“Corrupt Chinese hiding in Western nations elude Beijing’s ‘fox hunt’”

August 28, 2014

Reuters on August 27, 2014 released the following:

BY SUI-LEE WEE

“(Reuters) – When Yang Xiuzhu got wind in 2003 that Chinese anti-corruption investigators were looking into her affairs, she boarded a flight to Singapore. A few days later Yang changed her name and flew to New York.

China filed an arrest warrant through Interpol for Yang, a senior official who oversaw construction projects in the booming eastern province of Zhejiang. She was eventually detained in Amsterdam in 2005, but nearly a decade on, China has yet to get her back despite protracted negotiations with the Netherlands.

Yang’s case and others like it underscore the challenge for President Xi Jinping as he expands his already far-reaching anti-corruption campaign to tracking down suspects who have fled abroad, often taking their ill-gotten gains with them.

State media has been using the latest prong to Xi’s crackdown – dubbed the “fox hunt” by the Ministry of Public Security in July – to warn officials about absconding.

But while China has extradition treaties with 38 countries, it doesn’t have one with the Netherlands, or with the United States, Canada and Australia – the three most popular destinations for suspected economic criminals, according to state media.

Adding to the allure of those three countries for corrupt officials is suspicion there of Chinese law enforcement, said Chinese legal experts, along with the quality of life, world-class educational facilities and large ethnic Chinese communities.

Indeed, Western governments have long been reluctant to hand over Chinese suspects because the ruling Communist Party controls China’s courts and torture can be used to extract confessions, the experts said. Capital punishment is also widely meted out, including for corruption.

“There are differences in our political systems as well as ideological differences,” said Lin Xin, a researcher who specializes in international law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank.

“These differences will affect extradition.”

Earlier this month, Chinese officials said more than 150 “economic fugitives”, many of them corrupt officials, were in the United States. The government has given no recent overall figure for the number at large around the world.

Interpol has arrest warrants for 69 Chinese wanted on charges of corruption, embezzlement, fraud and bribery, according to a Reuters analysis of its public database.

Beijing has also grappled with so-called “naked officials” – government workers whose family members are overseas – and who use those connections to illegally shift assets out of China.

The sums of money believed to have been spirited out from all types of malfeasance are staggering. The Washington-based Global Financial Integrity group, a non-profit organization that analyses illicit financial flows, estimates that about $2.83 trillion flowed illegally out of China from 2005 to 2011.

Neither the Ministry of Public Security nor the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the party’s anti-graft watchdog, responded to requests for comment.

“FOX HUNT” GATHERING PACE?

China has extradited 730 people suspected of major economic crimes from dozens of countries since 2008, the official Xinhua news agency said in July. In a sign the “fox hunt” might be picking up, 18 have surrendered or been extradited in the past month from places such as Cambodia, Indonesia and Uganda, Xinhua said.

But very few return from Western countries, said Liao Ran, a senior program coordinator of the Asia and Pacific department at Transparency International, a Berlin-based international corruption watchdog.

The most prominent is Lai Changxing, once China’s most-wanted fugitive, who fled to Canada with his family in 1999 and claimed refugee status after saying allegations that he ran a multi-billion-dollar smuggling operation in the southeastern city of Xiamen were politically motivated.

After a Canadian court rejected Lai’s application for refugee status, dismissing concerns he could be tortured or executed if sent home, Lai was deported, but not extradited, in 2011. He was jailed for life the following year.

David Matas, a lawyer who represented Lai in his refugee claim proceedings, said the case took so long because Canadian courts wanted to examine assurances from China that it would not execute or torture Lai.

Despite China’s promises, Lai was skeptical since his brother and accountant had both died in jail, Matas said, adding the circumstances of their deaths were never fully explained.

“He was worried something like that could happen to him,” Matas said by telephone from Winnipeg.

Chinese state media reported in 2009 that Lai’s elder brother, Lai Shuiqiang, had died in prison in 2002 “after he suddenly fell ill”. There were no articles about the accountant.

Prison officials did not respond to a request for comment.

U.S. TALKS

To help return fugitives in the United States, the Ministry of Public Security is trying to set up annual high-level meetings with U.S. authorities, the China Daily said on Aug. 11.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice said agency officials would meet Chinese counterparts in Beijing in December through the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation, adding the department regularly discusses law enforcement issues with China, including fugitives in both countries.

