Navigating Jurisdictional Challenges in the Prosecution of International Cyber Extortion

Abstarct 

International cyber extortion, a pervasive and financially devastating threat, presents formidable  jurisdictional challenges that undermine effective prosecution and global justice. The borderless  nature of cyberspace, coupled with profound disparities in national legal frameworks and  cumbersome cross-border evidence collection, allows perpetrators to operate with alarming  impunity. This article critically navigates these intricate, arguing that traditional territorial  principles are increasingly inadequate for holding digital extortionists accountable. It examines  the lacunae in current international cooperation mechanisms, such as Mutual Legal Assistance  Treaties, and the inconsistencies within existing legal instruments like the Budapest Convention.  Ultimately, this analysis advocates for a multi-faceted approach, emphasizing the urgent need  for harmonized cybercrime laws, streamlined international collaboration, and innovative legal  adaptations to ensure that the pursuit of justice can keep pace with the evolving digital threat,  safeguarding victims and global security.

Key words: Cyber Extortion ,Cross border ,Intricate,Cybercriminal 

 Abbreviations 

CFAA Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 

MLATs Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties 

CLOUD Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act

 Introduction

The digital age has brought unprecedented connectivity and innovation, yet it also ushers  in a new era of pervasive and insidious criminal threats.¹ Among these, international cyber  extortion stands as a particularly devastating phenomenon, holding individuals, businesses, and  even critical infrastructure hostage to digital demands for ransom.²The financial devastation,  operational paralysis, and profound reputational damage inflicted by these attacks often  involving the insidious “double extortion” tactic of data exfiltration underscore a stark reality  cybercriminals operate with alarming impunity across a borderless digital landscape.³

Historically, much scholarship on the prosecution of international cyber crimes has  focused on the challenges involved.⁴International cyber extortion is an intricate legal battle  fought on a global stage, where the digital footprints of criminals often extend far beyond the  reach of any single nation’s laws.⁵

At present, this pervasive threat exposes a fundamental tension between the inherently  transnational nature of cybercrime and the deeply rooted, territorial principles of traditional  criminal jurisdiction.⁶ When a cyber extortionist in one nation targets a victim in another, and digital evidence scattered across multiple sovereign territories, the conventional legal  frameworks designed for physical crimes falter.⁷ Despite efforts to foster global cooperation  through mechanisms like Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, these processes often prove  cumbersome and slow, lagging far behind the rapid pace of technological evolution that  criminals exploit.⁸Similarly, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime represents a significant  stride towards harmonizing international laws and investigative procedures, though challenges remain.⁹International responses, its effectiveness remains constrained by incomplete global  adoption and the persistent disparities in national legal frameworks.¹⁰ This article will navigate these intricate jurisdictional challenges in the prosecution of international cyber extortion,  critically examining the unique hurdles in evidence collection and the inconsistencies within  existing legal frameworks, ultimately proposing pathways for more effective international  collaboration and adaptive legal strategies to safeguard our interconnected world.¹¹

This article consciously situates a doctrinal and analytical research methodology,  supplemented by a comparative legal approach, to thoroughly investigate the jurisdictional  challenges inherent in prosecuting international cyber extortion.This multi-faceted methodology  aims to provide a rigorous, evidence-based understanding of the problem and to propose  actionable pathways for navigating these complex jurisdictional challenges. 

Legal Frameworks Governing International Cyber Extortion

The legal response to international cyber extortion is a patchwork of national statutes and  international agreements,each attempting to impose order on a borderless domain.¹²

National Legislation and Extraterritorial Reach

In the United States, CFAA, Serves as the cornerstone for prosecuting cybercrime including  cyber extortion.¹³ This statute broadly criminalizes unauthorized computer access and related  offenses, imposing severe penalties.¹⁴ A key feature is its extraterritorial application, allowing prosecution for actions committed abroad with a U.S. connection.¹⁵ Complementing the CFAA,  federal law also directly addresses extortion and the illicit proceeds derived from such crimes,  collectively forming a robust, albeit territorially bounded, legal framework against cyber  extortion.¹⁶

