[ubernostrum]

But I do not understand how a NY prosecutor can subpoena a Japanese business?

If you offer services to, or engage in financial transactions with, a person in Jurisdiction A, Jurisdiction A can enforce its laws on you. You should not in any way be surprised by this fact.

[thirsteh]

That's all well and good, but Mt. Gox likely won't conduct any more business in NY. It gets even more problematic if they don't actually operate any legal entity in the U.S.

The U.S. may enforce its laws upon U.S. entities, but it has no authority to do so on e.g. a Japanese one, unless a treaty/agreement exists that facilitates it. This is why China-only companies that engage in IP theft (or vice versa) aren't being hauled into court on the daily. (You wouldn't be surprised if I said China can't enforce its laws on a NY company, right?)

[bunderbunder]

They do operate legal entity in the US. At the very least, there were all those funds the Feds seized last year.

The U.S. doesn't necessarily have to enforce its laws overseas to go after Mt. Gox. Japan has its own consumer protection laws, and presumably they have something to say about how Mt. Gox has been operating, too. So filing suit in a Japanese court is also a perfectly legitimate option.

[wpietri]

The US can enforce it laws on anybody it can get its hands on. For example Joaquin Guzman, the drug kingpin recently captured in Mexico faces charges in a variety of US states, even if he never set foot there. [1]

Mexico has to agree to hand him over, but once the US has him, they can happily convict him of crimes committed while he wasn't physically present in the US.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282359473/arrest-of-el-chapo-n...

[thirsteh]

Oh, sure, but it's contingent on him being in the U.S. (Same for a company.) It is Mexico's decision to "extradite" him.

Similarly, Brazil could convict me of whatever it wanted if I went there. Then it just becomes a diplomatic issue.

[M2Ys4U]

>The U.S. may enforce its laws upon U.S. entities, but it has no authority to do so on e.g. a Japanese one, unless a treaty/agreement exists that facilitates it.

The US has a history of extending its jurisdiction to practically anywhere if the Internet is involved. effective enforcement is another matter entirely, though.

>This is why China-only companies that engage in IP theft (or vice versa) aren't being hauled into court on the daily.

"IP theft" is pretty much impossible to achieve. You're thinking of infringement.

[thirsteh]

> "IP theft" is pretty much impossible to achieve. You're thinking of infringement.

Nope, I'm really thinking of theft. And it's quite possible to achieve. In fact, it happens quite often; it's just hard to prove conclusively that it has happened.