The spokesman, Peter Carr, said both sides have occasionally returned fugitives when they were also subject to deportation under immigration laws, but declined to give specific examples.

In Canada, officials at various ministries including the Justice Ministry declined to comment on whether Chinese anti-graft investigators were in the country or planned to visit.

In July 2013, the two governments concluded talks on a deal on sharing forfeited assets and the return of property. The agreement will not come into force until both sides ratify it. A Justice Ministry spokeswoman said she was not aware of Chinese officials in Canada trying to regain the proceeds of crime from corruption back home.

The Australian Attorney General’s office said it was a long-standing practice not to confirm or deny if requests for assistance had come from foreign countries in investigations.

PROPERTY DEVELOPERS

Yang Xiuzhu worked her way up the ranks to become a deputy director of the construction bureau in Zhejiang province, according to Nanfengchuang, a magazine owned by the state-run Guangzhou Daily.

Local authorities said in 2004 she accepted kickbacks from property developers of more than 250 million yuan ($40.62 million), Xinhua has reported.

She was arrested in 2005 upon her arrival in the Netherlands, where Chinese anti-corruption and legal experts believe she remains. It was unclear why Yang flew there or whether she has a lawyer.

The Dutch Foreign Ministry said it would not comment on individual cases, although Dutch officials said there was no pending extradition request from China.

As recently as 2011, Xinhua reported that “the Chinese government is actively handling the extradition formalities” involving Yang.

STOLEN ASSETS

Recovering stolen assets might be easier for China as most nations want to stem the flow of corrupt money across borders, legal experts said, although some sums returned so far are paltry.

Australia for example has repatriated A$7.5 million to China since 2002 from embezzlement, fraud and money laundering, the Attorney General’s department said.

“I think the U.S. is very, very serious about trying to trace and locate ill-gotten assets of politicos of any state who will seek to have the money returned,” said Douglas McNabb, a D.C.-based veteran extradition lawyer.

Legal experts said China’s best option for getting stolen assets would be through the U.N. Convention Against Corruption which obliges countries that have ratified it to cooperate.

The work could be time-consuming.

One example is a $3 million villa in the French Riviera that was a key piece of evidence in the corruption trial of Bo Xilai, the former high-flying Chinese politician who was sentenced to life in prison in 2013.

The Chinese court said it would seize the villa, which prosecutors say was given to Bo and his wife by a businessman friend. One year later, it’s unclear if talks have progressed, or even started. The court did not respond to a request for comment.

(1 dollar = 6.1510 Chinese yuan)

(Additional reporting by Beijing Newsroom, Swati Pandey in SYDNEY, Rachel Armstrong in SINGAPORE, Anthony Deutsch in AMSTERDAM, David Ljunggren in OTTAWA, Julie Gordon in VANCOUVER and Aruna Viswanatha in WASHINGTON; Editing by Dean Yates)”

————————————————————–

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:


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.


“Snowden extradition may be complicated process if criminal charges are filed”

June 20, 2013

The Washington Post on June 19, 2013 released the following:

“By Sari Horwitz and Jia Lynn Yang

If U.S. officials criminally charge Edward Snowden, they are likely to confront a complicated and lengthy process to bring the admitted leaker of top-secret documents back home to stand trial, according to extradition experts and law enforcement officials.

Although the United States has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong, where Snowden was last seen, the treaty offers an exception for political offenses. It also has a rare exception that would allow Snowden to stay in Hong Kong if the government there determines it to be in its best interest. He also could apply for asylum in Hong Kong, Iceland or another country. On Wednesday, the founder of WikiLeaks told reporters that his legal advisers had been in touch with Icelandic officials on Snowden’s behalf.

“There are a number of hurdles that the government will have to jump through before Snowden will ever end up in a U.S. courtroom,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, an associate dean at American University’s Washington College of Law who studies national security law.

In the end, the ability to bring the former National Security Agency contractor back to the United States will come down to legal maneuvering and creative diplomacy, Vladeck said.

“The dirty little secret about extradition law,” he said, “is it’s really about 90 percent politics and only 10 percent law.”

Snowden, 29, revealed himself June 9 as the anonymous source for articles in the British newspaper the Guardian and The Washington Post about the NSA surveillance of telephone calls and Internet communications. He was staying in an upscale hotel in Hong Kong, a city that he said he had chosen because he felt he might win asylum there.

