Mohammed Saaili Shibin​ (the defendant) was involved in two hijackings by Somali pirates and was responsible for ransom negotiations. Therefore, the defendant faced several charges, among which, violence against maritime navigation in violations of 18 USC §§ 2280(a)(1) and (b)(1). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the alleged charges. First, the defendant argued that these crimes did not fall under the umbrella of universal jurisdiction. Second, the defendant argued that, because the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988 (SUA Convention 1988) contained an 'extradite or prosecute' clause, the transfer of the defendant to the United States by an alternative procedure violated the SUA Convention 1988.

Held: Motion denied.

Regarding the first argument, Congress enacted § 2280 in order to codify the US obligations under the SUA Convention 1988. Such exercise of legislative authority is justified both by the Define and Punish Clause (US Constitution art I § 8), which gives Congress the power to 'define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations' and the Necessary and Proper Clause (US Constitution art I § 8), which vests Congress with the power to make 'all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States'. Thus, as a general proposition, Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States.

Regarding the second argument, nowhere does the SUA Convention 1988 state that extradition is the exclusive means by which one state may lawfully turn over an offender to another state for prosecution. On the contrary, by establishing a protocol which must be followed if the state party does not extradite the defendant, the SUA Convention 1988 expressly acknowledges that extradition is not mandated. Moreover, it is well established that a court’s jurisdiction over a defendant or the offences it is alleged to have committed is not contingent on the means by which it was brought within such jurisdiction. Therefore, the extraterritorial application of § 2280 is proper. The government’s failure to legally extradite the defendant does not defeat jurisdiction and the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.