We must decide today whether Michigan may punish acts allegedly committed in Florida by a Florida resident. We hold that Michigan may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over acts committed outside Michigan when the acts are intended to and do have a detrimental effect within the state. Here, the prosecutor claims that defendant was involved in a conspiracy and aided and abetted the commission of a crime in Michigan because he knew that the person to whom he sold cocaine was from Michigan. We disagree. The *478"knowledge” to which the prosecutor refers only is part of the evidence necessary to support a conviction for conspiracy or aiding and abetting. But knowledge alone is not enough to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction.1 The prosecutor must present evidence that defendant intended to commit an act with the intent to have a detrimental effect within this state. That intent does not exist in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision,2 and reinstate the district court’s dismissal of the charges.

I

Defendant, Michael Blume, is a Florida resident who is charged in Michigan with conspiracy to deliver or possession with intent to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine3 and with aiding and abetting the manufacture or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver 650 grams of cocaine.4 The complaint alleges that in June, 1988, defendant sold cocaine to Randall Hoyt, a Michigan resident. The entire transaction took place in Florida.

After purchasing cocaine from defendant, Hoyt returned to Michigan. The Michigan State Police *479subsequently arrested Hoyt upon discovering a kilo of cocaine during a search of Hoyt’s apartment. Hoyt informed the police that he purchased the cocaine from defendant while in Florida. The prosecutor filed a complaint charging defendant. After being arraigned, defendant moved to quash the complaint and charges for lack of jurisdiction.

Officer Palenick was the only prosecution witness who testified at the hearing on the motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction. He explained that Hoyt told him that he traveled to Florida intending to purchase cocaine from a prearranged supplier. Unable to find his connection, Hoyt began looking for a new supplier. Hoyt met up with defendant. Apparently, the two had met each other previously through a gym at which both exercised. Hoyt and defendant made arrangements for the sale of cocaine. The entire transaction took place in Florida. Defendant did not have any contact with Hoyt while Hoyt was in Michigan before the sale. Officer Palenick testified that Hoyt said that defendant was aware that he was from Michigan.

After Officer Palenick and defendant testified at the hearing, the trial court dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction, finding that if any conspiracy occurred involving defendant, it occurred in Florida, and that defendant did not give aid or encouragement in Michigan. The circuit court reversed and ordered reinstatement of the charges upon finding that defendant’s acts were intended to and actually did produce detrimental effects in Michigan. The Court of Appeals affirmed.5 We granted leave to appeal, and, upon finding the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this case inappropriate, we reverse and order reinstatement of the trial court’s dismissal of the charges.

*480II

The general rule is that jurisdiction is proper only over "offenses as may be committed within its jurisdiction.” People v Devine, 185 Mich 50, 52-53; 151 NW 646 (1915). The authority to exercise jurisdiction over acts that occur outside the state’s physical borders developed6 as an exception to the rule against extraterritorial jurisdiction. That exception, however, is "limited to those acts that are intended to have, and that actually do have, a detrimental effect within the state.” Strassheim v Daily, 221 US 280, 285; 31 S Ct 558; 55 L Ed 735 (1911); Deur v Newaygo Sheriff, 420 Mich 440, 446-447; 362 NW2d 698 (1984).

This state has not defined the boundaries of the exception,7 but consistently has required a finding that the actor intended a detrimental effect to occur in this state. See, e.g., Deur, supra. The two key elements of that requirement are specific in*481tent to act and the intent that the harm occur in Michigan.8

A proper analysis for this Court is to determine whether a conspiracy or aiding and abetting charge could be established by the evidence. Then, the Court must determine whether the conspiracy or crime that was aided and abetted was intended to occur in Michigan.9

III

" 'A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.’ ” People v Atley, 392 Mich 298, 310; 220 NW2d 465 (1974) (quoting United States v Kissel, 218 US 601, 608; 31 S Ct 124; 54 L Ed 1168 (1910). "The gist of the offense of conspiracy lies in the unlawful agreement between two or more persons.” Atley at 311.10 Establishing a conspiracy requires evidence of specific intent to combine with others to accomplish an illegal objective. Atley at 310.