But Snowden subsequently left the hotel, and it is unclear where he is. In an unusual live Web chat Monday, he said he sees no possibility of a fair trial in the United States and suggested that he would try to elude authorities as long as possible.

Justice Department officials have said that a criminal investigation is underway, led by agents from the FBI’s Washington field office and lawyers from the department’s national security division. Investigators are gathering forensic material to back up possible criminal charges, most likely under the Espionage Act, according to former Justice Department officials.

Snowden also could be charged with theft and the conversion of property belonging to the U.S. government, experts say. A thorny issue for U.S. authorities trying to build their case against Snowden involves how much to reveal about the highly classified material that he allegedly acquired, according to former Justice Department officials.

U.S. officials could file a criminal complaint and try to have Snowden detained in Hong Kong on a provisional arrest, extradition lawyers said. They would then have 60 days to file an indictment, possibly under seal, setting out probable cause. U.S. authorities could then formally move to extradite Snowden for trial in the United States — a move he could fight in the courts.

The United States has extradition treaties with about 120 countries, but that doesn’t necessarily make it easier to extract people accused of a crime from those countries. For example, of 130 extradition requests to Britain since 2004, only 77 people were extradited to the United States.

To fight extradition, Snowden could invoke Article 6 of the 1997 pact between the United States and Hong Kong, which states that a suspect will not be surrendered to face criminal prosecution for an offense of a “political character.”

That’s a standard and historic exception in treaties between governments but one that lacks a standard definition or clear legal interpretation. In the United States, as well as in other states, what constitutes a political act has narrowed. How the Hong Kong courts would view such an assertion is unclear. If Snowden argues that he is an activist, said Simon N.M. Young, director for the Center of Comparative and Public Law at the University of Hong Kong, “this will be one of our first cases.”

Hong Kong also has an additional and unusual exception in its treaty that could provide a defense for Snowden, according to Douglas McNabb, a lawyer who specializes in international extradition cases. Hong Kong authorities can refuse the extradition of a suspect “if they believe it should be denied from a defense or foreign policy perspective,” McNabb said. “I have not seen that in any other treaty.” Public sentiment in support of Snowden has built in Hong Kong, and hundreds rallied in the streets Saturday.

Should a Hong Kong judge rule against Snowden, he could continue to appeal, all the way up to Hong Kong’s highest court, dragging the process out over many months. Bail is unlikely to be offered, so Snowden could be in jail at that point, possibly at the Lai Chi Kok maximum-
security facility in Kowloon, where conditions are harsh. “That will be added pressure on him for how long he wants to fight it out here,” Young said.

Aside from the courts, Snowden could plead for asylum, the route taken by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up for a year in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.

Snowden, in an interview with the Guardian, floated the idea of asylum in Iceland, which has historically provided a haven for whistleblowers and never granted a U.S. extradition request.

Johannes Skulason, an Icelandic government official, told the Associated Press on Wednesday that WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson had held informal talks with assistants at the Interior Ministry and the prime minister’s office.

Skulason said Hrafnsson “presented his case that he was in contact with Snowden and wanted to see what the legal framework was like.”

But the United States could try to prevent Snowden from traveling by asking the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol, to put out a “red notice,” which is a bulletin for international fugitives and which alerts about 190 countries that there is an outstanding warrant for Snowden’s arrest.

Snowden could also apply for asylum in another country’s embassy in Hong Kong, as Assange did in London. Or he could make an asylum claim in Hong Kong after his travel visa expires in mid-August or if the U.S. government requests his surrender.

If he does apply for asylum, Snowden will be stumbling into a labyrinthine system criticized by human rights lawyers as dysfunctional and inefficient.

Hong Kong did not sign the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention, and so the government has no obligation to process refu­gee claims. Instead, it relies mostly on the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees’ office in Hong Kong, which is underderstaffed and has a backlog of asylum requests. In cases in which the applicants claim that they may be tortured if sent home, the Hong Kong government reviews the case. An estimated 5,000 claims are being processed by both the UNHCR and the Hong Kong government.

“We have asylum seekers who have been in Hong Kong for years,” Young said.

Because the UNHCR and the Hong Kong government evaluate claims, Snowden could seek to have his asylum case reviewed by both. Complicating the picture are two recent court cases mandating that Hong Kong consolidate its refu­gee system and establish a new process.

