A 38-year-old office worker got a rude introduction to the perils of blogging when he posted about his pot-smoking experience in the Netherlands on his blog [Segye Ilbo, Korean].
You guessed it—the police busted him.
The office worker, identified only as Mr. A, was with two colleagues on a seven-day, six-night business trip to the Netherlands in January. Having completed their work, they were spending the rest of their time in-country doing a little sightseeing when their guide mentioned that while smoking pot in Korea might be illegal, smoking pot in the Netherlands was not punished.
Their curiosity sparked, they paid a visit to a local coffee shop and bought three joints, which they pleasantly smoked.
When he returned to Korea, Mr. A posted about his experience on his blog. Two months later, Seoul’s finest came knocking on his door. On March 20, A and his two co-workers were busted by Seoul Metro’s drug squad on charges of having smoked the wacky tobacky.
A police official explained that based on the principle of personal jurisdiction, you can be busted for doing drugs overseas.
62 Comments
principle of personal jurisdiction? what the hell is that?
It’s F*cked-up like Hogans goat!
[DELETED. Reason: Off Topic]
Off topic: I put some Korean War-era photos up on my blog for those interested.Link
The cops have so little to do that they’ve got to surf for evidence of minor ‘crimes’ committed in other countries? What the…?
Actually, it sounds like some English speaker (expat?) might have had a beef with the guy and turned him in. I can see turning in a pedophile, but whoever turned the guy in for this needs to have their ass kicked.
The guy was a real dolt for his braggadocio!
Well then, I wonder just how the police intend to prosecute this fellow for doing something that is not illegal in another country and without material evidence? The man could simply claim that he was fibbing and the police would have nothing for a judge to look at.
I wish Brendon would comment upon this strange notion of law since it seems quite unusual.
Quite foolish for him to think that the great laws of Corea, which can be applied anywhere on the globe, would not effect him when he did something that was legal in that country.
I also wonder: what is to say that these same police can not arrest foreigners for doing something in another country that is considered illegal in Korea, if the foreigner were to talk or blog about such. If I am not mistaken, this might imply that Korean law is arbitrary and selective in its enforcement and not a very reliable or desirable thing at all.
This seems like another case of “rule by law instead of “rule of law”.
Things were so much better in the 1970s, or to be exact, in 1970, when there were no consequences for the the Weekly Kyunghyang report Shocking Confession: Shin Joong-hyun’s Happy Smoke Hallucination Travelogue. (See this Hankyoreh piece from last year.) It took five years and the Yushin system for Shin and his musician peers to get busted for smoking pot.
So this picture of marmot shouldn’t be posted? BTW, where did you get the Rizla papers?
If the authorities test his piss or blood he’ll be fine. If they test his hair he’s screwed.
Singapore does the same thing. They’ll give you a piss test upon entry if they suspect anything, but at least they’ll have those results, rather than hearsay, as evidence.
He should have known better than to advertise his Amsterdam experience. I’ve got no issue with smoking pot, but anyone who has been here for more than a few weeks can figure out, Koreans generally do have an issue with it (or using any other drugs that don’t happen to come in a green bottle and sell for a buck each!)
Something best avoided in country, and one might want to carefully consider discussing one’s past exploits. Just an opinion.
“Actually, it sounds like some English speaker (expat?) might have had a beef with the guy and turned him in. I can see turning in a pedophile, but whoever turned the guy in for this needs to have their ass kicked.”
Possible I guess, but not a scenario that would immediately come to mind.
Actually, the correct name for the legal principle concerned would be the active personality(or nationality) principle of jurisdiction. Contrary to the outrage being expressed, it is one of the most commonly recognized bases of jurisdiction after the territoriality principle. (Other more problematic bases would be the passive personality principle, where the state of the victim of a crime claims jurisdiction, or the universality principle, whereby a state totally unrelated may claim jurisdiction over crimes shocking to the conscience, such as genocide)
Since the laws of the different jurisdictions (territoriality versus nationality) conflict in this case, and because the offense of smoking pot seems so mild to the (Western) public, this case might seem strange. If you recognize these separate bases of jurisdiction as equal, however, it’s logically not that much of an issue. A person will usually abide by the laws of the place where he is even if those laws are different from those of his national state, because he automatically recognizes that they apply to him regardless of the difference. Apply the same logic to the nationality principle and it’s not that weird.