A

First, the intent to combine with others for an *482unlawful purpose must exist. Even if one party intends to combine to pursue an unlawful purpose, " '[t]o prove the crime of conspiracy, ... it must further be proven that that intent, including that knowledge, was possessed by more than one individual since there can be no conspiracy without a combination of two or more[11] persons.’ ” People v Sutherlin, 116 Mich App 494, 500; 323 NW2d 456 (1982) (emphasis added).12

In Atley, this Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support convicting the defendant of conspiracy to deliver an illegal substance because there was insufficient evidence that two or more parties agreed to sell the marijuana. Atley, along with two other defendants, was arrested for possession of 127 pounds of raw marijuana. He was charged with conspiracy to sell a narcotic drug. The prosecutor alleged that the defendants were going to harvest a marijuana field in Kansas and sell the marijuana in Michigan.

Regarding the evidence, the trial judge explained:

"I have some difficulty in bridging the gap between being hired [to] harvest a crop for delivery to a person who has expressed an intention that he was going to dry it and sell it, but without any agreement or any conversation as to participation *483in the actual sale, being sufficient to establish a conspiracy, which is an agreement or an understanding to make a sale.” [Id. at 313.]

This Court explained that the evidence was not "strong enough to sustain[13] the conviction for conspiracy to sell marijuana.” Id.

The "prior combination and agreement” to harvest plus the testimony that defendant Atley intended to sell the marijuana do not directly establish in logic that the defendant and Eaton or any other person agreed to sell the marijuana. There was, in fact, no testimony . . . that Eaton agreed with defendant to sell the marijuana.

. . . From the established fact of acquisition of 127 pounds of marijuana, we can infer an intent to sell, but that is as far as inference may take us.

It is not "a fair inference,” [People v Beller, 294 Mich 464; 293 NW 720 (1940)]; People v Sobczak, 344 Mich 465; 73 NW2d 921 (1955), to infer the ultimate fact of conspiracy to sell from the fact of joint acquisition. The ultimate fact of intent to sell might be inferred, but not agreement to sell. What they actually intended to do insofar as payment was concerned, or insofar as where the marijuana was to be sold, whether in Michigan or elsewhere, is on this record a matter of conjecture. [Id. at 314.]

B

A defendant may become a member of an already existing conspiracy if he " 'cooperates know*484ingly to further the object of the conspiracy People v Huey, 345 Mich 120, 125; 75 NW2d 893 (1956) (emphasis added). The "knowledge” is a part of the crime only because "[w]ithout the knowledge, the intent cannot exist. United States v Falcone [311 US 205; 61 S Ct 204; 85 L Ed 128 (1940)].” Direct Sales Co v United States, 319 US 703, 711; 63 S Ct 1265; 87 L Ed 1674 (1943). Mere knowledge that someone proposes unlawful action alone is not enough to find involvement in a conspiracy, however. "Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators, United States v Hirsch, 100 US 33, 34 [25 L Ed 539 (1879)]; Weniger v United States, 47 F2d 692, 693 [CA 9, (1931)]; and one who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller is not guilty of conspiracy even though his sale may have furthered the object of a conspiracy to which the distiller was a party but of which the supplier had no knowledge.” Falcone at 210-211.

The dissent cites Direct Sales to support the proposition that defendant can become involved in the conspiracy through informed or interested cooperation. But the dissent relies on one short sentence of that opinion in so holding. In Direct Sales, the United States Supreme Court also recognized that "[t]here may be circumstances in which the evidence of knowledge is clear, yet the further step of finding the required intent cannot be taken. Concededly, not every instance of sale of restricted goods, harmful as are opiates, in which the seller knows the buyer intends to use them unlawfully, will support a charge of conspiracy.” Id. at 712.