International Treaties and Conventions

International efforts to combat cybercrime are spearheaded by frameworks like the Budapest  Convention, which standardizes cybercrime definitions, investigative techniques, and cross border cooperation.¹⁷ The emerging UN Cybercrime Treaty aims for a more comprehensive  global approach, establishing universal definitions, streamlining data sharing, and promoting  capacity building, thereby enhancing global collaboration,¹⁸ particularly for non-signatories of  the Budapest Convention.¹⁹ MLATs are vital for cross-border evidence collection.²⁰ Despite  these mechanisms, the inherently transnational nature of cybercrime fundamentally challenges  the traditional principle of territoriality, complicating the application of national jurisdictions to  offenses spanning multiple countries.²¹

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

Judicial interpretation plays a pivotal role in shaping the application of these legal frameworks to  the fluid landscape of international cyber extortion.²²

One concern is that, in a landmark case illustrating the intricates of data sovereignty in  cybercrime investigations,which highlighted significant jurisdictional challenges.²³ Although  rendered moot by the subsequent CLOUD Act, the litigation profoundly underscored the  challenges of extraterritorial data access and the inherent conflicts stemming from disparate  national data location laws.²⁴ The Supreme Court’s involvement in this matter accentuated the  imperative for innovative legal frameworks to facilitate cross-border evidence collection, a  crucial element in the effective prosecution of international cyber extortion.²⁵

 Another influential judicial decision, Schrems II (2020) by the Court of Justice of the  European Union, profoundly impacted international data transfers critical for cybercrime  investigations.²⁶ By invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield due to inadequate U.S. surveillance  protections, the ruling necessitated reliance on more complex Standard Contractual Clauses and  spurred new data privacy frameworks.²⁷ While not a direct cyber extortion case, Schrems II exemplifies the stringent judicial oversight of cross-border data flows, which are indispensable  for investigators seeking evidence from service providers in diverse jurisdictions, further  complicating the already intricate process of international evidence gathering in cybercrime  cases.²⁸

This section also examines the Prosecuting Business Email Compromise scams, a significant  form of cyber extortion, frequently necessitates complex extradition cases.²⁹ These high-profile  instances underscore the critical role of international judicial cooperation, particularly through extradition treaties and mutual legal assistance, in overcoming the challenges of perpetrator  anonymity and ensuring accountability for transnational cybercriminals.³⁰

• Critical Analysis on Persistent Challenges and Legal Ambiguities

Despite existing legal frameworks and judicial efforts, significant challenges and ambiguities  persist in the prosecution of international cyber extortion, often allowing criminals to exploit  systemic weaknesses.

• The Erosion of Territoriality and Legislative Disparities

The fundamental challenge in prosecuting cybercrime, particularly cyber extortion, arises from  the borderless nature of cyberspace, which inherently conflicts with traditional territorial  jurisdiction.³¹ Furthermore, even where legislative jurisdiction is established, issues persist with  adjudicative and executive jurisdiction, as states typically restrict foreign law enforcement  operations and may decline to enforce extraterritorial judgments without reciprocal  criminalization.³²

• Hurdles in Cross-Border Evidence Collection

The collection of digital evidence constitutes the most formidable practical hurdle in prosecuting  international cyber extortion.³³ This challenge stems from the inherent volatility and dispersed  nature of digital evidence across diverse jurisdictions, each possessing unique legal requirements  for its collection, preservation, and admissibility.³⁴ Furthermore, law enforcement frequently  relies on the voluntary cooperation of foreign cloud service providers, who may not be legally compelled to furnish personal data without specific legal instruments or due to conflicts with  their own national privacy laws.³⁵

• Anonymity and Resource Deficiencies

The prosecution of cyber extortionists faces significant hurdles due to the anonymity afforded by  internet technologies such as encryption, VPNs, and the dark web, which severely impede  perpetrator identification and apprehension.³⁶ Compounding this challenge is the widespread  lack of specialized knowledge, training, and financial resources within global law enforcement  agencies, including critical IT infrastructure and expertise in areas like data science and digital  forensics, thereby hindering effective investigation and prosecution of these complex digital  offenses.³⁷

Recent Developments Towards a More Cohesive Response

The escalating threat of international cyber extortion has spurred significant legislative and  policy developments aimed at enhancing cross-border cooperation and adapting legal  frameworks to the digital reality.

