“Ex-JPMorgan Trader Released, Opposing U.S. Extradition”

August 28, 2013

Bloomberg on August 27, 2013 released the following:

By Charles Penty & Patricia Laya

“Former JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) trader Javier Martin-Artajo was released from police custody after telling a Madrid court he opposed attempts by U.S. prosecutors to extradite him on charges he hid trading losses that cost the bank $6.2 billion.

The former trader turned himself in yesterday morning after being contacted by investigators, a Spanish police official said. He was released after a hearing in Madrid yesterday in which he said he was unwilling to be extradited, according to a spokeswoman for the National Court.

The U.S. this month charged Martin-Artajo, a Spanish citizen, and Julien Grout, a French citizen, with trying to hide the losses stemming from trades by Bruno Iksil, the Frenchman at the center of the case who became known as the London Whale. Grout and Martin-Artajo face up to 20 years in jail if convicted of the most serious counts, including conspiracy and wire fraud.

“The likelihood is fairly significant that he would go back,” said Ivan Mercado, managing partner at Mercado & Rengel, a law firm in Spain that works on U.S. extradition cases. “Spain and the U.S. have an extradition agreement. He can’t just say he doesn’t want to go.”

Bank’s Negotiations

JPMorgan’s losses prompted investigations on two continents, U.S. congressional hearings and an internal review that led to a 50 percent pay cut for Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, who the board said bore some responsibility for lapses. Regulators in the U.K. and U.S. are preparing to impose fines on the bank as soon as mid-September, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said last week.

The bank is in talks with various authorities to settle its part of the case for about $500 million to $600 million combined, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing unidentified people close to the situation. Not all agencies have agreed to numbers and the total may end up outside that range, it said.

Martin-Artajo, 49, oversaw trading strategy for Iksil’s synthetic portfolio at JPMorgan’s chief investment office in London, while Grout was a trader who worked for him.

“The arrested person is presumed responsible for manipulating and inflating the value of positions in the synthetic credit portfolio of his firm with the aim of achieving specific objectives of daily losses and gains,” Spanish police said in a statement.

‘Fair Reconstruction’

Martin-Artajo’s lawyer, Lista Cannon, didn’t respond to a call seeking comment on his client yesterday. He “is confident that when a complete and fair reconstruction of these complex events is completed, he will be cleared of any wrongdoing,” a spokeswoman for his law firm said earlier this month. Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan, declined to comment.

At a hearing yesterday, Martin-Artajo’s lawyer filed documents in which his client denied the allegations, according to a court official who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The U.S. now has 40 days to file sworn statements in support of its extradition request.

Martin-Artajo will then be able to contest those arguments at a further hearing before a judge decides whether to grant the request, said Mercado, who isn’t involved in the case. The process can take up to several months, he added.

‘Very Difficult’

“When there is a bilateral agreement between two countries on certain crimes, it’s very difficult for a country to refuse extradition because the accord implies the crime is viewed comparably,” Carlos Vazquez, a criminal lawyer and partner at Vazquez & Vazquez in Madrid, said by telephone.

The spokeswoman for the court said Martin-Artajo’s passport has been confiscated. Another court official said that wasn’t the case, but that he can’t leave Spain without court approval.

Grout is living in France and isn’t a fugitive, his lawyer, Edward Little, a partner at Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP in New York, said in an Aug. 12 interview, two days before his client was charged.

“He visited the U.S. last month with confidence he was not being indicted and moved to France to save money and look for a job,” Little said at the time. France has no obligation under its extradition treaty with the U.S. to send Grout to New York. Little declined to comment yesterday.

Martin-Artajo and Grout are charged with conspiring to falsify securities filings from March to May of 2012. The U.S. sought to keep the charges secret while arrests were attempted before unsealing them on Aug. 14. Jennifer Queliz, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, declined to comment.

‘Embarrassing Situation’

Dimon characterized the loss as “the stupidest and most embarrassing situation I have ever been a part of.” First disclosed in May 2012, the bad bets led to an earnings restatement, a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing and probes by authorities including the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.K. Financial Conduct Authority.