There are circumstances, however, such as in Direct Sales, that jurisdiction is appropriate. For example, if "the evidence discloses such a [distribution] system, working in prolonged cooperation *485with a physician’s unlawful purpose to supply him with his stock in trade for his illicit enterprise, there is no legal obstacle to finding that the supplier not only knows and acquiesces, but joins both mind and hand with him to make its accomplishment possible.” Id. at 713. It was under those circumstances that the United States Supreme Court said there was "informed and interested cooperation, stimulation, instigation [of the conspiracy] [a]nd there is also a 'stake in the venture’ . . . .” Id.

The United States Supreme Court also provided additional guidance about what amount of evidence is required by explaining Falcone:

That decision comes down merely to this, that one does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting it, through sales of supplies or otherwise, unless he knows of the conspiracy; and the inference of such knowledge cannot be drawn merely from knowledge the buyer will use the goods illegally. [Id. at 709.]

Clearly, the prosecutor must present more evidence than the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s proposed illegal purpose. For intent to exist, the defendant must know of the conspiracy, must know of the objective of the conspiracy, and must intend to participate cooperatively to further that objective. " '[T]o establish the intent, the evidence of knowledge must be clear, not equivocal . . . because charges of conspiracy are not to be made out by piling inference upon inference ....’” Atley at 310, quoting Direct Sales Co, supra.14_

*486C

Because of the jurisdictional dispute, the prosecutor also must establish an intent to combine with others for the unlawful purpose of possessing cocaine or possessing with the intent to deliver the cocaine in Michigan. The "threshold question for assertion of the state’s jurisdiction is whether there is a showing sufficient to permit the court to conclude that the defendant intended to produce a detrimental effect in the forum state.” Post at 510.

In United States v Baker, 609 F2d 134 (CA 5, 1980), the court applied extraterritorial jurisdiction to a case involving conspiracy and illegal possession with intent to distribute narcotics. But the Baker court specifically held that if "it is clear that the intended distribution would occur within” the jurisdiction attempting to punish the defendant, then "jurisdiction may be maintained . . . .” Id. at 139.

This state will not surrender a person charged with a crime in another state unless the defendant clearly committed a crime with the intent that the crime occur in the demanding state.15 In Deur, *487supra at 449, this Court refused to surrender the defendant because he "did not commit any act in the State of Michigan intentionally resulting in the crime with which he is charged in the State of Maryland.”16 Thus, this Court should not approve the exercise of jurisdiction over a person who committed a crime outside Michigan when this state cannot prove that the person intended the crime to occur in this state.

IV

A thorough review of the testimony fails to disclose evidence sufficient to support exercising jurisdiction over this defendant.17 The prosecutor did not present evidence that defendant18 acted with the intent to have a detrimental effect in Michigan. Conversely, defense counsel introduced testimony that negated the existence of such intent. Similarly, the prosecutor did not present sufficient evidence that defendant knew of or cooperated knowingly to further the objectives of a conspiracy.

This case involves defendant’s sale of cocaine to Randy Hoyt. Hoyt traveled to Florida, intending to purchase cocaine from someone other than defendant,19 and defendant’s only prior contact with *488Hoyt was through a gym.20 Although defendant *489knew that Hoyt was from Michigan and that Hoyt eventually would return to Michigan, defendant only was involved in the initial delivery of cocaine to Hoyt.21 The transaction was completed in Flor*490ida as evidenced by the fact that delivery was complete and the financial aspects of the sale were concluded.22

Although we may infer from the amount of the cocaine purchased that the buyer intended to possess or sell the cocaine somewhere, Atley, supra, the prosecution’s only witness, Officer Palenick, was unable to testify that Hoyt told defendant that the drugs would be distributed in Michigan.23 The officer did testify that Hoyt could have disposed of the cocaine in any manner and no agreement would have been breached.24 For that to be *491true, there must not have been an agreement regarding what Hoyt would do with the cocaine.

