could probably still assert jurisdiction to prosecute them. That's because their alleged conspiracy operated, in large part, in the United States. Officials often held meetings in New York—meetings where they discussed, according to the indictment, "ongoing bribe schemes." By furthering their allegedly criminal enterprise in New York, and associating with others who funneled money through New York banks, these officials ensnared themselves in a web whose center was the city itself. Some officials may not have, individually, committed an illegal act in New York. But under RICO, their purported participation in this conspiracy puts them on the hook for all of its wrongdoings.

For years, prosecutors say, officials in FIFA's upper rungs worked together to enrich themselves through fraud and deceit, using their immense power to extract kickbacks in return for favors only they were authorized to dispense. They thought they could hide behind layers of deception—but in the end, those layers only proved how deep the criminal enterprise runs. FIFA's corrupt caste turned the organization into a morass of fraud and racketeering. The United States is trying to save FIFA from itself.

[Twig]

The argument that the US is purely motivated by an anti-Russia, neo cold war agenda seems like puerile simplification to me.  I don't think the nature and timeline of the investigation supports that theory.

[Holders]

I wouldn't be too happy to say the least if the US law enforcement organisations came after me outside their country for something that I did outside their country. On the other hand, I'm happy to see Blatter and his crooked cronies squirm - even if that makes me a hypocrite. And if the Russian and Qatari WCs are shown to have been fixed by the same mob, so much the better.

If people like Putin and Mugabe are among the few to defend Blatter that speaks volumes to me.

[Forever Fulham]

I feel the same way, Holders.  It's unnerving to think another country can reach across borders and snatch a foreign citizen for involvement in a criminal enterprise however it might touch and concern the home state.  But it's all premised on the notion of reciprocity.  Extradition treaties are two-way streets.  These foreign nationals came to the U.S. to do their alleged criminal activities through the use of New York banks.  That they might not have come there in the flesh doesn't matter--that's the legal theory anyway.  Imagine a Swiss citizen committing a crime in the U.S. or through the instrumentality of a U.S.-sited institution.  The citizen then leaves the U.S. before any arrest inside the U.S. can be made.  The Swiss would agree to make that in-Switzerland individual subject to detainment because it wants the same treatment/rights against U.S. actors with respect to Switzerland. Manu lavat manum.  But it's still unsettling.  It's not an area I know much about.  I think there still has to be an extradition hearing in Switzerland to satisfy the Swiss that the case is strong enough on its face to merit agreeing to put them on the plane to the U.S.

[Fulham76]

I understand a lot of the information to support any prosecution was supplied by British intelligence to the US authorities.

[YankeeJim]

I can see Blatter now doing 25 years without payroll, in the Slammer at San Quentin, he won't get a job in the Library there.

You really think he can read?

[Holders]

I'm sure it's complicated, this reciprocity, perhaps the principle of per ardua aspidistra applies.

I used to work with an American girl who had married and relocated permanently to the UK yet had, by law as I understood it, to remit a % of her salary to the US. I thought that was going a bit far.

[H4usuallysitting]

The question that's bugging me is......does Putin use botox

[Holders]

The question that's bugging me is......does Putin use botox

Not enough, I'm all for him being injected with Botulism Toxin.

[ToodlesMcToot]

I feel the same way, Holders.  It's unnerving to think another country can reach across borders and snatch a foreign citizen for involvement in a criminal enterprise however it might touch and concern the home state.  But it's all premised on the notion of reciprocity.  Extradition treaties are two-way streets.  These foreign nationals came to the U.S. to do their alleged criminal activities through the use of New York banks.  That they might not have come there in the flesh doesn't matter--that's the legal theory anyway.  Imagine a Swiss citizen committing a crime in the U.S. or through the instrumentality of a U.S.-sited institution.  The citizen then leaves the U.S. before any arrest inside the U.S. can be made.  The Swiss would agree to make that in-Switzerland individual subject to detainment because it wants the same treatment/rights against U.S. actors with respect to Switzerland. Manu lavat manum.  But it's still unsettling.  It's not an area I know much about.  I think there still has to be an extradition hearing in Switzerland to satisfy the Swiss that the case is strong enough on its face to merit agreeing to put them on the plane to the U.S.

That's supposedly the layer of protection for the accused.

Even being American, I'm no fan of many of the ways that my government behaves. I imagine that it is unnerving for a foreign national to discover that they could be extradited subject to another country's legal system. I would feel the same.

Saying that, if these individuals did launder money in The U.S. as the result of crimes committed to undermine our sport, then more power to Loretta Lynch or whomever wants to prosecute them

If people like Putin and Mugabe are among the few to defend Blatter that speaks volumes to me.

Kind of like Idi Amin coming to the defence of Jeffrey Dahmer.

[b+w geezer]

There is logic to this being a U.S.-led effort, but it's given rise to the usual complaints about Yankee imperialism (and if we had done similarly, it would have been British Imperialsm) facilitating a convenient diversionary theme. This was predictable.

It might have been averted if some of the countries involved could have been persuaded to mount their own prosecutions against these people first, and/or the Swiss encouraged to make their moves a few weeks in advance of the U.S. ones. That would have been a cannier sequence from the football political standpoint, and global public relations in general -- not factors legal authorities need to bear in mind however.