Iksil, dubbed the “London Whale” because his portfolio was so large, signed a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. in June, the government said. He pledged to cooperate with investigators as part of the deal. Martin-Artajo’s lawyer submitted documents with details of Iksil’s agreement with the U.S., the court official said yesterday.

The cases are U.S. v. Grout, 13-MAG-01976, and U.S. v. Martin-Artajo, 13-MAG-01975, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Martin-Artajo, 13-cv-05677, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and Spain and the extradition treaty between the United States and France here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


“U.S. Seeks Arrest of Mexican Kingpin Who Was Freed in American’s Murder”

August 15, 2013

The New York Times on August 14, 2013 released the following:

“By PETER BAKER and RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

WASHINGTON — The United States has formally asked Mexico to re-arrest a drug kingpin who was released from prison in the middle of the night last week despite his conviction for masterminding the murder of an American drug agent nearly 30 years ago, officials from both governments said Wednesday.

The Justice Department sent Mexico a provisional arrest warrant for the drug lord, Rafael Caro Quintero, as a prelude to an extradition request. The officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the confidential collaboration, said Mexico’s attorney general privately encouraged the United States to send the request, a sign that the government there would act on it.

The case has stirred strong feelings among American law enforcement officials and become a fresh test of the relationship between the two neighboring countries at a time when they are trying to broaden it beyond the issues of crime, drugs and immigration. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. plans to visit Mexico next month to talk about ways to expand economic ties, and both governments appear eager to avoid any enduring damage over the release of Mr. Caro Quintero.

Brian Fallon, a Justice Department spokesman, said that he could not comment on any arrest request but that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had personally involved himself in discussions. “The attorney general is in contact with top Mexican authorities to convey concerns about the release and figure out steps forward,” Mr. Fallon said.

The American authorities are also searching for other ways to go after Mr. Caro Quintero, who was convicted in the murder of Enrique Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent known as Kiki, who was abducted, tortured and killed in 1985. The Treasury Department is examining whether it can squeeze Mr. Caro Quintero financially while the Justice Department prepares an Interpol arrest request.

Mexico’s attorney general, Jesús Murillo Karam, has expressed concern about the decision by a Mexican court to release Mr. Caro Quintero, who had served 28 years of a 40-year sentence, and said he would appeal the ruling to the country’s Supreme Court. He told United States authorities on Monday that they should file their arrest request, and lawyers worked overnight to draft it, according to an American official. A Mexican official said that Mr. Murillo Karam encouraged the American arrest request in case he was unsuccessful in reversing the ruling in a Mexican court.

Whether Mexican authorities can find Mr. Caro Quintero again remains an open question. When he was released from prison in Jalisco State at 2 a.m. Friday, security agents monitoring the facility decided to follow him, but they lost him, the Mexican official said. The official said security agents now have an idea about his whereabouts and are looking into that.

American and Mexican officials have said they were caught off guard by the court’s ruling, with legal experts saying that Mr. Caro Quintero’s lawyers outflanked prosecutors with a technical, but often successful, argument that the case was improperly prosecuted in federal court rather than state court.

Mexico’s foreign minister, José Antonio Meade, reiterated Mexico’s disagreement with the decision and said it would work to ensure “it is corrected,” but he sidestepped questions about whether the United States had filed an extradition request. Foreign Ministry officials declined to comment.

Mexican legal experts said Mr. Caro Quintero could not be extradited for Mr. Camarena’s killing because of a double jeopardy provision in the extradition treaty that bars turning anyone over on a charge that has been heard in trial. American lawyers could argue that the judge’s ruling effectively meant that he never was legitimately tried and that double jeopardy does not apply.

The United States could also seek his extradition on other crimes he is suspected of committing. The government has long maintained that Mr. Caro Quintero continued his ties to an extensive drug and money-laundering network even from prison, and in June the Treasury Department leveled sanctions against 18 people, including six members of his family, and 15 businesses or other entities tied to him.

