The defendant was a Somali national who helped negotiate the ransom of a merchant vessel and its crew after they were captured by pirates in the Gulf of Aden. Although the defendant claimed that he was merely trying to defuse a tense situation, the US government believed that he was working together with the pirates from the outset. The defendant was arrested and indicted for conspiring to commit and aiding and abetting two offences: piracy on the high seas and hostage taking. The District Court ordered the defendant to file a memorandum of law addressing whether piracy under the law of nations is a continuing offence, such that the defendant could be found guilty for aiding and abetting piracy, assuming that no piratical act by any principal occurred on the high seas after the defendant boarded the ship and began negotiating.

The defendant conceded that piracy is a continuing offence. However, the defendant argued that 'when high seas conduct has ceased, the crime of piracy necessarily ceases with it', and therefore he could not be found guilty for aiding and abetting piracy based on intentional facilitative acts that occurred after the principals entered territorial waters.

Held: Piracy is an offence that can continue even when pirates have left the high seas. The defendant could be convicted of aiding and abetting piracy even if no high-seas conduct occurred during or after his allegedly facilitative actions.

A person who intentionally aids a principal after all elements of a continuing offence are satisfied can be guilty of that offence under an aiding and abetting theory of liability if that offence is still continuing at the time of his facilitative acts.

According to the definition of 'piracy' under art 101.a of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), UNCLOS does not limit piracy to discrete acts of violence and depredation, but extends the offense to acts of 'detention' against a ship and persons or property aboard that ship. Thus, with the inclusion of acts of 'detention' as piratical acts, the crime of piracy under the law of nations necessarily is a continuing offence.

However, the law of continuing offence does not require that all elements of an offence be satisfied for that offence to continue. Instead, a continuing offence continues until the 'ultimate illegal objective' is finally attained. Therefore, while high-seas conduct is what makes piracy a universal crime, high-seas conduct is not the 'ultimate illegal objective' of pirates. Instead, the 'ultimate illegal objective' of pirates is the use of 'illegal acts of violence or detention, or depredation for private ends'. Thus, so long as the illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation for private ends continue, the offence of piracy continues even after the perpetrators leave the high seas. In addition, so long as the offence of piracy continues, the defendant could be convicted of aiding and abetting piracy even if he facilitated only the non-high-seas acts of the principals.