美国长臂管辖规则及其适用之解读

作者：刘相文   Graham Adria   王涛

管辖权是指影响法律利益的权力。因此，域外管辖是指行政、立法、司法等政府机关在政府辖区以外影响法律利益的权力。美国同时实行联邦制和三权分立制，联邦层面和州层面的立法、行政和司法机关都享有部分法律权力，因此美国域外管辖的表现形式多种多样。但是，本文将重点关注美国联邦法院如何对非美国居民行使管辖权。

The term jurisdiction is defined as the authority to affect legal interests.[6] Extraterritorial jurisdiction is therefore the authority of a government entity – executive, legislative, or judicial – to affect legal interests beyond its territorial borders.[7] In the United States, which utilizes a federal system of government, extraterritorial jurisdiction can occur in a number of different ways due to the division of legal powers between different levels and branches of government. For instance, extraterritorial jurisdiction refers to a New York state court exercising jurisdiction over a resident of California.[8] However, for this article, we are concerned with how a federal court can exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents of the United States.

美国法院曾将国际法解释为，允许美国对发生在美国境外但已经或者旨在对美国境内产生实质影响的行为和美国国民在美国境外的行为享有一定话语权。美国法院大致将域外管辖分为三种类型：立法管辖、司法管辖和执行管辖，但这种分类并不泾渭分明，仅作为理解域外适用性质和范围的分析工具使用。

American courts have interpreted international law as allowing the United States to have some say over “conduct outside its territory which has or is intended to have substantial effects within its territory as well as conduct of its nationals even when they are outside its borders.”[9] Extraterritorial jurisdiction manifests itself in three different ways: prescriptive jurisdiction, adjudicative jurisdiction, and enforcement jurisdiction. However, these are not neat and discrete categories and while they are used by U.S. courts, these terms act more as an analytical tool to understand the extent and nature of extraterritorial jurisdiction.[10]

立法管辖是制定法律并将法律适用于人和物的权力，通常由立法机关行使。例如，美国国会通过《反海外腐败法》禁止贿赂美国境外的外国官员等行为，即是行使域外立法管辖权。

Prescriptive jurisdiction is the power to make and apply law to persons or things and is usually associated with the legislative branch of government.[11] For example, the United States Congress exercised extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction when it passed the FCPA with provisions that prohibit, among others, bribing foreign officials outside of the territory of the United States.

司法管辖权是将人或者事物纳入司法程序的权力，通常由司法机关行使。《反海外腐败法》本身并不包含授予法院域外司法管辖权的条款，但美国《1934年证券交易法》授权美国联邦法院在特定情形下对发生在美国之外的违法行为进行域外管辖，《反海外腐败法》作为《1934年证券交易法》的组成部分，同样适用其中的域外管辖授权条款。

Adjudicative jurisdiction is the power to subject persons or things to judicial processes and is accordingly associated with the judicial branch of government.[12] The FCPA itself does not contain provisions granting a court extraterritorial adjudicative jurisdiction. However, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), which the FCPA is a part of, grants extraterritorial jurisdiction to federal courts for offenses occurring outside of the United States in certain circumstances.[13]

执行管辖权是引导或者强制遵守法律，或者惩罚不合法行为的权力，通常与行政机关相关。不同于前述两种管辖权，执行管辖权在很大程度上囿于一国国境以内。执行管辖的极端情形，即政府强制执行，一般不能合法地在国外发生；域外执行管辖也存在比较温和的情形，比如：美国法院下令执行传票，要求非居民主体提供文件，并声明对违反者施加惩罚。

Enforcement jurisdiction is the power to compel compliance, or to punish noncompliance with the law, and is usually associated with the executive branch of government.[14] Unlike the previous two forms of jurisdiction, enforcement jurisdiction has remained largely subject to territorial limits. The most extreme form of enforcement jurisdiction–the government’s ability to physically coerce–generally cannot legally occur in a foreign country. A more moderate example of civil enforcement jurisdiction would be when a U.S. “court orders enforcement of a subpoena requiring the production of documents [from a nonresident] and threatens penalties for noncompliance with that subpoena.”[15]

美国法院要想获得民事案件的司法管辖权，必须同时具备对事管辖权和对人管辖权。对事管辖权关乎“法院审理特定种类案件的资格”。比如，只有联邦法院能够审理关于包括《反海外腐败法》在内的联邦法律问题。对人管辖权指法院是否有权审理关于某个体的案件。

For a U.S. court to have adjudicative jurisdiction in civil matters, it must have both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns a “court’s competence to adjudicate a particular category of cases.”[16] For example, only a federal court can hear a case relating to federal legislation, such as the FCPA. Personal jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear cases concerning a particular person.