And in response to R. Elgin’s question - No, a foreign national who committed a crime overseas against a non-Korean national would not be subject to Korean jurisdiction. (Whether the Korean courts would ever assert universal jurisdiction, as countries such as Belgium have done, is another matter.)
didn’t the same thing happen to that Almond Tease porn teacher when she did porn in Canada. She got busted in Korea even though she did it in Canada.
As leefr correctly points out, nothing particularly outrageous here from the perspective of legal theory. The perp is a citizen of Korea and is subject to Korea’s laws wherever he is, regardless whether what he does in another jurisdiction is legal there. Consider that if you are an American citizen, e.g., you still have to pay taxes regardless whether you live abroad and generate all your income there; many other countries, e.g., Canada, I believe, do not tax such foreign source income in such circumstances. Since the moron “confessed”, also not much problem with getting him indicted and more or less summarily punished in Korea. The real issues of concern here are: (i) the waste of law enforcement resources over trivia, and (2) why Korea doesn’t take action against its citizens’ violations of its own laws, e.g., prostitution, when Korean perps commit them in other jurisdictions that might consider the conduct in question more objectionable than the Dutch do toking up. I also imagine that one ought to be careful about defaming anyone in Korea - which is pretty easy to do since truth is not a defense, as the person will still lose (even more) face - abroad, then putting yourself within the physical reach of the authorities by coming ashore.
Spewer, your comment has problems. Why should Korean law be applicable in circumstances that clearly lie outside of its jurisdiction? This is like the DOJ in America, arresting British citizens, when they enter the US, for running a gambling site — not in America — that Americans might use. I would seriously question any county’s right to so liberally inflict their laws upon anyone, regardless of citizenship, under such circumstances.
its a truly offensive practise and it brings shame on the Korean legal code. But its also very confucian. Your person is not your own, it belongs to your parents, and by extension all persons belong to and are the jurisdiction of the state, wheresoever they travel. With such ideas still in practise, Korea will forever be thought of as a backwards country. If Koreans wish to truly be free they should give up their Korean citizinship. Porn is your right! Pot is your right!
On the other hand, I’m not sure if Canada or the US is much different. Canada had ruled that Hezbollah is a terrorist group and but Korea had not. If a Canadian funds Hezbollah by money transfers while in Korea, can he or she be prosecuted upon return under Canadian law?
Would a non-Korean citizen, physically in Korea, be arrested/prosecuted for usage of an illicit material, if the person used the material outside of Korea?
I should rephrase the question. Legally, could a non-Korean citizen, physically in Korea, be arrested/prosecuted for usage of an illicit material (drugs), if the person used said materials while they were not in Korea?
Elgin:
Your last overlooks the crucial fact that the individual in question here is a Korean citizen; so your attempted analogy falls apart.
Or maybe you were referring to my comments about the application of Korean defamation law. There, though, again, you are overlooking the fact that by entering the jurisdiction the person in question is putting himself clearly within its jurisdiction in the most basic and traditional sense by rendering himself directly subject to the state’s power of physical coercion.
For my part, I should have mentioned that the defamation probably would have to have been published in Korea, even if made abroad, for Korean jurisdiction to lie - I say “probably” because if you think the DOJ is something to worry about, you’d better take a sedative before you start thinking about Korea’s MOJ.
As for the case you cite of a Briton arrested upon entry to the US for running an offshore gambling site that solicits US customers, you seem to be ignorant of the doctrine of “availment”. This is simply the rather reasonable notion that if you want to avail yourself of the advantages and benefits of doing business in a jurisdiction by soliciting and accepting business from there, you’ve got to abide by local law. This is a well-established legal principle. If you don’t, and you’re stupid enough then to enter the jurisdiction (usually from one that won’t extradite because it doesn’t recognize the substantive criminal or tax law that is being applied, e.g., the Swiss won;t extradite for tax evasion), you really ought not to expect any sympathy.