Also relevant is that the defendant did not have an interest in the cocaine beyond the initial sale. Defendant was not concerned with Hoyt’s use of the cocaine, and was not concerned with where Hoyt took the cocaine. More importantly, defendant did not intend that the cocaine go to Michigan, and did not intend that the drugs be sold in Michigan.25 Mere knowledge that Hoyt would return to Michigan sometime after completing the transaction with defendant is insufficient to support finding that defendant specifically intended to have a detrimental effect in this state.26

Although an inference may be drawn, and in some cases knowledge and the surrounding circumstances may be sufficient to support a finding of intent, Direct Sales, supra, the dissent’s conclusion27 here violates the principle that inference is *492not to be created upon inference to support a conspiracy charge. Direct Sales Co, supra. The inference upon inference the dissent built includes an inference that defendant knew Hoyt was going to sell the drugs, an inference that Hoyt had a plan to sell the drugs, an inference that the plan involved another person so as to create a conspiracy, an inference that Hoyt’s plan or conspiracy was to sell the drugs in Michigan, and an inference that defendant, by the mere delivery of the cocaine to Hoyt and knowledge that Hoyt was from Michigan, knew of and cooperated knowingly with these inferred states of mind.

But the prosecutor failed to introduce evidence that defendant and Hoyt agreed, or even discussed, that the cocaine would be distributed in Michigan.28 The prosecutor also failed to introduce evidence that defendant was aware that Hoyt was involved in a conspiracy.29 There is no evidence *493that defendant knew Hoyt had a plan. It is questionable whether Hoyt knew he had a plan. There is no evidence that defendant knew Hoyt was going to sell the cocaine in Michigan.

After reviewing Direct Sales, Falcone, Deur, Atley, and Huey, we can only conclude that the facts do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that defendant knew of or cooperated knowingly with a conspiracy to further its objectives.30

V

The reasoning used in the conspiracy discussion applies to the substantive charge brought under *494the aiding and abetting theory. Consistent with Strassheim, supra, the defendant must have intended a detrimental effect to occur in Michigan and the effect actually must have occurred in Michigan before this Court can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who aided and abetted outside Michigan.

One who aids and abets the commission of a substantive crime that occurs in Michigan is not automatically subject to trial in Michigan. Defendant must have intended to aid and abet a crime in Michigan. Mere knowledge is not enough to exercise jurisdiction.31

VI

Because there is an insufficient factual basis to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over this defendant, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision, and reinstate the district court’s dismissal of the charges.

(dissenting). The principle issue that divides the majority and minority opinions is whether the state must show, as a jurisdictional fact, that the defendant intended the drugs he sold in Florida to be distributed in Michigan. Because the harmful consequence that defendant intended and that actually occurred in Michigan was possession of the drugs in Michigan, we would hold that *495the defendant may be tried in a Michigan court for conspiracy to possess and for the possession of cocaine in Michigan on an aiding and abetting theory, where the alleged agreement with, and aid to, the Michigan resident occurred in Florida. We would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstate the complaint, and remand this case for a preliminary examination.

I

Defendant Michael Blume is a Florida resident charged in a two-count information with conspiracy to deliver or possess with intent to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine,1 and the manufacture or possession with intent to manufacture or to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine under an aiding and abetting theory.2 The charges stem from a June, 1988, incident involving Blume’s alleged sale of cocaine in the State of Florida to Randall Hoyt, a resident of the State of Michigan.3

Hoyt was arrested by the Michigan State Police after a search of his apartment and business yielded approximately one kilogram of cocaine. He revealed the identity of his source, and a warrant was issued for Blume’s arrest._

*496Blume was arrested in Florida and was arraigned in Michigan. After the arraignment, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on his motion to quash the warrant and complaint for lack of jurisdiction.4

Regarding the conspiracy charge, the court found that Hoyt and another resident of Michigan agreed that Hoyt would travel to Florida, purchase one kilogram of cocaine, and return to Michigan to divide the cocaine with his friend. The court found that "the Defendant did have [a] discussion with Randy Hoyt, [and] that they did discuss the sale of cocaine by Defendant to Randy Hoyt for the purpose of transporting it to Michigan to be delivered, sold, possessed . . . .”

In addition, the record reflects that in his statement to police investigators, Hoyt indicated that a later conversation with Blume contemplated the purchase of more cocaine for delivery in Michigan or Chicago, Illinois. The record also indicates that Blume acknowledged having had prior contacts with Hoyt, and that Blume admitted to phone contact with Hoyt in July or August, 1988, a conversation apparently instigated by law enforcement officers some time after the search warrant had been executed in Michigan.

