U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 77— PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

18 U.S.C. § 1596

Additional jurisdiction in certain trafficking offenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—In addition to any domestic or extra-territorial jurisdiction otherwise provided by law, the courts of the United States have extra-territorial jurisdiction over any offense (or any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense) under section 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, or 1591 if—(1) an alleged offender is a national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as those terms are defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); or(2) an alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the alleged offender.(b)Limitation on Prosecutions of Offenses Prosecuted in Other Countries.—No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the United States, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General (or a person acting in either such capacity), which function of approval may not be delegated.(Added Pub. L. 110–457, title II, § 223(a), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 5071.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Ramchandra Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, et, 845 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ramchandra Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, et, 845 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “” The court denied KBR’s motion for summary judgment on the TVPRA claim, noting that the law was “expressly extraterritorial” under 18 U.S.C. § 1596 . 2 Plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization statute (“RICO”), which the district…”
Keo Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd., 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 7× “18 U.S.C. § 1596 authorizes extraterritorial application of the TVPRA for specific criminal trafficking offenses.”
Sarah Roe v. Linda Howard, 917 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “at 5071 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1596 ). The 2008 TVPRA also expanded chapter 77 to prohibit conspiracy to commit the offenses codified at, inter alia, 18 U.”
United States v. Otmar Sing Gonzalez, 972 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “Although Baston was a non-citizen, he was arrested at his mother’s home in the United States and charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1596 (a)(2) and 1591, which prohibits sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.”
Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012). “2009) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1596 , a provision that merely expanded federal courts’ jurisdiction to extraterritorial violations under the TVPRA without giving plaintiffs new substantive rights, applied retroactively).”
Keo Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC, 111 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “Frozen because plaintiffs had not established that those companies were “present in the United States,” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1596 (a)(2). The court therefore granted the companies’ motions for summary judgment.”
Aguilera v. Aegis Commc'ns Grp., LLC, 72 F. Supp. 3d 975 (W.D. Mo. 2014). “18 U.S.C.A. § 1596 (emphasis added). While Defendant proffers this citation to argue that the TVPA only applies when victims are trafficked into the United States, the Court does not find that the statute supports this contention.”
Velez v. Sanchez, 754 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D.N.Y 2010). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1596 . Since § 1595 provides a civil remedy for victims of violations of the criminal prohibitions on human trafficking and forced labor, it would now appear to cover claims arising both in the United States and abroad.”
Adhikari v. Daoud, 994 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D. Tex. 2014). “) Of particular relevance to the present Order, the Court held that the TVPRA could be retroactively applied ex-traterritorially to KBR’s actions abroad in 2004. Congress passed Section 1596 of the TVPRA in 2008, expressly granting United States courts “extra-territorial…”
Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (S.D. Tex. 2015). “) Although Congress amended the TVPRA in 2008 to provide for extraterritorial application, the Court found that the relevant provision — 18 U.S.C. § 1596 — could not be applied retroactively to KBR’s pre-2008 conduct.”
Keo Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd. (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 7× “18 U.S.C. § 1596 authorizes extraterritorial application of the TVPRA for specific criminal trafficking offenses.”
United States v. Otmar Sing Gonzalez (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “Although Baston was a non-citizen, he was arrested at his mother’s home in the United States and charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1596 (a)(2) and 1591, which prohibits sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.