“I think Mr. Snowden is much wiser from a legal perspective than many people initially gave him credit for,” McNabb said. “I think he’s thought about this for a long time.””

————————————————————–

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:


Durbin Asks State Department To Update US-Mexico Extradition Treaty

March 28, 2012

ENews Park Forest on March 27, 2012 released the following:

Senator asks for renegotiation of two provisions to help bring more international fugitives to justice in the United States

WASHINGTON, D.C.–(ENEWSPF)–March 27, 2012. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today asked the State Department to work with its Mexican counterpart to modify two outdated provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty to allow more international fugitives to be brought to justice in the United States.

“Given that the original treaty was executed over 30 years ago and only one protocol has been executed since then, the time is well overdue for the U.S. and Mexico to renegotiate and update the treaty,” Durbin wrote. “While Mexico has made great strides in improving its extradition process and has proven to be a cooperative partner, the structural issues with the treaty still restrict extradition in serious criminal cases. Because the treaty is the primary tool to bring back international fugitives, we need to ensure that it encompasses the current realities and obstacles to extradition.”

Durbin identified two provisions in the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty – entered into force in 1980 – that he believes have allowed criminal suspects from Illinois and other states to escape to Mexico and remain free. These changes would be consistent with other more recently negotiated extradition treaties.

Statute of Limitations – The current treaty requires that the statute of limitations for both countries be satisfied, but the United States and Mexico have vastly different statutes of limitations for certain serious crimes. For example, there is no statute of limitations in the United States for murder charges, but Mexico has a 13-year limit. The U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty should be renegotiated to use the same statute of limitations provision that has been used in our nation’s more recent extradition treaties which does not bar extradition based on the statute of limitations of the requested country.

List of Extraditable Crimes – The current treaty’s dual criminality provision requires that extraditable offenses either be listed in the treaty or fall within the definition of a “willful” felony criminal offense in both countries. This provision excludes many serious crimes. For example, the killing of another person while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs does not fit into either category, so individuals charged in the United States with reckless homicide or aggravated driving under the influence cannot be extradited. The U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty should be renegotiated to define extraditable offenses as those which are deemed felonies in both countries similar to the provision in more recently negotiated extradition treaties.

Earlier this month, Durbin introduced legislation to devote additional federal resources to investigating, apprehending, extraditing and prosecuting fugitives suspected of committing serious crimes. Durbin’s Bringing Fugitives to Justice Act would enhance resources for fugitive apprehension efforts by directing appearance and bail bonds that are forfeited in federal criminal cases to a Fugitive Extradition and Apprehension Trust Fund. The bill is the most recent action taken by Durbin in response to a Chicago Tribune investigative series that raised concerns about the fugitive apprehension process.

[A copy of the letter is below]

March 27, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

I am writing to ask that the State Department work with its Mexican counterpart to modify two outdated provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty (the “Treaty”), which entered into force in 1980. These provisions, which limit extradition to cases that satisfy Mexico’s statute of limitations and fall within a narrow list of crimes, have allowed criminal suspects from Illinois and other states to escape to Mexico and remain free.

Given that the original Treaty was executed over 30 years ago and only one protocol has been executed since then, the time is well overdue for the U.S. and Mexico to renegotiate and update the Treaty. While Mexico has made great strides in improving its extradition process and has proven to be a cooperative partner, the structural issues with the Treaty still restrict extradition in serious criminal cases. Because the Treaty is the primary tool to bring back international fugitives, we need to ensure that it encompasses the current realities and obstacles to extradition.

As you are probably aware, the Treaty requires that the statute of limitations for both the charging jurisdiction in the U.S. and Mexico be satisfied. Currently, there is no statute of limitations in the U.S. for murder charges, but Mexico has a 13-year limit, which risks foreclosing extradition in some of the most brutal murder cases. In contrast, our nation’s recent extradition treaties do not bar extradition based on the statute of limitations of the requested country. See e.g., Extradition Treaty with United Kingdom, art. 6, entered into force April 26, 2007; Extradition Treaty with Bulgaria, art. 6, entered into force May 21, 2009. Because the U.S. and Mexico have vastly different statutes of limitations for certain serious crimes, the Treaty should be renegotiated to use this modern statute of limitations provision instead. These cases should not be barred from extradition, and I urge the State Department to address this issue.