ANd if you really want to go on a crusade, I suggest you take up leefr’s reference to Belgium, which like a couple other (mostly European jurisdictions) claims the right to try anybody for any act anywhere with which Belgium in its wisdom disagrees from time to time. Sounds like the model fro the Int’l Criminal Court to me.
This could lead to problems because it subject a person to two legal systems as once. That of the territory one is in, and that of their nation. Two rule set invites contradiction.
As unlikely as it is, I could imagine a situation where the nation one is from requires a person to administer aid any way they can to someone injured, whereas the nation they are traveling in forbids it unless the person is properly certified to do so.
Unlikely as it may be, it betrays inconsistency. There could be more examples I’m not thinking of right now…
“No, a foreign national who committed a crime overseas against a non-Korean national would not be subject to Korean jurisdiction.”
That’s not quite the question he asked, leefr. The guy didn’t harm anyone, he didn’t tie down some poor unsuspecting Korean backpacker/missionary and forced him or her to take a few bong hits. Far from it. He smoked a joint, something that was legal in Korea, and very much part of Korean culture, up until the mid-70s when the Korean President wanted to look as if he was tough on drugs because his son was a junkie.
Some mighty big kimbap being arried there!
I like South Korea’s stance on illegal drugs.
I really do.
That said, I never tried illegal drugs.
I suppose it does something like,
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn.....ortCat=nfl
In response to post #22 by SomeguyinKorea :
I was answering to post #8 by R. Elgin, where he commented, “I also wonder: what is to say that these same police can not arrest foreigners for doing something in another country that is considered illegal in Korea, if the foreigner were to talk or blog about such.” I was answering to his hypothetical question in the abstract, not about the actual case at hand. You probably thought I was responding to his post #6 - an understandable mistake now that I look back at it. So if a foreigner smoked pot overseas and came to Korea afterwards, the Korean criminal justice system would have no basis of jurisdiction over that act. In the case of the blogger, however, there are probably tests that will reveal whether he actually took drugs in the approximate time frame that he admitted to on his blog(for example, seouldout mentioned hair tests).
In any case, the legal principle at issue is nothing special, and framing this as an example of Korean idiosyncracy or selective (in)justice is more of a gratuitous knee-jerk reaction than anything else. Whether certain crimes in the Korean Criminal Code should be de-criminalized (such as adultery or prostitution) is a separate but related issue that might make for a more interesting debate.
@13 leefr:
“Actually, the correct name for the legal principle concerned would be the active personality(or nationality) principle of jurisdiction. Contrary to the outrage being expressed, it is one of the most commonly recognized bases of jurisdiction after the territoriality principle. (Other more problematic bases would be the passive personality principle, where the state of the victim of a crime claims jurisdiction, or the universality principle, whereby a state totally unrelated may claim jurisdiction over crimes shocking to the conscience, such as genocide).”
Leefr’s comment is very much in point. Just like him I am not pleased at all about the ignorance of many Americans who regard their own legal principles as universal (while, in reality, even neighbouring Québec, let alone jurisdictions further afield, is blessed with a legal system which is very, very different from that of most states of the US).
Sperwer (# 15) got it right - there is really nothing unusual in this case.
German nationals (my own case) are subject to German criminal jurisdiction WHEREVER they may have committed the act which is a crime in German law. This so-called active personality principle is not unusual in the international community and absolutely sound. If you really want to escape from your home country’s jurisdiction the option of changing your citizenship is open to you. Otherwise abide by your own country’s law - after all, this is the law you should be most familiar with.
And therefore there was absolutely nothing wrong with putting the afore-mentioned amateur (?) porn actress on trial upon her return from Canada to Korea (provided that she was a Korean citizen at the time of her performance in these very valuable and highly artistic movies).