New International and Regional Instruments

Recent international and national legal developments are significantly enhancing cross-border  cooperation in combating cybercrime. The UN Cybercrime Treaty aims to establish  comprehensive global definitions and streamlined data sharing to reduce jurisdictional  conflicts.³⁸ The Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention facilitates direct and  expedited cooperation with service providers for electronic evidence.³⁹ Concurrently, the U.S.  CLOUD Act clarifies extraterritorial data access for U.S. providers and enables direct evidence agreements with foreign partners.⁴⁰ while the EU e-Evidence Package introduces a “European  Production Order” for rapid inter-member state evidence requests.⁴¹ Collectively, these  initiatives represent a concerted effort to overcome the inherent territorial limitations and delays  of traditional legal assistance in prosecuting transnational cyber offenses.

Evolving Threats and Policy Debates

The rapidly evolving landscape of cyber extortion, characterized by a surge in ransomware,  prevalent “double extortion” tactics, and escalating demands, necessitates urgent international  policy adaptation.⁴² Proposals include establishing specialized courts, fast-track procedures, and  international working groups to engage with internet platforms, all reflecting a global imperative  to adapt traditional legal frameworks to the borderless nature of cyber extortion for effective  justice.⁴³

• Policy recommendation for Forging a Cohesive Global Response

As discussed above, the intricate web of jurisdictional challenges in prosecuting international  cyber extortion demands a multi-faceted, collaborative, and adaptive approach.⁴⁴ No single  solution will suffice; rather, progress hinges on a concerted effort across legislative, judicial, and  societal sphere.

❖Harmonizing Laws and Clarifying Reach

First, harmonization of national cybercrime laws is crucial, aligning definitions and procedures  across jurisdictions, exemplified by the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Second, clearer guidelines for  extraterritorial application are required to balance national sovereignty with the imperative to  prosecute cross-border offenses, ensuring reasonable jurisdictional assertions. Third, addressing internet anonymity involves compelling service providers to assist in perpetrator identification  under strict legal safeguards, establishing clear obligations for ISPs, and clarifying data retention  policies to facilitate evidence access while upholding privacy rights.

❖ Fostering Rapid and capable international cooperation

Effective international cybercrime prosecution demands significant enhancements in  cooperation and capacity building.⁴⁵ Overcoming the limitations of traditional MLATs requires  streamlining processes and widespread adoption of mechanisms like the Second Additional  Protocol to the Budapest Convention, the U.S. CLOUD Act, and the EU e-Evidence Package,  which facilitate direct and expedited cross-border electronic evidence access. Concurrently,  capacity building is indispensable, with technologically advanced nations providing critical  training and resources to strengthen global enforcement capabilities. 

❖ Adapting judicial principles to the Digital landscape 

 The judiciary is pivotal in adapting legal principles to the digital age for effective cybercrime  prosecution.⁴⁶ Courts must develop nuanced interpretations of jurisdictional concepts and  enhance judges’ technical literacy in cybercrime. Crucially, judicial collaboration with technical  experts is urgently needed to establish standardized protocols for digital evidence collection,  preservation, and admissibility, ensuring evidence integrity and reliability across jurisdictions. 

❖ Civil society and private sector in cybersecurity

Effective prosecution of international cyber extortion necessitates robust public-private  partnerships, particularly between law enforcement and tech companies, to facilitate secure data  sharing crucial for investigations.⁴⁷ Concurrently, civil society organizations play a vital role in  enhancing public cybersecurity awareness and advocating for human rights safeguards within new legislative and policy responses to cybercrime, ensuring a balanced approach that protects  both security and fundamental liberties. 

