## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah with a conspiracy and attempt to damage and destroy multiple U.S. commercial airliners operating on East Asia routes, most of which had scheduled stops in U.S. cities.
- The indictment alleged overt acts in the Philippines, including a bombing at the Greenbelt Theater in Manila on or about December 1, 1994.
- Count Nineteen charged Yousef with detonating a bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434 on December 11, 1994, while the plane was in flight en route to Tokyo, causing one death and multiple injuries.
- The Flight 434 bombing was alleged both as an overt act furthering the broader conspiracy to attack U.S. airliners and as a separate substantive offense.
- Yousef moved pretrial to dismiss Count Nineteen for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the incident involved a foreign carrier, occurred outside U.S. territory and airspace, and lacked a sufficient U.S. connection.

## Issues

1. Whether federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 32, authorize U.S. criminal jurisdiction over the bombing of a foreign civil aircraft occurring in foreign airspace.
2. Whether asserted jurisdiction over the Flight 434 bombing is consistent with international law principles and U.S. treaty obligations, including the Montreal Convention.
3. Whether the alleged link between the Flight 434 bombing and a broader plan targeting U.S. commercial airliners supplies a sufficient U.S. nexus to sustain jurisdiction over Count Nineteen.

## Decision

- The court denied Yousef’s motion to dismiss Count Nineteen.
- The court concluded that the charged conduct fell within the reach of the relevant federal aviation sabotage provisions as applied to the allegations in the indictment.
- The court held that exercising jurisdiction over the Flight 434 bombing was consistent with international law and treaty-based frameworks addressing unlawful acts against civil aviation, given the U.S.-directed objectives alleged.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may provide for extraterritorial application of federal criminal statutes protecting civil aviation where statutory text and purpose indicate coverage of threats to U.S. aviation interests.
- Under international law’s protective principle, a state may punish certain extraterritorial conduct directed at the state’s security or similarly weighty state interests, including protection of civil aviation from terrorist attack.
- Treaty regimes governing civil aviation safety, including the Montreal Convention, can support domestic prosecution of unlawful acts against aircraft and may require participating states to prosecute or extradite offenders when jurisdictional bases are satisfied.
- A substantial U.S. nexus may be shown where an overseas attack is charged as part of a scheme aimed at U.S. aircraft or other U.S. interests, even if the immediate incident involves foreign territory and a foreign carrier.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dismiss the count charging the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434, holding that U.S. law and applicable international aviation-safety obligations permitted U.S. jurisdiction over the extraterritorial conduct as alleged, given its charged role in a broader plan targeting U.S. commercial airliners.


United States v. Yousef, 927 F. Supp. 673 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)