HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.crs/goveiae0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional_______
S£Research Service
Overseas Crime in the United States
July 29, 2022
How do you commit a crime in the United States when you have never been here? According to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) in United States v Elbaz, you can
commit a crime in the United States without being physically present by phoning it in, even though the
crime in question, wire fraud, only applies domestically. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit recently held that
the wire fraud statute could be applied to a defendant's domestic conduct in using wires located in the
United States to defraud victims in the United States without having to be physically present in the United
States.
Background
Lee Elbaz operated a global binary option scheme from Israel. Elbaz and her associates invited victims
to place a bet on the possible value of an asset at a given time. After victims had been enticed to
participate in the scam, Elbaz and her retention agents based in Israel reassured them, discouraged
withdrawals, and encouraged further investments. The scheme cost victims more than $100 million,
including millions from victims located in the United States.
A federal grand jury indicted Elbaz for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud based on three
wire transmissions sent to victims in Maryland. Federal authorities arrested Elbaz when she arrived in
New York on vacation. Elbaz was convicted following a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for Maryland.
The district judge sentenced her to 22 years in prison and ordered her to pay $28 million in restitution.
She appealed the conviction and restitution order arguing, among other things, (1) that the wire fraud
statute under which she was convicted does not punish overseas conduct, and that the statute was
impermissibly applied to convict her for extraterritorial conduct; and (2) that the restitution order issued
against her improperly counted the foreign losses of the entire global scheme.
With regard to Elbaz's first challenge, the Supreme Court has declared that, [a]bsent clearly expressed
congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application.
The Court presumed that [w]hen a statute gives no clear indication of extraterritorial application, it has
none. The Court further explained that the wire fraud statute, which makes no specific extraterritorial
statement, does encompass wire communications transmitted in interstate orforeign commerce. Having
determined a statute has no extraterritoriality, the Court has held that the second step in order to rebut the
presumption is to determine whether a case involves a domestic application of the statute, a task that
entails examination of the focus of the statute.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10799
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/goveiae0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)