Case Studies On Multinational Criminal Investigations
Multinational criminal investigations involve crimes that cross borders—financial fraud, money laundering, terrorism, cybercrime, drug trafficking, environmental crimes, and more. These cases require coordinated effort between agencies like Interpol, Europol, FBI, NCA, CBI, ED, and various domestic courts.
Below are six major case studies with detailed explanations and associated case law principles.
✅ 1. The 1MDB Scandal (Malaysia, USA, Singapore, Switzerland)
Background
The 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fund was established to promote economic development, but between 2009–2014, billions were misappropriated by government officials and private individuals, including businessman Jho Low.
Investigative Collaboration
U.S. DOJ (Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative) led the largest foreign corruption probe in its history.
Swiss and Singaporean regulators traced money laundering through banks in their jurisdictions.
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Hong Kong authorities cooperated on financial trail analysis.
Legal Outcome
U.S. seized over $1 billion in assets (luxury properties, yachts).
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak convicted in Najib Razak v. Public Prosecutor (2020) for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering.
Key Case Law Principle
Cross-border corruption offenses allow extraterritorial jurisdiction if stolen assets touch domestic financial systems.
The DOJ applied 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering), which permits prosecution of foreign corruption proceeds routed through U.S. banks.
✅ 2. Panama Papers Investigation (Global—Hundreds of Jurisdictions)
Background
In 2016, leaked documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca exposed how global elites used shell companies for tax evasion, fraud, and money laundering.
Investigative Cooperation
Over 80 countries took part via the Joint International Taskforce on Shared Intelligence and Collaboration (JITSIC).
Forensic accounting and data analytics traced beneficial ownership.
Europol created an analysis unit to process the massive data dumps.
Legal Outcomes
Iceland’s PM resigned.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court disqualified PM Nawaz Sharif in Imran Khan v. Nawaz Sharif (2017) over unexplained wealth.
German and Spanish prosecutors charged several bankers with facilitating offshore laundering.
Case Law Principle
Courts recognized that beneficial ownership transparency is critical to combating tax evasion.
“Substance over form” doctrine applied—shell firms without economic activity are treated as tools for concealment.
✅ 3. Enron & Andersen LLP (USA, UK, offshore jurisdictions)
Background
Enron used offshore companies (Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos) to hide debt and inflate profits.
Cross-Border Investigation
U.S. SEC and DOJ collaborated with UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
Forensic investigation of offshore subsidiaries required mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs).
Arthur Andersen was accused of document destruction across multiple jurisdictions.
Legal Outcome
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States (2005) reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction for jury instruction errors.
Enron executives (Jeff Skilling, Andrew Fastow) convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges.
Key Case Law Principle
Conspiracy to defraud applies even when transactions occur offshore.
Multinational auditing firms can be held liable for obstruction of justice during transnational probes.
✅ 4. FIFA Corruption Case (Global—U.S., Switzerland, South America)
Background
Senior FIFA officials engaged in bribery schemes involving media rights contracts, money laundering, and racketeering.
International Cooperation
Investigation began in Switzerland, which arrested 14 FIFA officials at the request of U.S. authorities.
DOJ charged them under the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
Evidence-gathering involved banks from Panama, Cayman Islands, and U.S. correspondent banking accounts.
Legal Outcome
Guilty pleas from multiple officials (e.g., José Maria Marin, Juan Ángel Napout).
Massive forfeiture of illicit profits from media companies and sports marketing firms.
Case Law Principle
U.S. courts may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under RICO for acts involving U.S. wire transfers or meetings.
Bribery of foreign officials constitutes wire fraud and money laundering if U.S. banking systems are used.
✅ 5. The Silk Road Dark Web Case (USA, Iceland, Germany)
Background
Silk Road was an online marketplace for drugs and illegal goods run by Ross Ulbricht using Tor and Bitcoin.
Cross-Border Investigations
FBI coordinated with German police to seize servers hosted in Frankfurt.
Icelandic authorities helped trace intermediary data centers.
Blockchain forensic specialists worked with Interpol.
Legal Outcome
In United States v. Ulbricht (2015), Ulbricht was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Digital assets worth millions were seized.
Case Law Principle
Courts affirmed that servers located abroad still fall within U.S. jurisdiction if the criminal enterprise targets U.S. consumers.
Cryptocurrencies are treated as property for seizure and forfeiture.
✅ 6. The Bhopal Gas Disaster Criminal Investigation (India, USA)
Background
In 1984, a gas leak at Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) killed thousands. Parent company was U.S.-based Union Carbide Corporation (UCC).
Cross-Border Issues
India sought extradition of UCC CEO Warren Anderson.
U.S. authorities argued insufficient basis for extradition.
Legal Outcomes
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Warren Anderson, Indian courts declared him a fugitive.
UCIL officials convicted of negligence in 2010 by Indian criminal courts.
Civil settlement between UCC and Government of India (1989).
Case Law Principle
Multinational parent companies can be held vicariously liable for crimes committed by subsidiaries.
Extradition requires dual criminality and probable cause, often difficult in corporate disasters.
Conclusion: Key Lessons from Multinational Criminal Case Studies
Common legal principles emerging from these cases:
Extraterritorial jurisdiction applies where financial systems, victims, or conspirators cross borders.
Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) are critical for evidence collection.
Asset forfeiture is widely used to recover proceeds of transnational crime.
Cross-border financial records often provide the strongest evidence.
Corporate criminal liability extends beyond national boundaries.
RELATED Blog
comments