If the United States found a crime for which Mr. Caro Quintero had not been prosecuted, it would have to fall within the statute of limitations in Mexico, and the United States would have to assure that he would not face the death penalty, a condition that Mexico has insisted on in the past because it does not have capital punishment, said José Antonio Caballero, a law professor at the university known as CIDE who has reviewed the Caro Quintero case.

Mr. Caro Quintero was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles in January 1988, accused of masterminding the killing of Mr. Camarena to protect his drug-trafficking organization, which was smuggling marijuana and cocaine into the United States.

In January 1989, Mr. Caro Quintero and another man were convicted in Mexico of killing Mr. Camarena and two other Americans, John Walker and Alberto Radelat, who were living in Mexico and whom his henchmen had mistaken for D.E.A. agents.

At the time, Mexico rarely extradited its citizens to face trial abroad, but under President Felipe Calderón, who forged close ties with the United States on fighting drug crime, extraditions of major cartel figures soared. During President Enrique Peña Nieto’s eight months in office, the pace has slowed considerably; the Justice Department has not released a tally.

American officials are worried that the second man convicted in the Camarena case, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, may also be freed under the legal tactic. If the federal court did not have jurisdiction in the killing, then Mr. Fonseca Carrillo’s conviction might also be moot.

Although Mr. Caro Quintero also faced state charges, the court decided he had already served time in prison commensurate with whatever sentence he might receive.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


A Guardian guide to extradition | World news | guardian.co.uk

July 2, 2013

McNabb Associates was used as a source for the information contained in this article by the Guardian.

A Guardian guide to extradition | World news | guardian.co.uk.


“Edward Snowden ‘in safe place’ in Hong Kong, but time running out”

June 22, 2013

South China Morning Post on June 23, 2013 released the following:

“Edward Snowden has not been detained or put under police protection and is “in a safe place” in Hong Kong, but experts say time is running out for Snowden if he intends to leave Hong Kong and seek asylum elsewhere.

[By] Lana Lam

The South China Morning Post can reveal that contrary to some reports, US whistleblower Edward Snowden has not been detained or put under police protection and is “in a safe place” in Hong Kong.

But experts say time is running out for Snowden if he intends to leave Hong Kong and seek asylum elsewhere.

His fate may depend on when the Hong Kong police seek a provisional warrant for his arrest from a local court in light of charges in the United States, a legal procedure the Post understands was still being worked Saturday night.

Snowden had indicated that he wanted to seek asylum in Iceland, although he has also pledged to put his future in the hands of the Hong Kong people and courts.

When a local warrant is issued, police will hand his details to the Immigration Department and Snowden will be unable to leave the city.

Police commissioner Andy Tsang Wai-hung would only say Saturday that a provisional warrant issued by a US court would not apply to Hong Kong.

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, of the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty, said: “I suspect, though I do not know for sure, that a provisional arrest warrant has already been issued by a HK magistrate as early as June 14, the date of the [US] charges.”

Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a senior counsel, said a local court could grant a provisional warrant quickly.

Law Society vice-president Stephen Hung Yuen-shun said a court would be able to issue a warrant without hearing from Snowden’s lawyers.

A report in The Washington Post said US authorities had asked Hong Kong to issue a provisional warrant to detain Snowden.

Under the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, Hong Kong authorities must inform Beijing of the receipt of any extradition request. Beijing may intervene if the case seriously affects the nation’s defence and foreign affairs. The central government can instruct Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying on whether or not Snowden should be arrested.

“If Beijing did not give any instruction … and Snowden were arrested, he can apply for bail, or a habeas corpus … to … challenge the legitimacy of his arrest,” Tong said.

If he is arrested, committal proceedings will take place before a magistrate, who will decide whether there are sufficient grounds to send Snowden back to the US. Snowden can also argue that the prosecution was political in nature – he would be released were the magistrate to rule in his favour on that point.

“[Snowden] can argue that his offence is of a political character – based on his conscience, political views or values,” said former security minister Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee.

Young said relevant arguments Snowden could raise would include questioning the motive for the prosecution, the likelihood of his receiving a fair trial back home and his likely treatment in the US.