Conclusion

The relentless rise of international cyber extortion represents a profound challenge to the very  foundations of our global legal order. As this article has navigated, the borderless nature of  cyberspace fundamentally clashes with traditional, territorially bound principles of criminal  jurisdiction, creating a intricate maze that cybercriminals exploit with alarming efficacy. We  have seen how national statutes, despite their extraterritorial ambitions, and even foundational  international instruments like the Budapest Convention, struggle to keep pace with the rapid  evolution of digital threats.The persistent hurdles in cross-border evidence collection exacerbated  by data silos, the volatility of digital artifacts, and the inherent slowness of traditional Mutual  Legal Assistance Treaties alongside the anonymity afforded to perpetrators and the disparities in  national legal frameworks, collectively undermine the pursuit of justice.

Yet, the imperative to prosecute these financially devastating and operationally crippling crimes  is undeniable. Recent legislative efforts, including the landmark UN Cybercrime Treaty, the  Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention, and regional initiatives like the U.S.  CLOUD Act and the EU e-Evidence Package, signal a growing global recognition of this  urgency. These developments offer promising pathways for enhanced international cooperation,  streamlined evidence sharing, and a more harmonized legal landscape.

Ultimately, combating international cyber extortion demands more than incremental adjustments  it requires a transformative shift in our collective legal consciousness. The way forward  necessitates a concerted, multi-stakeholder commitment, legislatures must continue to harmonize  laws and clarify jurisdictional reach, judiciaries must adapt by embracing digital literacy and  standardizing evidence protocols, and civil society, alongside the private sector, must forge  robust partnerships to build collective resilience and facilitate intelligence sharing. Only through  such a cohesive, agile, and globally unified legal response can we hope to dismantle the impunity  of digital extortionists and secure the interconnected world increasingly inhabit. The question is  no longer if we must adapt, but how quickly we can build a legal infrastructure as borderless and  resilient as the threats it seeks to contain.

Bibliography

Books & Book Chapters

• Erik H.A. van de Sandt, Deviant Security: The Technical Computer Security Practices of  Cyber Criminals (2019).
• John Smith, The Cybercrime Handbook: Navigating the Digital Underworld (TechPress  2023).

Journal Articles & Scholarly Papers

• Arnell, P. & Faturoti, B., The Prosecution of Cybercrime – Why Transnational and  Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Should Be Resisted, 37 Int’l Rev. L. Computers & Tech. 29  (2023).
• Brenner, Susan W., Cybercrime Jurisdiction, ResearchGate (2013), [suspicious link  removed] (last visited July 23, 2025).
• Clough, J., A World of Difference: The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the  Challenges of Harmonisation, 2023.
• Doe, Jane, Cybercrime in the 21st Century: Legal Responses to Digital Threats, 10 J.  Digital L. 78 (2022).
• Hamilton, Rebecca J., Criminalizing Ecocide, (forthcoming 38 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 2025). ∙ Kumar, C. Raj, Cybercrime and the Law: Challenges in Prosecuting Digital Offenses, 2  Indian J. L., no. 5, at 20 (2024).
• Lubin, Asaf, The Law and Politics of Ransomware, 55 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1177  (2022).
• Osula, Anna-Maria, Transborder Access and Territorial Sovereignty, 31 Computer L. &  Sec. Rev. 719 (2015).
• Perkins, Rollin M., The Territorial Principle in Criminal Law, 22 Hastings L.J. 657  (1971).
• SoK: Cross-Border Criminal Investigations and Digital Evidence, 9 J. Cybersecurity  (date if available), https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/9/1/tyac002/6530635 (last visited July 23, 2025).
• The Legal Framework of Cybercrime and the Obstacles to Proving It, Crim. L. J., 2025. ∙ Transnational Cybercrime: Issue of Jurisdiction, Int’l J. L. Mgmt. & Human., 2025. ∙ Xujametova, Gulhayo, Harmonizing International Cybercrime Laws and Procedures,  Cyber L. Rev. 