Regarding the substantive count brought under an aiding and abetting theory, the district court found

that Mr. Hoyt had possession of cocaine, that he intended to deliver it, sell it, that he obtained that cocaine in Florida from Mr. Blume, that Mr. Blume sold it to him knowing that he was going to transport it to Michigan and sell it. . . ._

*497The Defendant, under the facts as I understand them, did aid and assist Mr. Hoyt in having cocaine in the State of Michigan for the purpose of delivering it. I think that a supplier, one who supplies cocaine to another, does aid and abet that person in having possession of the controlled substance with the intent to manufacture or deliver it.

The court dismissed the charges, however, and concluded that because the conspiracy did not occur in Michigan, and because no aid or encouragement was given in Michigan, Michigan did not have jurisdiction to proceed.

The circuit court reversed and ordered reinstatement. It held that both charges could be brought because they were the result of acts done in one state that were intended to produce and actually did produce detrimental effects in Michigan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision in an unpublished opinion per curiam, decided January 15, 1992 (Docket No. 129818) at 1. We granted leave to appeal. 441 Mich 880 (1992).

II

The majority’s analysis of the evidence obscures the fact that the defendant’s motion to quash the complaint and warrant challenged only the magistrate’s determination of jurisdiction. As such, it is only necessary to determine here whether the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause to believe that "(1) an offense has been perpetrated; (2) defendant has committed it; and (3) the magistrate has jurisdiction to act in the case.”5 *498Defendant bears the burden of establishing a ground for quashing the complaint and warrant.6

Thus, while the initial questions presented are the power of the Legislature to proscribe conduct that occurs outside its borders and the intent of the Legislature to give the conspiracy and aiding and abetting statutes extraterritorial effect, the ultimate inquiry is whether the magistrate properly determined jurisdiction to act in the case, which in turn rests on whether the defendant intended to produce a detrimental effect in Michigan.

On review of the grant or denial of a motion to quash, we do not weigh the evidence but only determine whether there is any evidence supporting the charge. Where the challenge is to the magistrate’s jurisdiction to act, we review only to determine whether there is any evidence to support the magistrate’s determination that probable cause existed to believe the defendant intended to produce a detrimental effect in Michigan. Disputed issues of fact are to be resolved by a properly instructed jury.7

*499III

Although discussion of the Legislature’s power to proscribe conduct that occurs outside its borders frequently occurs in the international law arena, the theories of legislative jurisdiction are the same whether applied between the United States and other sovereign nations or between the sovereign states.8

Unless a legislature has the power to enact the statute that seeks to proscribe extraterritorial conduct, the state may not enforce it for acts committed outside its territory. Whether the legislature possesses that power depends on various recognized principles on which the power to proscribe extraterritorial conduct is based.9

While neither courts nor commentators agree on the number or names assigned to the principles governing the exercise of legislative criminal jurisdiction,10 the most often recognized bases for exercise are:

*500(1) territorial, where[] jurisdiction is based on the place where the offense is committed; (2) national, where[ ] jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the offender; (3) protective, where[] jurisdiction is based on whether the national interest is injured; (4) universal, which amounts to physical custody of the offender; and (5) passive personality, where[ ] jurisdiction is based or the nationality or national character of the victim. [United States v Smith, 680 F2d 255, 257 (CA 1, 1982).]

At common law, criminal jurisdiction was based primarily on the territorial principle. Under this view, because "each crime has only one situs (or locus) . . . only the place of the situs has jurisdiction.”11 Thus, if the situs is within the physical borders of a state, the state may subject the perpetrator to prosecution.12

*501As an aid in pinpointing the situs of the crime, courts divided the territorial principle into "objective” and "subjective” bases.13 Under the objective territorial principle, the situs "include[s] the state whose rights have been assailed, including the state’s 'political integrity’ and the 'life, safety, and property of its subjects.’ ”14 Thus, where the "life, safety and property” of a state’s citizens are endangered, the Legislature may proscribe conduct that occurs outside the state’s physical borders.