The court will also rule on whether the offences Snowden is accused of would be crimes in Hong Kong. Young believes that not all of the three offences – theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information and wilful communication of classified communications intelligence to an unauthorised person – have an equivalent in Hong Kong law.

“While the requested offence of theft of governmental property will not present difficulties, the other two information-related offences will likely attract litigation and dispute in the courts,” Young said. But, he said, the chief executive could consent to allow offences not mentioned in the extradition treaty with the US to be included.

Both Snowden and the local government have the power to appeal against the magistrate’s ruling and take the case all the way to the Court of Final Appeal.

Even if Snowden fails and the chief executive order his transfer, Snowden can seek a judicial review of the decision, which can also be subject to various appeals, Young says.

Tong says the theft charge alone may be enough to secure Snowden’s extradition, unless the former CIA technician can prove he stole for political reasons.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and Hong Kong here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


“The ‘Snatch-and-Grab’ Alternative to Extradition”

June 12, 2013

The Wall Street Journal on June 12, 2013 released the following:

“By Jacob Gershman

As the United States government ponders a strategy for securing the surrender of fugitive NSA leaker Edward Snowden, the government is bracing for a politically bumpy path toward extradition.

But if Hong Kong — where Mr. Snowden is believed to be holed up — were to put up a fight, what’s stopping the Obama administration from snatching him anyway and dragging him home?

The question was posed by Seth Lipsky, the ever-contrarian author of “The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide” and founding editor of The New York Sun, where Law Blog used to work.

“The idea might seem to violate the rule of law,” says Mr. Lipsky, not to mention risk all sorts of political and diplomatic consequences. But that doesn’t mean courts would necessarily object to him standing trial for leaking classified data.

Supreme Court precedent, going back more than a century, suggests that the court wouldn’t “be overly particular as to how President Obama might bring Snowden in,” Mr. Lipsky writes in a New York Post column Wednesday.

The case often cited is an 1886 ruling, Ker v. Illinois. It was triggered by the abduction of Frederick Ker, a U.S. citizen accused of larceny who took refuge in Peru. A private messenger with a warrant requesting extradition was dispatched to Peru with instructions to follow protocol but apparently thought it easier to kidnap Ker instead. The court held:

    The treaties of extradition to which the United States are parties do not guarantee a fugitive from the justice of one of the countries an asylum in the other.

About a century later, the high court considered the case of Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican doctor accused of helping to kidnap and murder a DEA agent. The U.S. government arrested him after he was abducted in Mexico and flown to Texas.

A U.S. District Court dismissed the indictment against the doctor because it violated the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling.

“While respondent may be correct that his abduction was ‘shocking’ and in violation of general international law principles, the decision whether he should be returned to Mexico, as a matter outside the Treaty, is a matter for the Executive Branch,” the court held. (A judge later dismissed the charges against Dr. Alvarez-Machain for lack of evidence.)

Says Mr. Lipsky: “Perhaps a raid isn’t the best way to go about getting Snowden into custody. But if it is, the Supreme Court is unlikely to object.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


“Edward Snowden: Why the NSA whistleblower fled to Hong Kong”

June 10, 2013

The Christian Science Monitor on June 10, 2013 released the following:

“The man who leaked the NSA secrets to The Guardian newspaper says Hong Kong is one of the few places that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.

By Peter Ford, Staff Writer

BEIJING

Edward Snowden, the man who leaked NSA secrets to The Guardian newspaper, has chosen either luckily or on extremely good advice by seeking refuge in Hong Kong from possible prosecution.

A quirk of judicial history means Mr. Snowden could be safe from any US attempt to extradite him “for months if not years,” according to one of the former British colony’s top legal experts, Simon Young.

Though it is unlikely Snowden would be able to spend the rest of his life in Hong Kong, he will be able to use the protections afforded by Hong Kong’s judicial system, which is independent of the Chinese government.

If Snowden chooses to ask for political asylum, says Professor Young, head of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at Hong Kong University, “he is going nowhere” in the foreseeable future. A recent appeals court ruling, he explains, means that “the government cannot return anyone who claims that he will be persecuted” in the country he came from.

