Abstract:Purpose The issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes has become common in a globalizing world, while the rigid compliance with territoriality and active personality jurisdiction has created a legal vacuum for cross-border crimes in many situations. The jurisdiction dispute between mainland China and Taiwan over cross-border telecom fraud crimes is a good example. In recent years, the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China cracked down a series of cross-border telecom fraud crimes against mainland residents and extradited suspects to mainland China. Given a certain proportion of Taiwan residents in criminal gangs, the Taiwan side raised jurisdiction objections, arguing that mainland China had no right to exercise jurisdiction over Taiwanese criminals. The essence of the jurisdiction dispute between two sides is the concurrence of Taiwan’s right to exercise active personality jurisdiction and the mainland’s right to exercise passive personality jurisdiction. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the connotation of different jurisdiction principles (namely, territorial, active personality, protective and passive personality jurisdiction) and reinterpret their prioritization of applicability from a jurisprudential perspective, and thus, enhance the theoretical basis for resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes. Design/methodology/approach By reviewing the historical trajectory of major jurisdiction principles since the 1920s, and studying the specificities of the case in this context, this paper argues that territorial jurisdiction and active personality jurisdiction have presumed priority but not an absolute priority for resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicability of protective and passive personality jurisdiction could precede the former provided the jurisdictions of territoriality or active personality are inadequate, incompetent or lack of motivation to combat crimes, which harm other jurisdictions. Findings The developmental trajectory and contemporary connotation of major jurisdiction principles suggests that the legitimacy of the mainland’s exercise of passive personality jurisdiction over Taiwan criminal suspects lies in the urgent need to recover mainland victims’ significant property loss, the incompetence of Taiwan in detecting and prosecuting telecom fraud crimes committed by Taiwanese residents and targeting mainland victims and that the mainland has guaranteed the Taiwan side’s right to be timely informed and fully participate in its exercise of criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Taiwan suspects. Originality/value Current literature on jurisdiction doctrines mainly uses a historical or descriptive approach to reveal the attitudes of different countries toward jurisdiction principles, which helps little in resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes in an era of globalization. This paper uses an interpretative approach, reinterprets the contemporary connotation of different jurisdiction principles and redefines the criteria for determining their prioritization in the context of the specificities of a case. It is expected to update the academic literature for resolving concurrent jurisdiction, fill the legal vacuum for combating cross-border crimes created by rigid compliance with territorial jurisdiction, and meanwhile relieve concerns about abuse of extraterritorial jurisdiction as it provides concrete standards for weighting the applicability of jurisdiction principles.

Jurisdiction Expansion of International Private Law in the Legal Personality Conflict of MNC

The Construction of Judicial Person' Double-layer Theory of Rights Capacity and Its Meaning in Corporation Law

Experience of Internationalization of Chinese Corporate Law and Corporate Governance: How to Make the Hybrid of Civil Law and Common Law Work?

Parent-Subsidiary Responsibility in the Development of Multinational Enterprises

International Civil Litigation in China: A Practical Analysis of the Chinese Judicial System

Bounded Entrepreneurship and Internationalisation of Indigenous Chinese Private-Owned Firms

Do indigenous firms incur a liability of localness when operating in their home market? The case of China

Study on Jurisdictional Disputes and Coordination Mechanisms in Foreign Criminal Cases: Taking Commercial Bribery as an Example

Piercing the Corporation Veil:from Legal Rules to Practices

An Integration of Premium and Liability of Foreignness

Regulations of Home and Host States on the Protection of Human Rights of Multinational Enterprises

An Analysis of the Governance Structure of Multinational Corporations and Their Subsidiaries

A jurisprudential analysis of the concurrent criminal jurisdiction over cross-border telecom fraud crime

How does liability of origin influence cross-border acquisition completion? Evidence from Chinese firms

Do Foreign Firms in China Incur A Liability of Foreignness? the Local Chinese Firms' Perspective

On the Legal Foundation of the Concept of Corporate Control

The System of Disregard of Corporate Personality in the Rarent Company and Subsidiary Company

The Boundaries of the Law: Can US Private Enforcement Discipline Foreign Firms?

FDI Legitimacy and MNC Subsidiary Control: From Legitimation to Competition

The Legal System of Concurrence of International Parallel Litigation of the U. S. A. Federal Court

CFIUS, Chinese MNCs’ Outward FDI, and Globalization of Business