EMERGING

EMERGING MARKETS:
A Review of Business and Legal Issues
in Connecticut, USA, and obtained the “root” passwords granting access to and control over
an entire computer system, including the ability to manipulate, extract, and delete any and all
data. Ivanov then threatened the corporation with the destruction of its computer systems, if
they will not hire him as security expert. He was invited for the interview to the U.S. and after
arrival was arrested on charges of conspiracy, computer fraud and related activity, extortion,
and possession of unauthorized access devices. Ivanov argued that US court didn’t have
subject matter jurisdiction over his conduct, because he was physically located in Russia at
the time of the attacks. The court denied his arguments and asserted that Ivanov being
physically outside United States territory at the time of actual perpetration intended to cause
detrimental effects within the United States making it reasonable to apply to him a statute,
which is not expressly extraterritorial in scope 1 . In this way US court confirmed objective
territoriality principle over the computer crimes. However it is rather an exception than a rule
that a country takes a cybercrime criminal into custody using its own powers or assistance of
other states.
The second basic model for resolving jurisdictional conflicts gives priority for
nationality of the cybercriminal. This principle is based on the assumption that a person grants
the country of which he is a national the right to regulate his conduct, no matter where
located. In this way country adopting a proper criminal legislation can control and bring into
custody its nationals for committing cybercrimes it other jurisdictions. This model seems to
be effective, if a country where a cybercrime was committed and the country where
detrimental effect took place doesn’t have a proper legislation in the question. Obviously
countries are not restricted by the models for resolving jurisdictional conflicts stated above,
and readily use other legitimate grounds for extraterritorial prosecutions, when it’s required
by their national interests.
International documents in this field also preserve a wide range of powers and
obligations for cybercrime prosecutions. Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime,
1 United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367, p. 1-15 (2000).
Page 89 Volume 1, April 2009