历史上，在民事案件管辖权方面，美国法院只能审理发生在其辖区内居民之间的民事案件，即一般管辖权。然而，随着州际贸易和出行的不断发展，越来越多的非本州居民在本州发生案件后离开本州。由于一般管辖权的局限性，本州法院并不能对该非本州居民进行管辖，有失公允。为解决该问题，法律逐渐允许法院在非居民被告和法院辖区存在一定联系，且该联系导致本案纠纷时，对被告行使对人管辖权。专门管辖由是而生。

Historically, U.S. courts were only able to hear civil matters concerning residents within their own forum. This is called general jurisdiction. The rise of inter-state commerce and travel created issues as courts would be limited in their ability to adjudicate situations that occurred in their territorial limits but involved a nonresident defendant who left the forum. To fix this gap, laws began to be passed that allowed a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants when there was some connection to a court whose territory gave rise to the dispute. This became known as specific jurisdiction.

伊利诺伊州于1955年颁布了全美首部长臂法案。之后，美国各州和联邦政府都引入了长臂管辖法案或者条款，但长臂管辖的范围大相径庭：《加利福尼亚民事诉讼法》和《联邦民事诉讼规则》允许宪法范围内最大限度的长臂管辖；而其他法律如《纽约统一法典—民事实务法律和规则》等项下的长臂管辖则相当狭窄，仅适用于某些具体情形；包括《证券交易法》在内的一些联邦法律则本身即包含可以实施专门管辖的长臂条款。

The first long-arm statute was introduced in Illinois in 1955. Since then, every US state and the federal government have introduced a long-arm statute or long-arm clause. The extent of this jurisdiction varies considerably. It can be very broad, such as the California Code of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, both of which allow for jurisdiction to the limit allowed by the constitution.[17] Others, such as the New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules, are quite narrow and delineate specific situations where it would apply.[18] Some federal statutes, including the Exchange Act, contain their own rules for establishing specific jurisdiction through the use of a long-arm clause.[19]

联邦法院的专门管辖权可以来源于联邦层面或州层面的长臂法案或者条款。首先，联邦法院会考察案涉法律问题所归属的联邦法律，确定该法律本身是否明确允许专门管辖。如果该联邦法律没有具体规定可以对非居民行使长臂管辖权，那么联邦法院就会适用该联邦法院所在州的对人管辖规则。因为《证券交易法》中的长臂条款明确允许“世界范围内的送达和第五修正案限度内的对人管辖”，所以涉及《反海外腐败法》的民事诉讼不适用州长臂管辖法，而直接适用《证券交易法》中的长臂管辖条款。

When it comes to a federal court, the statutory basis for specific jurisdiction can either come from a federal or state long-arm statute or long-arm clause located in an individual statue.[20] First, a federal court will look to the relevant federal statute that gives rise to the legal issue to determine whether it explicitly allows for specific jurisdiction. If the federal statue does not specifically provide for jurisdiction over nonresidents, the forum state’s personal jurisdiction rules will apply.[21] As the Exchange Act contains a long-arm clause that specifically allows for “worldwide service of process and permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the limit of the Fifth Amendment,” civil litigation involving the FCPA is not governed by state long-arm statutes.[22]

美国的专门管辖受到宪法第五和第十四修正案中保护人们“不经正当程序，不得被剥夺生命、自由或者财产”的正当程序原则限制。专门管辖的关键问题是，被告是否“故意利用在辖区内进行活动的权利……，从而享受辖区法律提供的便利和保护，以至于[被告]应当合理预见会受辖区法院管辖。”

The exercise of specific jurisdiction in the U.S. is subject to the due process protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that protect people from being “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[23] The crucial question when it comes to specific jurisdiction is whether the defendant has “purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum…, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, such that [the defendant] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.”[24]

国际鞋业诉华盛顿案是关于专门管辖规则的首要判例，美国联邦最高法院在该案判决及后续援引该判决的判例中指出，正当程序原则要求，如果一名被告“不在辖区内，那么他必须和辖区存在某些最低联系，从而使审理该案不会违反传统的公平对待和实质公正观念。”相关认定标准有二：“最低联系分析”和“合理性审查”。

As set forth by the Supreme Court in International Shoe v. Washington, the leading case on specific jurisdiction, and its progeny, due process requires that if a defendant is “not present within the territory of the forum, he [must] have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”[25] The test to determine this consists of two components: the “minimum contacts analysis” and “reasonableness inquiry.”

