Articles
Ransom Policy Reformsin the US and UK
Lara Sierra-Rubia assesses the significance of ransom policy
changes implemented by US and UK governments in 2015. In
addition, following several high-profile public mass shootings in the
US over the past year, debates around how to define these incidents
are explored.
The US and UK enacted significant kidnapping policy reforms in 2015. After decades of outlawing the payment of any ransom to terrorist groups, US President Barack Obama issued a presidential directive in June 2015, stating that private families of kidnapped individuals would not face criminal charges for paying ransoms to terrorists. The UK, on the other hand, took further steps toward closing loopholes for paying ransoms to militant groups.
The US Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) sought to clarify the government’s position on the payment of kidnap ransoms to terrorist organisations by individuals. While no family of an American hostage has been charged to date for paying a ransom for the return of their loved one, prosecutors have reportedly threatened legal action against victims’ families in the past.
The international media therefore reported that the directive marked a step change by the government; however, the word ‘ransom’ appears only once in the PPD document, reinforcing the government’s continued policy of not granting concessions – including paying ransoms – to terrorists. Nevertheless, it is this omission that suggests that the government is unwilling to explicitly outlaw ransom payments by private individuals and it appears that the US government is likely to continue its unofficial policy of acquiescence.
The UK, on the other hand, has worked to prevent insurance companies from paying ransoms to terrorists. In late 2014, UK Home Secretary Theresa May announced that any loopholes regarding the payment of kidnap ransoms to militant groups would be closed in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, which was later passed in May 2015. Given that insurance payments for terrorist ransoms were not explicitly stated in previous terrorist financing legislation as being unlawful, the possibility existed that UK insurance companies would potentially fund future terrorist activity by reimbursing ransom demands. However, existing counter terrorism laws in the UK would have prevented this. As such, the aim of the reform is to prevent any uncertainty over insurance or reinsurance payments in the event of a kidnapping involving a terrorist group.
The US and UK enacted significant kidnapping policy reforms in 2015. After decades of outlawing the payment of any ransom to terrorist groups, US President Barack Obama issued a presidential directive in June 2015, stating that private families of kidnapped individuals would not face criminal charges for paying ransoms to terrorists. The UK, on the other hand, took further steps toward closing loopholes for paying ransoms to militant groups.
The US Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) sought to clarify the government’s position on the payment of kidnap ransoms to terrorist organisations by individuals. While no family of an American hostage has been charged to date for paying a ransom for the return of their loved one, prosecutors have reportedly threatened legal action against victims’ families in the past.
The international media therefore reported that the directive marked a step change by the government; however, the word ‘ransom’ appears only once in the PPD document, reinforcing the government’s continued policy of not granting concessions – including paying ransoms – to terrorists. Nevertheless, it is this omission that suggests that the government is unwilling to explicitly outlaw ransom payments by private individuals and it appears that the US government is likely to continue its unofficial policy of acquiescence.
The UK, on the other hand, has worked to prevent insurance companies from paying ransoms to terrorists. In late 2014, UK Home Secretary Theresa May announced that any loopholes regarding the payment of kidnap ransoms to militant groups would be closed in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, which was later passed in May 2015. Given that insurance payments for terrorist ransoms were not explicitly stated in previous terrorist financing legislation as being unlawful, the possibility existed that UK insurance companies would potentially fund future terrorist activity by reimbursing ransom demands. However, existing counter terrorism laws in the UK would have prevented this. As such, the aim of the reform is to prevent any uncertainty over insurance or reinsurance payments in the event of a kidnapping involving a terrorist group.