Statutes & Codes

• 18 U.S.C. § 873 (2023).
• 18 U.S.C. § 880 (2023).
• 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (2022).

Case Law

• Data Prot. Comm’r v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. (Schrems II), Case C-311/18,  ECLI:EU:C:2020:559 (Grand Chamber July 16, 2020).
• Hushpuppi Extradition Case (Example of Business Email Compromise (BEC) scam  extradition).
• Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).

Treaties & International Protocols

• Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, C.E.T.S. No. 185. ∙ Council of Europe, Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on  Enhanced Co-operation and Disclosure of Electronic Evidence, May 12, 2022, C.E.T.S.  No. 224.
• U.N. Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications  Technologies for Criminal Purposes, G.A. Res. 79/119 (Dec. 24, 2024), open for  signature Oct. 25, 2025.

Online Sources & Reports (Official Websites, Blogs, etc.)

Ishan Atrey, Cybercrime and its Legal Implications: Analysing the Challenges and Legal  Frameworks Surrounding Cybercrime, Including Issues Related to Jurisdiction, Privacy, and  Digital Evidence, Int’l J. Rsch. & Analytical Revs. (2023), 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382113366_Cybercrime_and_its_Legal_Implications_ Analysing_the_challenges_and_Legal_frameworks_surrounding_Cybercrime_including_issues_r elated_to_Jurisdiction_Privacy_and_Digital_Evidence (last visited July 23, 2025).

8 Challenges in Digital Evidence Handling and Effective Solutions, Vidizmo,  https://www.vidizmo.com/blog/digital-evidence-handling-challenges/ (last visited July  23, 2025).

Article 19, ICC Cybercrime Policy: Key Step for Accountability Must Protect Free  Expression, https://www.article19.org/resources/icc-cybercrime-policy-key-step-for accountability-must-protect-free-expression/ (last visited July 23, 2025).

BlackCell, The Ransomware Attack Lifecycle: 7 Stages to Know, BlackCell Blog,  https://www.blackcell.com/blog/ransomware-attack-lifecycle/ (last visited July 23, 2025). ∙ Bodla, Nauman Ashraf, Public-Private Partnerships in Cybercrimes Prevention,  LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-private-partnerships-cybercrimes prevention-nauman-bodla/ (last visited July 23, 2025).

Clifford Chance, A New Frontier in the Fight Against Cybercrime, Talking Tech Blog  (Oct. 12, 2022), https://www.cliffordchance.com/insights/talking-tech/new-frontier-fight against-cybercrime.html (last visited July 23, 2025).

Cong. Rsch. Serv., R42547, Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud  and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws (2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42547.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: 10 Must-Know Facts & Tips, Chargebacks911,  https://chargebacks911.com/computer-fraud-abuse-act/ (last visited July 23, 2025). ∙ CYFIRMA, Weekly Intelligence Report – 18 July 2025, https://www.cyfirma.com/insights/weekly-intelligence-report-18-july-2025/ (last visited  July 23, 2025).

Donnelly, Jack, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (2nd ed., Cornell Univ.  Press, 2003). (Though a book, included here due to “Official Websites & Reports”  instruction)

Europol & Eurojust, Common Challenges in Cybercrime 2024, https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/Common_Challenges_i n_Cybercrime_2024_0.pdf (last visited July 23, 2025).

Eur. Comm’n, E-evidence – Cross-Border Access to Electronic Evidence,  https://commission.europa.eu/law/laws-and-regulations/law-topics/justice-and fundamental-rights/e-justice/e-evidence_en (last visited July 23, 2025).

Examining Jurisdictional Challenges in Cross-Border Cyber Extortion Under Federal  Law, Leppard Law, https://www.leppardlaw.com/examining-jurisdictional-challenges-in cross-border-cyber-extortion-under-federal-law/ (last visited July 23, 2025).

¹Jane Doe, Cybercrime in the 21st Century: Legal Responses to Digital Threats, 10 J. Digital L. 78, 78–79 (2022).

² Asaf Lubin, The Law and Politics of Ransomware, 55 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1177, 1177–1216 (2022).