“As unlikely as it is, I could imagine a situation where the nation one is from requires a person to administer aid any way they can to someone injured, whereas the nation they are traveling in forbids it unless the person is properly certified to do so.”
In theory, this could, indeed, be so. In practice, this case seems rather improbable. Put it down to the hazards of leaving your own jurisdiction…
“In any case, the legal principle at issue is nothing special, and framing this as an example of Korean idiosyncracy or selective (in)justice is more of a gratuitous knee-jerk reaction than anything else.”
Yes, Leefr, that’s absolutely right.
“I suggest you take up leefr’s reference to Belgium, which like a couple other (mostly European jurisdictions) claims the right to try anybody for any act anywhere with which Belgium in its wisdom disagrees from time to time. Sounds like the model fro the Int’l Criminal Court to me.”
Sperwer is right on this one, as well. Belgium’s stance is, however, somewhat unusual.
Wonder what would happen say if a Korean National posted on his blog that he had sex, say with a 17 year old girl in exchange for a one night stay at the Ritz in Seoul and then got busted in the United States for statutory rape due to a blog he wrote.
“a Korean National” “in Seoul”
What has the US got to do with it ? Not much, I guess.
Once some of you guys realize that you are dealing with the most thoroughly Confucianized society in the world these sorts of things will make sense. Stop expecting Koreans to be what they ain’t, once you do that you will find that Korea is a lot more fun.
Isn’t 38 a bit too old to be in one’s experimentation-with-dope phase of life?
Just drink to oblivion. But not in my neighborhood, please.
How about 50 different sets of criminal laws? Isn’t it legal to sell liquor in the U.S., but not allowed (or restricted heavily) in “dry” counties?
Thanks for the explanations, Spewer and leefr; it is something not usually known to the average American.
Also Spewer, I checked on the Briton I referred to earlier and it seems his company did hold assets in the US. Too bad for him. Without doing more grousing for references, the odd thing about all that originally was that it was a bit of a creative legal stretch for the US to claim jurisdiction for what business might occur over the internet, from foreign companies who hold no assets or operations in the US.
Elgin:
Not really; the principle to which I alluded does NOT require the defendant to have assets or be physically present in the jurisdiction. The essential element is that he seeks to derive some benefit from the jurisdiction or its inhabitants. This is a very simple extension of the concept of domestic “long-arm” jurisdiction in the US, that permits a defendant in one state to be held accountable in another in and with which he has no assets or other physical presence or contacts other than, e.g., the shipment to and sale in that jurisdiction of merchandise. Before this principle was established in the US, it was impossible, e.g., for a 19th century plaintiff in Nebraska to hold a New York defendant liable for injuries sustained from a defective reaper, e.g., manufactured in NY, unless he sued the defendant in a NY court - which generally was a practical impossibility and where he might not get a fair hearing from the local court.
That the Briton had assets or entered the jurisdiction only made enforcement of the judgment against him (more) practicable.
Spewer, I am referring not to intrastate jurisdiction but to the issue of a country asserting legal jurisdiction where there is none clearly warranted. A case that pops into my mind is France vs. Yahoo, when the French Government attempted to sue Yahoo for what was on its site. It is a long stretch for the US to assume it has the right to enforce its laws upon internet commerce that originate in another country. Should any nation extend its laws beyond its borders by virtue of claiming that because some of its citizens use a foreign website, thus they have a right to do?
I’m guessing such is probably more a trade issue, than law enforcement.
Elgin:
I realize that; but you’re missing the point. The principle underlying domestic intrastate long-arm jurisdiction and supporting the assertion of jurisdiction by one government over the citizens of another is exactly the same. When Yahoo makes its service available in France (thereby generating revenue, btw) it is IN the jurisdiction by virtue of its contact with French citizens. Doing business in another country via the medium of the internet just isn’t the big fucking deal/panacea the tech wonks think it is. It’s just a slightly hopped up version of using newspaper advertising to reach people in other places, with the added bells and whistles of online ordering and payment; when they figure out how to deliver a refrigerator online, I’ll be impressed.
