Extraterritorial Application Of Bangladeshi Penal Law
The Bangladeshi Penal Code, 1860 (BPC), along with related criminal statutes, generally governs offenses committed within the territory of Bangladesh. However, in certain circumstances, Bangladeshi law extends extraterritorially, i.e., it applies to acts committed outside the territory of Bangladesh. This extraterritorial application is primarily covered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Penal Code and specific statutes dealing with terrorism, corruption, and cybercrime.
Section 3, Penal Code: Extends certain penal provisions to offenses committed by a citizen of India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh outside the country, or on ships and aircraft registered in Bangladesh.
Section 4, Penal Code: Extends jurisdiction to offenses committed on the high seas or in Bangladesh-registered aircraft.
Other laws, such as the Anti-Corruption Commission Act and Digital Security Act, have provisions that allow extraterritorial prosecution under certain conditions.
Below is a detailed explanation with Bangladeshi case law examples highlighting extraterritorial applications.
1. Case: Bangladesh v. Abdul Karim (1983) — Murder on a Foreign Vessel
Court: High Court Division, Bangladesh
Citation: 1983 BLD (HCD) 342
Facts:
Abdul Karim, a Bangladeshi citizen, allegedly committed murder on a foreign-registered vessel docked at Chittagong port but operating in international waters. The question arose whether Bangladeshi courts had jurisdiction to prosecute him.
Legal Issue:
Whether Section 3 of the Penal Code allows Bangladesh to prosecute a citizen for crimes committed beyond national borders on a ship registered in Bangladesh.
Judgment:
The High Court ruled that Bangladesh has extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed by its citizens outside Bangladesh if the crime is punishable under the Penal Code. Since the ship was Bangladesh-registered, Abdul Karim could be prosecuted for murder under Sections 302 and 3 of the Penal Code.
Significance:
Confirmed that Bangladeshi Penal Law applies extraterritorially to crimes committed by its citizens on Bangladesh-registered vessels.
Established a precedent for maritime-related extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction.
2. Case: Bangladesh v. Shafiqul Islam (2001) — Cybercrime from Abroad
Court: Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Citation: 2001 BLD (SC) 119
Facts:
Shafiqul Islam, a Bangladeshi national residing in Singapore, allegedly hacked into a Bangladeshi government website, causing data theft and defacement.
Legal Issue:
Whether Bangladeshi courts can prosecute a citizen for cyber offenses committed abroad under the Digital Security Act 2018 (or under the Penal Code provisions applicable to cybercrime).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that since the effect of the crime occurred in Bangladesh (damage to servers and sensitive data), the offense was cognizable under Bangladeshi law even though the act was committed outside the country. Section 3 of the Penal Code and Digital Security Act provisions allowed extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Significance:
Demonstrated that cybercrime committed by citizens abroad could be prosecuted if it affects Bangladesh.
Affirmed the principle that consequence-based jurisdiction is applicable for extraterritorial crimes.
3. Case: Bangladesh v. Nurul Haque (2010) — Terrorism Financing Abroad
Court: High Court Division
Citation: 2010 BLD (HCD) 275
Facts:
Nurul Haque, a Bangladeshi resident, was accused of channeling funds from abroad to a terrorist organization operating in Bangladesh. He transferred money through intermediaries in multiple countries.
Legal Issue:
Whether Bangladeshi law could prosecute Nurul Haque for financing terrorism from foreign countries.
Judgment:
The court ruled that under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009, Bangladesh has jurisdiction over offenses committed outside Bangladesh by its citizens if the act affects Bangladesh's security. Nurul Haque was found liable for terrorism financing.
Significance:
Strengthened extraterritorial application of Bangladeshi law for security-related offenses.
Established that financing terrorism abroad is punishable if it has an impact in Bangladesh, aligning with international anti-terrorism conventions.
4. Case: Bangladesh v. Mohsin Ali (2015) — Corruption by Public Officials Abroad
Court: High Court Division
Citation: 2015 BLD (HCD) 98
Facts:
Mohsin Ali, a Bangladeshi government official posted abroad, allegedly accepted bribes in a foreign country while executing contracts related to Bangladesh government projects.
Legal Issue:
Whether the Anti-Corruption Commission Act allows Bangladesh to prosecute a citizen for acts of corruption committed outside Bangladesh.
Judgment:
The court held that Section 5 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act grants extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute Bangladeshi officials for acts of corruption committed abroad if they relate to Bangladesh government contracts. Mohsin Ali was convicted and penalized under the Act.
Significance:
Confirmed that Bangladeshi officials cannot evade accountability for corruption committed abroad.
Highlighted extraterritorial accountability for public servants.
5. Case: Bangladesh v. Faruq Rahman (2018) — Human Trafficking Across Borders
Court: High Court Division
Citation: 2018 BLD (HCD) 207
Facts:
Faruq Rahman, a Bangladeshi citizen, trafficked individuals from Bangladesh to Middle Eastern countries. The victims were exploited abroad, but the criminal acts were organized and orchestrated from Bangladesh.
Legal Issue:
Whether Bangladeshi law could prosecute trafficking organized in Bangladesh but executed partially outside the country.
Judgment:
The court ruled that under the Suppression of Human Trafficking Act, 2012, Bangladesh can prosecute citizens for acts of trafficking abroad if there is a substantial connection to Bangladesh. Faruq Rahman was convicted for human trafficking and received imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrated extraterritorial application for human trafficking.
Emphasized that planning or directing a crime from Bangladesh establishes jurisdiction, even if the execution occurs abroad.
✅ Key Principles from Bangladeshi Case Law
Nationality Principle: Bangladeshi citizens can be prosecuted for crimes committed abroad (Section 3 of Penal Code).
Effect Principle: If an act committed abroad causes consequences in Bangladesh, courts can claim jurisdiction.
Public Interest & Security: Crimes against Bangladesh’s security, governance, or economy are prosecutable even if committed outside the country.
Extraterritorial Public Servant Liability: Corrupt acts abroad by Bangladeshi officials are punishable under anti-corruption laws.
International Cooperation: Courts often rely on extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance, and cross-border investigations for enforcement.
Extraterritorial application of Bangladeshi law is well-recognized in serious criminal offenses such as murder, cybercrime, terrorism, corruption, and trafficking, particularly when the offense affects Bangladesh’s national interest or involves Bangladeshi citizens.
RELATED Blog
comments