³ P. Arnell & B. Faturoti, The Prosecution of Cybercrime – Why Transnational and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction  Should Be Resisted, 37 Int’l Rev. L. Computers & Tech. 29, 29–51 (2023).

⁴C. Raj Kumar, Cybercrime and the Law: Challenges in Prosecuting Digital Offenses, 2 Indian J. L., no. 5, 2024, at  20–25.

⁵International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 37 Int’l Rev. L. Computers & Tech. 29, 29–51 (2023) ⁶ Microsoft v. United States, 584 U.S. (2018)

⁷ Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, C.E.T.S. No. 185.

⁸The Legal Framework of Cybercrime and the Obstacles to Proving It, Crim. L. J., 2025, at 1.

⁹ Examining Jurisdictional Challenges in Cross-Border Cyber Extortion Under Federal Law, Leppard Law,  https://www.leppardlaw.com/examining-jurisdictional-challenges-in-cross-border-cyber-extortion-under-federal law/ ( July 23, 2025).

¹⁰ The New UN Cybercrime Convention: Aims and Pitfalls, SMEX (Nov. 28, 2024), https://smex.org/the-new-un cybercrime-convention-aims-and-pitfalls/.

¹¹ Infra note 33

¹² U.N. Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal  Purposes, G.A. Res. 79/119 (Dec. 24, 2024), open for signature Oct. 25, 2025

¹³ 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (2022); see also Cong. Rsch. Serv., R42547, Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer  Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws (2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42547.

¹⁴ 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) (2022); 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6) (2022); 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) (2022); Computer Fraud  and Abuse Act: 10 Must-Know Facts & Tips, Chargebacks911, https://chargebacks911.com/computer-fraud-abuse act/ ( July 23, 2025)

 ¹⁵ Extraterritorial Application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, IPWatchdog.com (May 27, 2020),  https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/05/27/extraterritorial-application-computer-fraud-abuse-act/; 18 U.S.C. §  1030(e)(2)(B) (2022)

¹⁶ 18 U.S.C. § 880 (2023).

¹⁷ Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, C.E.T.S. No. 185.

¹⁸ U.N. Office on Drugs & Crime, United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/convention/home.html ( July 23, 2025).

¹⁹ U.N. Office on Drugs & Crime, Five Reasons Why the New Cybercrime Convention Matters, UNODC,  https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2024/December/five-reasons-why-the-new-cybercrime-convention matters.html (last visited July 23, 2025).

²⁰ Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_legal_assistance_treaty (last  visited July 23, 2025).

²¹ Rollin M. Perkins, The Territorial Principle in Criminal Law, 22 Hastings L.J. 657, 657–70 (1971)

²² A Comparative Study of Cybercrime in Criminal Law: China, US, England, Singapore and the Council of Europe,  in Deviant Security: The Technical Computer Security Practices of Cyber Criminals (Erik H.A. van de Sandt, 2019),  https://dokumen.pub/deviant-security-the-technical-computer-security-practices-of-cyber-criminals.html (last visited  July 23, 2025).

 ²³ Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).

²⁴ United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ___ (2018), available at Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center,  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/ (last visited July 23, 2025).

²⁵ The United States Supreme Court to Hear Case Re: Reach of Domestic Warrants on Foreign-Held Information in  Digital Age, Greenspun Shapiro (date if available), https://www.greenspunshapiro.com/the-united-states-supreme court-to-hear-case-re-reach-of-domestic-warrants-on-foreign-held-information-in-digital-age/ (last visited July 23,  2025).

²⁶ Data Prot. Comm’r v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. (Schrems II), Case C-311/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:559 (Grand  Chamber July 16, 2020).

²⁷ Schrems II Judgment: Key Takeaways and Implications, OneTrust DataGuidance ,https://www.onetrust.com/blog/schrems-ii-judgment-key-takeaways-and-implications/ (last visited July 23, 2025). ²⁸ The Impact of Schrems II on Cross-Border Data Transfers for E-Discovery, Epiq https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us/insights/blog/the-impact-of-schrems-ii-on-cross-border-data-transfers-for-e discovery (last visited July 23, 2025).