The bottom line is this is one more reason why Korea will never be fully respected in the international community. This incident proves they are still too backward and ignorant to be taken seriously. Just because you can copy cellphone and automobile designs invented by other countries, doesn’t mean you are intelligent. The much more enlightened Japanese would never pull this kind of Gestapo tactic.
What concerns me is that this all happened through a blog. I can’t tell on that site if he uses his real name. If so, pretty dumb. If not, and someone weeded (no pun intended) through IP addresses to find out about the crime, that’s scary.
Some of us like to rant and rave on anonymous blogs, thinking we’re free from persecution. But with stories like this, I do wonder.
Maekchu:
Everybody who has been reading my comments for any length of time realises that I am not really a fan of the ROK. While there is certainly much to be criticised in detail, I do object to sweeping condemnations of the entire country. And please leave the Gestapo out of it. As a German citizen (although born 20 years after the war) I am aware that the horrible modus operandi of the Gestapo is in no way comparable to the perfectly legal and justified course of action the Korean police in this case.
By the way, the German authorities occasionally take action in a similar manner against German nationals returning from trips to the Netherlands, provided the prosecution can prove that the Germans have come into the posession of drugs abroad, even if they have used up their supply before their arrival at the German border. That is everyday police routine and this course of action is not at all unusual, let alone legally questionable, why should it be ? It is, after all, a typical case of the application of the active personality principle of jurisdiction.
Seems to me what Fantasy and others have told us so authoritatively entirely misses the point. Sure, now we know that there is such a law, that it has a name, its justifiable and it has a precedent. So what? “Perfectly legal and justified” laws in themselves mean nothing. They are enforced or they are (frequently) ignored. The real issue here is WHY this law was enforced at this time and the limitations on speaking “freely” in print or the web.
#25, actually no. I think your reference to commiting a crime against a non-Korean national is off topic. You misread the question, I think. When I read between the lines, I think the question he asked was, “Will the Korean cops arrest a foreigner who has smoked marijuana abroad?”
a-letheia:
Actually, no, this is not the issue here. The guy was not busted because he exercised his right of free spreech, but because he (as a Korean national) had, while abroad, committed a crime in Korean law.
The internet only comes into play as a means of prove. We would not know about his having committed a crime had he not bragged about it online…
Sorry, I meant “as a means of proof”
Sorry, I meant “as a means of proof”
Someguy:
The Korean cops will not arrest a FOREIGNER who has committed a crime abroad, unless there is an extradition request from the respective country. If this is the case, they might arrest and extradite him. The Korean authorities have no legitimate interest in putting on trial foreigners for crimes committed abroad. This happens only in Belgium…
The Korean authorities do, however, have a legitimate interest in putting on trial THEIR OWN NATIONALS for crimes committed abroad, even though the act (or the omission) in question was legal at the place where it was performed.
I like South Korea’s stance on illegal drugs.
I really do.
That said, I never tried illegal drugs.
Yes, you have certainly have never tried speed.
Sorry for the extra (have)
Oh please - spare us the freedom of speech spiel. The guy was exercising that right to the fullest - he was just being really dumb when he posted the details of a crime he committed for everyone to see. He can talk about it all he wants to - in fact I’d bet money Korean police wish every perp would confess to their crimes in such a voluntary and convenient fashion.
As to why the law was enforced in this particular case, the inside story is anybody’s guess at this point. Maybe somebody reported the incident, in which case the police are obligated to commence an investigation. Maybe they decided it would serve as a warning against recreational drug use while overseas. Maybe there was a really grumpy police officer surfing the net instead of toiling away at his paperwork that day. Looking at this as some kind of Big Brother incident or Gestapo tactic is just way overblown - Korean law enforcement maintains a strict attitude towards drugs, which is probably why they didn’t ignore the case in the first place, but the men weren’t even detained and from the facts of the case it’s not very probable that they’ll serve any real time. The story probably only made the news for its entertainment value anyway.
My opinion, FWIW.