最低联系分析关注被告与受理法院所在辖区的关联程度。要建立满足正当程序要求所必要的最低联系，原告必须证明其“诉讼请求源自或者和被告与辖区的联系相关，而且被告有意利用在辖区经商的便利，因此能够预见会被辖区法院管辖。” 或者如果包含长臂条款的某部法律如《反海外腐败法》明确允许域外管辖，那么法院会将美国视为一个整体，考察相关主体是否与美国发生联系。如果某联邦法院需要适用州长臂法案来行使域外管辖权，那么需要考察被告和该州的联系。

The minimum contacts analysis assesses the extent of a defendant’s links with the jurisdiction in which the case is filed. To establish the minimum contacts necessary to satisfy due process, the plaintiff must show that his “claim arises out of, or relates to, the defendant’s contacts with the forum . . . [and that] the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum and could foresee being haled into court there.”[26] Alternatively, if a statute, such as the FCPA, relies on a long-arm clause[27] that specifically allows for global jurisdiction, the court will conduct its minimum contact analysis regarding overall contact with the United States as a whole.[28] If a federal court is relying on a state long-arm statute for extraterritorial jurisdiction, it would be looking for contact with that specific state.

虽然美国法律界普遍认为，如果非居民被告在辖区以外的行为对辖区以内产生了影响，那么法院可以对该被告行使对人管辖权，但是法院也声明“必须谨慎适用该规则，特别是在国际环境中”。被告必须“进行了一系列指向特定辖区的行为，从而使该辖区法院能够就上述行为作出判决约束该被告”。在美国境内的效果必须是“境外行为直接而可预见的结果”，并且被告“必须知晓或者有合理理由知晓其行为对向其主张管辖权的辖区产生了影响”。

While it is well-established in U.S. jurisprudence that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who causes an effect in the forum by an act committed elsewhere, courts have recognized that “this is a principle that must be applied with caution, particularly in an international context.”[29] Defendants must have “followed a course of conduct directed at . . . the jurisdiction of a given sovereign, so that the sovereign has the power to subject the defendant to judgment concerning that conduct.”[30] The effects in the United States must “occur as a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct outside the territory” and the defendant “must know, or have good reason to know, that his conduct will have effects in the [forum] seeking to assert jurisdiction over him.”[31]

在2016年美国证券交易委员会(SEC)诉斯特劳博案中，SEC指称匈牙利电信公司的三名主管违反《反海外腐败法》贿赂马其顿政府。SEC称被告通过各种手段隐瞒贿赂计划，包括不实记录会计账簿和向SEC提交虚假证券法资格证书。纽约南区联邦法院认为，被告故意利用美国证券交易掩盖被指控的违规行为，因此专门管辖成立。具体而言，在准备向SEC提交文件的过程中，公司的首席执行官向外部审计师提供了管理层签字的虚假陈述信件，审计报告随后被提交SEC。原被告双方一致同意，被告“进行了指向美国社会或者经济的行为，因此美国有权就该行为判决约束被告”。

In SEC v. Straub (2016),[32] the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) claimed that three executives of a Hungarian telecommunications company had violated the FCPA by bribing the Macedonian government. The SEC alleged that the defendants were able to conceal a bribery scheme by, among other things, maintaining inaccurate books and records and submitting false securities law certifications in connection with the company’s SEC filings. The Southern District Court of New York found that specific jurisdiction existed because the defendants purposefully availed themselves of a U.S. securities exchange to conceal their alleged wrongdoing. Specifically, in the course of preparing the SEC filings, the company’s CEO had provided signed management misrepresentation letters to an outside auditor in connection with its audit of the company’s financial disclosures, which were then filed with the SEC. Neither party disputed that the defendants had “followed a course of conduct directed at the society or economy existing within the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the United States has the power to subject Defendants to judgment concerning that conduct.”[33]

如果法院认定被告和辖区有足够的最低联系，那么除非“存在令人信服的其他因素，导致管辖不合理”，专门管辖成立。合理性审查考虑的因素包括“（1） 行使管辖对被告造成的负担；（2）该州在审理案件中的利益；以及（3）原告获取方便有效救济的利益。”在涉外民事诉讼中，合理性审查的焦点在于在美国诉讼对非居民被告造成的负担。

If a court determines that a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts within the forum, specific jurisdiction will be established unless “a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.”[34] Factors at this second step include “(1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant; (2) the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the case; and (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief.”[35] In civil litigation with an international element, the focus of the reasonableness inquiry tends to focus on the burden of nonresident defendants to litigate in the United States.