That is because Hong Kong’s asylum law is “a black hole,” Young says. In the wake of the court ruling last March, the government cannot continue simply to follow rulings by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the merits of an asylum claimant’s case, as it has always done until now.

The Court of Final Appeal ruled that the government must independently determine the validity of asylum claims, but the authorities have devised no system for doing so. Legislation setting up such a system would take “months if not years,” says Young, and any administrative plan the government instituted before a law was passed would be subject to challenge in the courts.

“Short of a criminal group getting to him, I think he is safe here,” Young adds.

Snowden told The Guardian in an interview published Sunday that he had flown to Hong Kong on May 20, because “they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.”

The Guardian also said he believed Hong Kong was “one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.”

The United States and Hong Kong signed an extradition treaty in 1996, shortly before Hong Kong was returned to Chinese sovereignty. Article 6 provides that “a fugitive offender shall not be surrendered if the offence of which that person is accused or was convicted is an offence of a political character.”

If the US government does indict Snowden, and then asks the Hong Kong government to extradite him, the Chief Executive might refuse on the grounds of another clause in the treaty allowing him not to surrender a fugitive if doing so might implicate “the defense, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy” of the Chinese government in Beijing.

“Hong Kong will have to take instructions from Beijing on this,” predicts Michael Davis, a Politics professor at Hong Kong University. “And I cannot see how Beijing benefits from tweaking the US” by refusing an extradition request.

Should Beijing and the Hong Kong government agree to an extradition, however, it would be subject to judicial approval, and Snowden could decide to argue in court that he leaked information about NSA spying programs for political reasons, portraying any crime of which he might be accused as “an offence of a political character.”

Snowden might not win such a case in the end; nor would the courts necessarily grant him asylum, even when the relevant laws and regulations have been approved, because they might not regard prosecution in a US court as “persecution.”

But “one can take full advantage of Hong Kong’s legal system to challenge issues that may arise … and that could take a long time,” predicts Young.

“He has made a very wise decision” to go to Hong Kong, adds the lawyer. “But I would counsel him to get legal advice.” “

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and Hong Kong here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


“‘Not a crime to make known crime of a state': Senior Swedish judge backs Assange”

April 4, 2013

RT on April 3, 2013 released the following:

“A top Swedish judge has defended the release of classified information by WikiLeaks, pointing out the case against Assange has turned into a legal “mess.”

“It should never be a crime to make known crime of a state,” Stefan Lindskog told the audience at a public lecture he gave at Adelaide University, according to Australian Associated Press.

The judge, who is one of the 16 justices working for the Supreme Court of Sweden, revealed an extraordinary amount of detail on Assange’s sexual assault case, despite not sitting on it.

The official also indicated that the courts may rule against sending the WikiLeaks founder to the US due to some conditions of the existing extradition treaty between the two countries.

“Extradition shall not be granted when alleged crimes [are] military or political in nature,” Lindskog stressed.

Moreover, according to the judge, it was debatable whether Assange would have committed a crime under Swedish law.

“What is classified under US law is probably not classified under Swedish law, and enemies to the US may not be enemies to Sweden,” AAP quoted the official as saying.

Lindskog added that extensive media coverage of the case has entailed the public distrust in the legal system.

“I think it is a mess,” he said.

Finally, the judge supported the American soldier Bradley Manning, who provided some of the classified information to WikiLeaks. Lindskog said he hoped Manning would go through a fair trial, saying that the release of classified information was for the benefit of mankind.

Prior to the speech, Assange condemned Lindskog’s decision to speak in Australia, calling it “absolutely outrageous.”

The 41-year-old whistleblower, an Australian citizen, has spent nine months in London’s Ecuadorian embassy, after claiming asylum to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual assault allegations.

Assange fears that once in Sweden, he could be extradited to America where, according to his lawyers, he is most likely to face trial and possibly even the death penalty for the release of thousands of classified US diplomatic cables, some of them about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and Sweden here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,518 other followers