The Korean authorities do, however, have a legitimate interest in putting on trial THEIR OWN NATIONALS for crimes, AS DEFINED BY KOREAN LAW, committed abroad, even though the act (or the omission) in question may have been legal at the place where it was performed.
To provide another German example:
German nationals are not permitted to rape their wives. It does not matter where the rape takes place (in Germany, abroad, in outer space…) or of what nationality the wife is (German, foreign, Marsian…). Germans are simply not allowed to rape their wives, full stop. If they still do it, and if they are caught by the German police on German soil, and if the crime can be proved to competent court’s satisfaction, they will be convicted, irrespective of whether the crime was committed against a GERMAN wife in GERMANY or against an IRANIAN wife by her GERMAN husband) in IRAN. The decisive fact upon which German jurisdiction rests is that the perpetrator is a German national…
#44 - I don’t know how many times I’m repeating the same answer. I’ll try to say it again as clearly as possible - No, the Korean police will not arrest a foreigner who has smoked marijuana abroad. My previous posts stated the same thing, merely in the abstract.
The reason I posted as I did in post #13- “No, a foreign national who committed a crime overseas against a non-Korean national would not be subject to Korean jurisdiction” was merely to explain a situation where neither the nationality principle(a foreign national), nor the territoriality principle(crime committed overseas), nor the passive personality principle(against a non-Korean victim) would be applicable. Since the use of marijuana does not create a victim per se, you’re right that the passive personality principle is not really at issue here, but I was just trying to explain the broadest possible situation.
leefr:
You take the words right out of my mouth…
#52, my own comment:
to the competent court’s satisfaction
“Yes, you certainly have never tried speed.”
No, I haven’t. No, really not.
Gentlemen:
It is well known that I am not really a fan of the ROK - but this case here does not provide any ammunition for getting one over at the country by liking the Korean police to the Gestapo when they have merely acted correctly in the execution of their duties.
All you criminals gotta watch out! Crime just doesn’t pay in Korea. Well…unless you consider embezzling millions from unsuspecting share-holders a crime.
But even if you do these white collar criminals are libel to spend some time in the big house. Well…unless they start their sentence close to the anniversary of the inauguration of the President.
When I got my most recent Australian passport, there was a little notice in it reminding me that I could be fined or spend a few years in gaol if I was found to have bribed any official outside of Australia.
I’m sure they weren’t thinking of paying a hundred roubles to the cops for being a foreigner, but the provision is there for serious transgressions of Australian laws.
But smoking pot???
“But smoking pot???”
Pyotr:
Okay, I agree, not exactly the most heinous of crimes.
Probably some over-zealous police officer…
Hey,
I’ve done some research on the topic in the law library and can now come up with a (German) case where the conflicting principles of jurisdiction did, indeed, lead to chaos and blatant injustice:
There were two Canadian tourists who happened to meet on tour in Germany. The sad outcome was that the man seems to have raped the woman.
The German courts could have assumed jurisdiction over the case (territoriality principle), but refused to do so since neither the perpetrator (active personality principle) nor the victim (passive personality principle) were German nationals. The argument went along the following lines:
“Why, for Christ’s sake, should we accept a responsibilty which is rightfully that of the bloody Canadians, namely to restrain their own criminals, in a case where German interests are clearly not involved ?”
So, the German court stopped the proceedings and suggested that the Canadian authorities deal with the matter. This, however, did not happen since the Canadians seem to be most reluctant to assume jurisdiction over matters which do not originate from their own territory, even if their own nationals are involved.
So, nothing at all happened. Stupid, eh ?
Ah, the realities of a Harsper..uhurm! *cough!* i mean, Harsher Reality….
3 Trackbacks
[...] of drugs and South Korea, go check this [...]
[...] blogger posted about his pot-smoking experience in the Netherlands on his blog and got busted for doing drugs overseas - Robert Koehler from Marmot’s Hole. Oiwan [...]
[...] SOUTH KOREA - What NOT to post on your blog in Korea “A 38-year-old office worker got a rude introduction to the perils of blogging when he posted about his pot-smoking experience in the Netherlands on his blog “ [...]