In addition, the Treaty’s dual criminality provision requires that extraditable offenses either be listed in the Treaty or fall within the definition of a “willful” felony criminal offense in both countries. As I understand it, the killing of another person while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs does not fit into either category, so individuals charged in the U.S. with reckless homicide or aggravated driving under the influence cannot be extradited. In contrast, our recent extradition treaties define extraditable offenses as those which are deemed felonies in both countries. U.S.-U.K. Treaty, art. 2; U.S.-Bulgaria Treaty art. 2; Extradition Treaty with Malaysia, art. 2, entered into force June 2, 1997. This modern version is broader and should replace the existing provision in the Treaty, and I ask that you raise this issue with the Mexican government.

Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

cc: Attorney General Eric Holder”

————————————————————–

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 and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

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.


Theresa May to review UK extradition treaty with US

February 22, 2012

The Guardian on February 22, 2012 released the following:

“Home secretary to lead thorough review of extradition treaty following anger at recent deportations, David Cameron says

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent

Theresa May, the home secretary, will conduct a “proper, sober, thoughtful review” into Britain’s extradition treaty with the US amid anger at a series of deportations, David Cameron has announced.

The prime minister told MPs the home secretary would take account of the views of parliamentarians after he was asked about the case of Christopher Tappin.

The retired company director from Kent is due to be flown to the US on Friday to face allegations of selling arms to Iran. Tappin, 65, admits shipping batteries that can be used in Hawk air defence missiles but says he thought they were for use in the car industry. He said he had no idea about their eventual destination.

Tappin’s case was raised by his MP, Jo Johnson, at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. Johnson, the MP for Beckenham and brother of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, said: “US marshals will on Friday escort my 65-year-old constituent Chris Tappin from Heathrow to a jail in Texas, where he will face pressure to plea-bargain in order to avoid lengthy incarceration pending a financially ruinous trial for a crime he insists he did not commit.

“Could the prime minister say what steps he is considering to reform the US/UK extradition treaty that been so unfair to the likes of Gary McKinnon and now my constituent, Mr Tappin?”

The prime minister indicated the government would not block the extradition of Tappin. He said: “I quite understand why [he] raises this case of his constituent. In the case of Chris Tappin obviously he has been through a number of processes including the magistrates court and the high court. The home secretary has thoroughly considered his case.”

Cameron cited an independent report last year by Lord Justice Scott Baker, which said that the 2003 Extradition Act was not “lopsided” or biased against British citizens. Critics have said that the act, drawn up in haste after the 9/11 attacks, is unfair because British citizens do not enjoy the same level of legal protection as US citizens.

Gary McKinnon, the alleged computer hacker who has Asperger’s syndrome, faces extradition under the treaty.

The prime minister said: “[Jo Johnson] raises the point more generally of Sir Scott Baker’s report into the extradition arrangements, which he has made and we are now considering. He did not call for fundamental reform.”

But Cameron said May would lead a thorough review of the extradition treaty. “The home secretary is going to carefully examine his findings and also take into account the views of parliament that have been expressed in recent debates.

“Of course balancing these arrangements is absolutely vital. But I think it is important that at the same time we remember why we enter into these extradition treaties, which is to show respect to each other’s judicial processes and make sure that people who are accused of crimes can be tried for those crimes and Britain can benefit from that as well. So a proper, sober thoughtful review needs to take place and this case shows why.””

————————————————————–

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 (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) 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 and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

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


Honduras congress OKs extradition of its citizens for drug, terrorism-related crimes

January 20, 2012

The Washington Post on January 19, 2012 released the following:

“By Associated Press

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Honduras’ congress has approved legislation to allow extradition of its citizens charged elsewhere with drug trafficking, terrorism and organized crime.

Starting Feb. 1, the Central American nation will be able to sign extradition treaties with other countries, including the United States, which has sought the change.

Lawmakers agreed Thursday that Hondurans charged with high-level crimes can be prosecuted elsewhere. Honduras has barred extraditing its nationals since 1982.

The action comes four days after all 158 Peace Corps volunteers left Honduras because a wave of violence and other drug-related crimes posed a high risk for them. The U.S. is sending personnel to analyze security problems.”

————————————————————–

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 Honduras 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 and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

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