在2013年美国证券交易委员会(SEC)诉沙里夫一案中，纽约南区联邦法院以专门管辖不合理而不成立为由，驳回了一起《反海外腐败法》项下指控。被告是一名74岁的德国制造公司阿根廷子公司的前主管，被指控鼓励他人贿赂阿根廷政府并伪造财务报表，但他本人没有授权或亲自行贿，也没有参与任何财务报表造假。法院认定，被告与美国的联系太微弱，以致不能满足正当程序要求，而且即使满足最小联系，考虑到他“距离遥远、年龄太大、英语能力欠缺和该辖区审理该案的利益弱化”，对他进行司法管辖也是不合理的。

In SEC v. Sharef (2013),[36] the Southern District Court of New York dismissed an FCPA case for the lack of specific jurisdiction as the case would be unreasonable. . The defendant, a seventy-four-year-old former executive of a German manufacturing company’s Argentine subsidiary, allegedly encouraged others to pay bribes to the Argentine government and falsify financial statements but had not himself authorized or paid bribes nor had any involvement in the falsification of the company’s financial statements. The court held the defendant’s contacts with the United States were “far too attenuated” to satisfy due process, and even if they were sufficient, haling the defendant into a U.S. court would have been “unreasonable” given his “lack of geographic ties to the United States, his age, his poor proficiency in English, and the forum’s diminished interest in adjudicating the matter.”[37]

注：

[1] 比如：2018年10月22日，《新京报》快讯称，全国人大常委会二审国际刑事司法协助法草案，对比一审稿，二审稿制定了有关“抵制外国‘长臂管辖’”条款，显然，作者认为“长臂管辖”包括美国对刑事案件的管辖权。再比如：2017年8月23日，当外交部发言人华春莹被问及对美国财政部宣布新一轮针对中国和俄罗斯的实体制裁有何看法时，她指出，反对任何其他国家根据其自己的国内法对中方实体或个人实施“长臂管辖”，显然，华女士认为长臂管辖包括美国行政机关对外国实体的处罚。

[2] Specific jurisdiction was coined in a 1966 (see von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harvard Law Review 1121, 1144–1163 (1996) and later adopted by the US Supreme Court, see Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014). This is also sometimes referred to as “case linked” jurisdiction. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U. S. ____, 4 (2017) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

[3] 美国证券交易委员会就《反海外腐败法》项下提出的指控也适用民事诉讼规则。

[4] 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 to 3 The anti-bribery provisions prohibit payments that are made with “corrupt intent” to obtain or retain business and are made to “foreign officials” operating in their “official capacity.” The FCPA applies to “domestic concerns” (real and legal US persons); US “issuers” (US and foreign public companies listed on American stock exchanges or that are required to file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)); and foreign individuals and businesses commit FCPA prohibited behavior, fully or in part, within US territory–“territorial jurisdiction.” The false or inaccurate accounting provisions are narrower, only applying to US “issuers.”

[5] 15 U.S.C. § 78m.

[6] Blakesley, Christopher L., “United States Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Crime,” J. Crim. L. & Criminology 73, 1109 (1982).

[7] Ibid.

[8] 例如：域外管辖可以指纽约州法院对一名加利福尼亚居民行使管辖权，也可以指美国证券交易委员会对中国某公司执行行政处罚，还可以指美国国会立法要求对来自中国的投资加强审查。

[9] F.T.C. v. Compagnie De Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson, 636 F.2d 1300, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

[10] Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 US 764, 813 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

[11] Colangelo, 1310 citing Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 US 764, 813 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

[12] Ibid.

[13] 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(b)(2) (2010).

[14] Colangelo, 1310.

[15] Although this may sound like prescriptive justice, US courts treats this as a form of enforcement jurisdiction, see F.T.C. v. Compagnie De Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson 493 F. Supp. 286 (D.D.C. 1980)

[16] Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316 (2006).

[17] California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 (2003) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure §4(k), see Long-Arm Statutes: A Fifty-State Survey for a full list of the different rules and leading cases http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/LongArmSurvey.pdf.

[18] New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302 (2003).

[19] 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(b)(2)(2010)“The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction of an action . . . alleging a violation of the antifraud provisions of this chapter involving–(2) conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.”

[20] Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby, 726 F.3d 119, 128 (2d Cir. 2013).

[21] Ibid.

[22] Alki Partners, L.P. v. Vatas Holding GmbH, 769 F. Supp. 2d 478, 487–88 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

[23] The Fifth Amendment contains the Due Process Clause which is applicable to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Due Process Clause to states.

[24] Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474–475 (1985)).

[25] 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

[26] Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567-68 (2d Cir. 1996).

[27] In this case, found in the Exchange Act.

[28] Alki Partners, 769 F. Supp. 2d 478-88.

[29] Leasco Data Processing Equip. Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326, 1341 (2d Cir. 1972).

[30] J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2789 (2011).

[31] Leasco, 468 F.2d at 1341.

[32] 921 F. Supp. 2d 244, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

[33] Ibid. at 254.

[34] Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477.

[35] Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 568.

[36] 924 F. Supp. 2d 539, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

[37] Ibid. at 548.

作者简介：

作者往期文章推荐：

《方圆之道 | 如何全面构建符合中央企业特色的合规体系？》