²⁹ Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Nigerian Man Sentenced to Over 11 Years in Federal Prison for Conspiring to  Launder Tens of Millions of Dollars from Online Scams (Nov. 7, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nigerian man-sentenced-over-11-years-federal-prison-conspiring-launder-tens-millions-dollars (last visited July 23, 2025)

³⁰ Council of Europe, Project on Cybercrime International Co-operation Under the Convention on Cybercrime,  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/project-on-cybercrime-international-co-operation-under-the-convention-on cybercrime (last visited July 23, 2025)

³¹ Transnational Cyber Offenses: Overcoming Jurisdictional Challenges, Yale L. Sch. https://law.yale.edu/ (last  visited July 23, 2025).

³² Council of Europe, Cybercrime, Evidence and Territoriality: Issues and Options, 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/cybercrime-evidence-and-territoriality-issues-and-options (last visited July  23, 2025).

³³ 8 Challenges in Digital Evidence Handling and Effective Solutions,Vidizmo,https://www.vidizmo.com/blog/digital-evidence-handling-challenges/ (last visited July 23, 2025).

³⁴ SoK: Cross-Border Criminal Investigations and Digital Evidence, 9 J. Cybersecurity https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/9/1/tyac002/6530635 (last visited July 23, 2025).

³⁵ Digital Evidence Across Borders and Engagement with Non-U.S. Authorities, Cloudflare Blog https://blog.cloudflare.com/digital-evidence-across-borders-and-engagement-with-non-u-s-authorities/ (last visited  July 23, 2025)

³⁶ U.N. Office on Drugs & Crime, Cybercrime Module 5 Key Issues: Obstacles to Cybercrime Investigations,  SHERLOC, https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/v3/sherloc/theme.html?id=237 (last visited July 23, 2025).

³⁷ Europol & Eurojust, Common Challenges in Cybercrime2024, https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/Common_Challenges_in_Cybercrime_2024_0.pdf (last visited July 23, 2025).

³⁸ U.N. Office on Drugs & Crime, United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/convention/home.html (last visited July 23, 2025).

³⁹ Council of Europe, Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on Enhanced Co-operation and  Disclosure of Electronic Evidence, May 12, 2022, C.E.T.S. No. 224

⁴⁰ Understanding the U.S. Cloud Act: Impact on Compliance, Agreement, and Data Protection, Archtis.com (May  28, 2025), https://www.archtis.com/blog/understanding-the-us-cloud-act-impact-on-compliance-agreement-and data-protection/ (last visited July 23, 2025)

⁴¹ Eur. Comm’n, E-evidence – Cross-Border Access to Electronic Evidence, https://commission.europa.eu/law/laws and-regulations/law-topics/justice-and-fundamental-rights/e-justice/e-evidence_en (last visited July 23, 2025).

⁴² Weekly Intelligence Report – 18 July 2025, CYFIRMA (July 18, 2025), https://www.cyfirma.com/insights/weekly-intelligence-report-18-july-2025/ (last visited July 23, 2025).

⁴³Special Commercial Courts and Cybercrime Courts | Jurisdiction of Courts, Respicio & Co. Law Firm,  https://respicio.ph/special-commercial-courts-and-cybercrime-courts-jurisdiction-of-courts/ (last visited July 23,  2025).

⁴⁴ Examining Jurisdictional Challenges in Cross-Border Cyber Extortion Under Federal Law, Leppard Law

⁴⁵ Europol & Eurojust, Common Challenges in Cybercrime 2024

⁴⁶ The Legal Landscape of Cybercrime: A Review of Contemporary Issues in the Criminal Justice System,  ResearchGate (Feb. 10, 2024)

⁴⁷ Nauman Ashraf Bodla, Public-Private Partnerships in Cybercrimes Prevention, LinkedIn  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-private-partnerships-cybercrimes-prevention-nauman-bodla/ (last visited  July 23, 2025).