Cross-jurisdictional conduct of this nature is handled straightforwardly under the principle of U.S. military jurisdiction. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to service members at all times and in all locations worldwide. When an offense is a “continuing” one that begins in a foreign country and is completed on a U.S. military installation, the U.S. military has clear and unquestionable jurisdiction to prosecute the entire course of conduct. The portion of the offense that occurs on U.S. soil provides a firm jurisdictional hook, often simplifying complex international legal questions.
For example, if a service member steals property from an off-base location overseas (an act subject to the host nation’s law and the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA) and then transports that stolen property back to their barracks room in a U.S. barracks overseas or on a base in the United States, they have committed the crime of larceny in a location under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction. The prosecution can focus on the possession of the stolen property on the U.S. installation, which is a complete offense in itself. This avoids any potential conflicts with the host nation over who has the right to prosecute.
A military defense attorney would have a very difficult time challenging jurisdiction in such a case. The legal principle that jurisdiction is proper in the location where a crime is completed is well-established. The attorney could not argue that the host nation has exclusive jurisdiction, because a key part of the offense occurred on U.S. territory. Therefore, the defense would need to focus on the factual merits of the case—arguing that their client did not commit the offense—rather than attempting to have the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.