...
... It is possible to prosecute a person in Israel for an offense committed abroad by another, after the latter has been coaxed to commit it by the defendant in Israel, for the reason that the act of solicitation should be regarded as 'part of the perfect offense'...
Reason does not tolerate a result whereby it is possible to prosecute in Israel... a person who has coaxed a person in Israel to commit an offense abroad, but according to which there will be no parallel authority [to prosecute for the main offense, the result of the conspiracy - A.A.A.L.] in relation to an accomplice in a criminal conspiracy..." (ibid. [43], at pp. 143-145; My emphasis is A , A, 30).
A similar position was expressed in American law:
“The smuggling of heroin into the United States was the object of the conspiracy. It is inconceivable that the District Court could have jurisdiction over a defendant... to try him for a conspiracy formed outside the United States, whose object was to smuggle heroin into the United States, but not have jurisdiction to try him for the smuggling itself, which was the very object and fruition of the conspiracy” (Rivard v. United States, supra [83], at p. 887).
Indeed, due to the special connection of the conspiracy offense to the main offense, each of the conspirators can be seen as having "coaxed" his co-conspirators, as well as the actual perpetrators of the offense, to carry out the conspiracy. Therefore, each of the conspirators may be considered to have motivated his friends to commit the offense, even if he did not commit one of the foundations of the main offense himself. And when the offense is committed in a certain country, the laws of that country apply not only to the perpetrators, but also to the partners in the conspiracy.
What emerges from the aforesaid is that as far as the scope of the application of the law is concerned, there is no longer a basis for distinguishing between the conspiracy and the offenses for which it is connected. From the moment the conspirators plan to "export" their actions beyond the territory of the country in which the conspiracy was made, the connection of the latter should no longer be limited to the place where their plan was formulated, but rather the place where the conspiracy was carried out should be seen as the conveyance itself to the territory of the country in which the offense was supposed to be committed, also the place where the conspirators are expected to reap their profits. The line of logic requires, as it is self-evident, that in the decision of conspirators to commit an offense in a particular country, they will be feared