Conversely, under the subjective territorial principle, the situs of the crime for legislative jurisdictional purposes is "the state in which the offender is located at the time the crime is committed . . . [because] it is that state to which the offender looks in governing his conduct.”15 Thus, where an actor’s conduct produces detrimental effects in *502another state, the state where the actor was physically located at the time of his conduct would be able to proscribe the conduct. The principles are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, more than one principle may be applicable to a given set of facts.16

As the majority acknowledges, we have recognized exceptions to the general rule against extraterritorial application of state statutes "as populations and technology progressed and travel between countries and among the states increased to an everyday occurrence . . . .”17 We have approved the objective territorial principle of criminal jurisdiction,18 and have recognized that Michigan may give extraterritorial effect to its criminal laws , where the acts committed outside the state that sought to punish them were intended to have a detrimental effect in our state. In Deur v Newaygo Sheriff, 420 Mich 440; 362 NW2d 698 (1984), the plaintiff, a Michigan resident who owned a tractor-trailer rig that lost braking control and fatally injured three persons in Maryland, was indicted by a Maryland grand jury for manslaughter by motor vehicle. The plaintiff was arrested in Michigan, but resisted extradition to Maryland. While the indictment alleged that the plaintiff *503"had 'intentionally and knowingly’ adopted and enforced a policy of poor maintenance which contributed to the accident[,]”19 the Maryland statute proscribed grossly negligent operation, driving, or control of a motor vehicle. In short, Maryland sought "to give extraterritorial effect to a penal statute seeking to regulate unintentional conduct.”20 We noted that the United States Supreme Court had addressed the issue in Strassheim v Daily, 221 US 280; 31 S Ct 558; 55 L Ed 735 (1911):

In Strassheim, the accused had been indicted in Michigan for bribery and also for obtaining money from the state by false pretenses. The accused, Daily, did not act in Michigan relating to the charged crimes. In reversing an order on habeas corpus discharging Daily, Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, stated, pp 284-285:

"If a jury should believe the evidence and find that Daily did the acts that led Armstrong to betray his trust, deceived the Board of Control, and induced by fraud the payment by the State, the usage of the civilized world would warrant Michigan in punishing him, although he never had set foot in the State until after the fraud was complete. Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the State should succeed in getting him within its power.” (Emphasis added.)[21]

*504Because Michigan’s nonfugitive extradition statute22 requires an act in Michigan that "intentionally result[s] in a crime” in the state requesting extradition, and because the Maryland statute allowed prosecution for grossly negligent conduct, the plaintiff was entitled to habeas corpus relief.

Because we have recognized the objective territorial principle of criminal jurisdiction in a different context, we agree with the majority that the Legislature may proscribe conduct that occurs outside our physical borders that is intended to produce, and actually produces, a detrimental effect in Michigan.

IV

The conclusion that the Legislature has the authority to enact a statute with extraterritorial effect does not end the inquiry. The statute may only be enforced against conduct that occurs out of state if the Legislature’s intent to give the statute extraterritorial effect is clear.23 The statutes in question are silent with regard to their extraterritorial application. We therefore look to their purpose and subject matter to determine the relevant legislative intent.

The United States Supreme Court described the appropriate analysis as follows:

We have in this case a question of statutory *505construction. The necessary locus, when not specially defined, depends upon the purpose of Congress as evinced by the description and nature of the crime and upon the territorial limitations upon the power and jurisdiction of a government to punish crime under the law of nations. Crimes against private individuals or their property, like assaults, murder, burglary, larceny, robbery, arson, embezzlement and frauds of all kinds, which affect the peace and good order of the community, must of course be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the government where it may properly exercise it. If punishment of them is to be extended to include those committed outside of the strict territorial jurisdiction, it is natural for Congress to say so in the statute, and failure to do so will negative the purpose of Congress in this regard. . . .

