A Suits Community
Wednesday 10:00 PM on USA

Something has been bugging me for the last couple episodes (beyond the questionable quality of this season's storylines), pertaining to a question I've had and read an iteration of as raised by @JT_Kirk in a discussion of "Conflict of Interest" and then again when I re-watched for the umpteenth time the movie Shooter (2007). My question for all you lawyers and those having any knowledge of US federal and NY state jurisprudence is this: what authority is Cameron Dennis operating under in both the bribery and the murder indictments? How is a special prosecutor in the NYC District Attorney's office pursuing charges against a foreign national for crimes committed in a third foreign country?

In Shooter, the Attorney General of the United States (Brian Markinson, Continuum) couldn't bring charges against Colonel Johnson (Danny Glover) for the genocide of an Ethiopian village because the AG's office doesn't have the authority to act on crimes committed on foreign soil, suggesting that the matter needed to be investigated and tried in the International Criminal Court. If the nation's most powerful lawyer doesn't have authority to act in the one case, how is all this business with Ava Hessington even going down in NYC?

Or is it simply a matter of the writers getting it totally wrong and thinking we the audience would never question it?

Comments (4)
Sort: Latest | Popular
Very astute observation! I wish i had to the proper for you answer but Ca3naki seems to be heading in the right direction with this.

Given the cleverness of your question, i do think the writer might not have thought this through as deeply.

But very interesting point you raise...and bringing in Shooters!
You're quite right, I might say. I am not an expert on US law, but I know this: firstly, there are certain crimes, such as genocide, drug dealing, trafficking, crimes against humanity, piracy etc, that one does not need to have territorial jurisdiction to proceed with a prosecution. That happens, because of the serious nature of the crimes as well as the fact that they do not attach strictly to the territory to which they are committed, but their impact is greater. Then one can be prosecuted if he/she is a national of that State and has committed a crime to the same State, but also if he/she has committed a crime in another state, depending on special agreements between states. A national of another State can be prosecuted in that State if the action has occurred in that State, with the exemption that the consular authorities of the state of nationality must be informed. There are also some other cases that I won't mention because they are not relevant.
At the present case, I am under the impression that Hessingthon oils have offices in NY and thereby, Ava Hessington as their CEO can be prosecuted. And also we do not know if there are special agreements between the US and the USA. One other possibility is that an american company had taken part in the competition and thus it entails to the interest of the american prosecutors. However, as I said I'm not an expert on US law and there seems to be a void there.
It does seem to be potentially complex. One avenue for pursuing the charges I see from your post is either framing as genocide or hate crimes. In the US, the Federal government may choose to pursue charges separate from sovereign authorities (states, localities) in matters of hate crimes.
Yes, but in this case it was neither a genocide or a hate crime (or any other kind of crime with universal jurisdiction for that matter). So what I think is that it's either because of the company's base and/or competitive companies or a special jurisdiction agreement between the US and the UK.
Follow this Show