## Facts

- Charles Edward Larsen participated with others in a multi-year scheme (1985–1987) to import marijuana from Southeast Asia into the United States and distribute it domestically.
- The operation concealed profits through a fictitious partnership formed by Larsen and others, which was used to acquire a vessel for smuggling.
- Larsen served as captain of the vessel during some operations.
- Customs inspectors seized marijuana from a ship on the high seas outside Singapore.
- Larsen was convicted, among other counts, of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) based on the high-seas seizure (Count Eight).
- Larsen moved to dismiss Count Eight, arguing § 841(a)(1) lacked extraterritorial reach; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) may be applied to possession on the high seas outside U.S. territory when the intended distribution is in the United States.
2. Whether applying § 841(a)(1) to this extraterritorial conduct satisfies Fifth Amendment due process by requiring a sufficient nexus between the conduct and the United States.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Larsen’s convictions.
- The court held that Congress may apply federal criminal statutes extraterritorially if doing so does not violate Fifth Amendment due process.
- The court concluded § 841(a)(1) could apply to the high-seas conduct at issue because it was part of a conspiracy aimed at importing and distributing marijuana in the United States.
- The court held due process was satisfied because the U.S.-directed objective of the conspiracy established a sufficient nexus, making prosecution neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.
- The district court therefore did not err in denying the motion to dismiss Count Eight.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal statutes may apply extraterritorially when Congress has the power to reach the conduct and the application complies with Fifth Amendment due process.
- There is a presumption against extraterritorial application when a statute is silent, but it may be overcome where the conduct is directed at causing effects in the United States and the statutory scheme targets such conduct.
- Due process requires a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s extraterritorial conduct and the United States; prosecution is permissible when the conduct is undertaken to produce criminal effects within the United States.
- Aiding and abetting liability under § 841(a)(1) may attach to extraterritorial possession when the intent to distribute is tied to planned domestic distribution.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld applying § 841(a)(1) to marijuana possession on the high seas near Singapore because the possession furthered a conspiracy whose object was importation and distribution in the United States, providing the required due process nexus and supporting extraterritorial jurisdiction.


United States v. Larsen, 952 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1991)