But the same rule of interpretation should not be applied to criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically dependent on their locality for the Government’s jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right of the Government to defend itself against obstruction, or fraud wherever perpetrated, especially if committed by its own citizens, officers or agents. Some such offenses can only be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Government because of the local acts required to constitute them. Others are such that to limit their locus to the strictly territorial jurisdiction would be greatly to curtail the scope and usefulness of the statute and leave open a large immunity for frauds as easily committed by citizens on the high seas and in foreign countries as at home. In such cases, Congress has not thought it necessary to make specific provision in the law that the locus shall include the high seas and foreign countries, but allows it to be inferred from the nature of the offense. [United States v Bowman, 260 US 94, 97-98; 43 S Ct 39; 67 L Ed 149 (1922).]

Construction of criminal statutes to determine extraterritorial application has not been limited to *506construction of statutes proscribing fraud or obstruction. For example, the federal courts have applied this method in cases involving conspiracy and illegal possession with intent to distribute narcotics,24 and conspiracy to kill a member of Congress and aiding and abetting the killing of a member of Congress.25 However, this Court has held that the Legislature’s power to do so is limited to intentional acts that are intended to have, and that actually do have, a detrimental effect within the state. When detrimental effects are intended and actually occur, the state may punish the actor as if he had been present in the state at the time the acts were performed.26

We conclude that the nature of both conspiracy to commit an offense and aiding and abetting in the commission of an offense is such that inclusion of language making them specifically applicable to conduct that occurred outside the state’s borders is unnecessary. Moreover, neither conspiracy nor aiding and abetting logically require that the conduct that constitutes the agreement or the aid be committed within Michigan’s physical borders.

A

The textbook definition of conspiracy is a mutual agreement or understanding, express or implied, *507between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means.

An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is unnecessary27 because the crime is complete when the agreement is reached. However, to say that the crime is complete when the agreement is reached does not mean that the agreement must occur within Michigan. The crime of conspiracy continues while the parties are engaged in the unlawful enterprise. In other words, it exists until arrest, abandonment, or success.28

The crime of conspiracy requires a dual intent: an "intent to combine with others, and [an] intent to accomplish the illegal objective.”29 Because intent may be inferred from evidence of the circumstances, acts, and conduct of the parties, " '[d]irect proof of an agreement is not required, nor is it necessary that a formal agreement be proven.’ ”30 Furthermore, while "knowledge is the foundation of intent,” and mere knowledge of a conspiracy or its illegal objective, without more, is not enough to prove intent,31 we may examine the defendant’s conduct to determine whether the defendant pro*508vided "informed and interested cooperation, stimulation, [or] instigation.”32

The agreement to commit a criminal act that is the gist of the offense of conspiracy is punished because of the "special danger to society presented by group as opposed to individual activity.”33

"Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. Group association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish.” [People v Carter, 415 Mich 558, 570; 330 NW2d 314 (1982), *509quoting Callanan v United States, 364 US 587, 593-594; 81 S Ct 321; 5 L Ed 2d 312 (1961).]

Thus, the nature of the offense is clearly not situs based. The agreement to pursue an illegal goal need not occur in Michigan. Moreover, the increased danger to society posed by group association, and its continuing quality, compel the conclusion that the Legislature intended the conspiracy statute to be applied to an agreement that was reached in Florida with intended consequences in Michigan. A contrary result ascribes an intent to the Legislature to abandon protection of Michigan citizens and "leave open a large immunity for [conspiracies] as easily committed by citizens” in other states as in Michigan.34

B

The same reasoning applies to the substantive charge brought under the aiding and abetting theory. The aiding and abetting theory is used to connect one person to the illegal action of another.35 It seeks to proscribe "all words or deeds which may support, encourage or incite the commission of a crime.”36 Like the agreement in a conspiracy, the aid or encouragement need not logically occur in Michigan, especially where the crime that is aided or encouraged will be committed in Michigan. Thus, the nature and purpose of the statute proscribing aiding and abetting a crime support our conclusion that the Legislature intended it to apply to aid or encouragement given outside our physical borders.

Moreover, pursuant to the statute, one who aids and abets is to be treated in all respects as if he *510had directly committed the substantive crime.37 To say that the state may prosecute Hoyt for the substantive offense, but may not prosecute Blume for that offense under an aiding and abetting theory, would be, in effect, to treat Blume as if he had not directly committed the crime. Such an anomalous result is not required by the statute.

V

We reiterated in Deur38 that an intentional act intended to cause and causing harmful consequences in the forum state is within the reach of the state’s authority. As Deur indicates, the threshold question for assertion of the state’s jurisdiction is whether there is a showing sufficient to permit the court to conclude that the defendant intended to produce a detrimental effect in the forum state. This question is separate from whether the elements of the crime can be made out at the preliminary examination.

Defendant’s motion to quash the complaint and warrant challenges the magistrate’s conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of the court to issue the warrant and ultimately try him for the offenses charged. As noted, a Michigan court has jurisdiction to try a defendant charged with acts that *511occurred outside the geographical boundaries of the state where the defendant intended to cause, and actually caused, a detrimental effect in Michigan. Thus, on review rather than weigh the evidence, we must determine whether there was any evidence to support the issuing magistrate’s conclusion that probable cause existed to believe that the magistrate possessed jurisdiction to act. In other words, was any evidence presented to show that the defendant intended to cause a detrimental effect in Michigan and was any evidence presented to show that a detrimental effect did, in fact, occur in Michigan.39 We believe there was.

By contrast with the jurisdictional facts in Deur, in the instant case, as in Strassheim, the record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that defendant committed an intentional act, with an intent to produce detrimental effects in Michigan, which did produce such detrimental effects.40 The investigating officer testified that defendant knew that Hoyt lived in and intended to return to Michigan. At the very least, defendant’s knowledge, coupled with his alleged delivery of cocaine, supports an inference that the defendant intended that Hoyt *512possess cocaine in Michigan. Because it is unlawful to possess cocaine in Michigan, and because criminal activity is detrimental to the citizens of Michigan, it can fairly be said that the defendant intended a detrimental result in Michigan.

However, as defendant’s brief acknowledges, the officer further testified that defendant knew that it was possible that Hoyt would split the cocaine with another person upon his return to Michigan. This additional knowledge supports the inference that the intended detrimental effect was distribution of the cocaine in Michigan by Hoyt. Either way, an intended detrimental effect may be inferred from the evidence presented. Defendant’s conduct allows us to conclude, for the purposes of asserting jurisdiction, that he intended to produce detrimental effects in Michigan. Moreover, officers found cocaine at Hoyt’s apartment and at his business. Hoyt told officers that he had purchased the cocaine from Blume. Thus, evidence was presented to show that Blume’s conduct resulted in Hoyt’s possession of cocaine in Michigan, a detrimental effect. Therefore, evidence to support the magistrate’s determination of jurisdiction to act in the case existed, and it was error for the district court to quash the complaint and warrant.

Whether the defendant introduced evidence for the purpose of negating the existence of the required intent is not dispositive of the motion to quash. Thus, the majority’s observation that it does not appear that defendant knew or intended that Hoyt was going to "sell” the cocaine in Michigan is a non sequitur. To determine the magistrate’s jurisdiction to act, it is not required that the defendant specifically intended that the drugs be "sold” in Michigan. All that is required is that the defendant perform an intentional act with knowledge of its harmful consequences, in this *513case possession of drugs in Michigan. Therefore, we would hold that under the facts as found by the district court,41 there was subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

VI

In sum, we would hold that the Legislature possesses the power to proscribe conduct that occurs outside the state where that conduct is intended to produce and actually produces detrimental effects in the State of Michigan. Because statutes proscribing conspiracy and statutes proscribing aiding or encouraging the commission of a crime have as their purpose prevention of dangerous concert of action, and because the nature of each statute is such that the conduct that constitutes a violation of the statute need not logically occur within the physical borders of the State of Michigan, we would hold that the Legislature intended to allow application of the statute to acts that occurred outside the state.42 We would also *514hold that the evidence supports the magistrate’s determination of jurisdiction to act in this case.

We would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstate the charges, and remand the case to the district court.