Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 41

July 21, 2011

Effect of Statute of Limitations

Generally, most United States extradition treaties address the effect of statute of limitations on the extraditability of an individual sought by another country.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 40

July 21, 2011

Seizure and Surrender of Evidence or Fruits of Offense Found Within the United States and in Connection with an Individual’s Request for Extradition

Every United States extradition treaty negotiated after 1884 contains a provision permitting the United States to seize and surrender evidence found in the possession of the fugitive criminal at the time of his or her arrest, to be delivered over to the requesting country. Recent treaties additionally permit: 1) the surrender of such fruits and evidence even if extradition cannot be effected because of the death, escape, and, in some instances, disappearance of the requested individual; 2) the deferral of surrender of articles needed as evidence in a proceeding in the requested country; and 3) requiring the return of such articles when they are no longer needed in the requesting country.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 37

July 20, 2011

Restrictions on Prosecution or Punishment in Requesting Country for Offense for Which Extradition Not Granted By United States

Statutorily, the Secretary of State is restricted from surrendering a requested individual for an offense for which he was not found extraditable. However, extradition treaties may provide for exceptions. Some exceptions which would permit prosecution or punishment for offenses for which extradition was not granted may be: 1) If an individual fails to leave the country in a timely manner following the completion of his sentence or following an acquittal; 2) If an individual leaves the country following the completion of his sentence or following an acquittal and then returns to the country; 3) If the individual commits an offense following extradition, such as murdering another prisoner while incarcerated; 4) If the requesting country, after proper extradition proceedings makes a formal request to proceed against the extraditee with additional charges (the requesting country would be required to furnish supporting documentation as if the request was made pursuant to an extradition proceeding and the “new” offense for which prosecution is requested would also have to be an offense for which extradition could have been originally granted); and 5) Individuals may be subject to conviction based upon a lesser included offense or an offense based upon the same facts, yet differently denominated, if expressly permitted by treaty.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 36

July 19, 2011

Effect of Serving a Sentence in the United States on an Unrelated Offense

Unless the country requesting extradition has legislation permitting an extraditee to serve a sentence imposed upon him by the United States within that country, extradition proceedings may have to be deferred until the individual completes his incarceration within the United States.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 35

July 19, 2011

Effect of Pending, Unrelated Proceedings in the United States

Those individuals facing unrelated proceedings in the United States are likely to have extradition proceedings deferred until the domestic charges have been disposed of and any sentence imposed has been served.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 34

July 19, 2011

Replacement Treaties and Their Effect on Proceedings Pending Under Prior Treaties

In most situations, the replacement treaty automatically governs proceedings pending under a prior treaty. However, most United States extradition treaties negotiated after the 1970’s include provisions dealing with the application of replacement treaties to individuals facing extradition procedures pending under prior treaties. Generally, these provisions require that proceedings pending at the time the replacement treaty enters into force continue to be regulated by the prior treaty with exception to specific provisions of the replacement treaty, which may deal with temporary extradition, waiver of extradition and definitions of extraditable offenses.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 33

July 18, 2011

Retroactive Effect of Treaty

While the majority of extradition treaties remain silent as to whether they apply to offenses committed prior to their entry into force, United States courts have held that this silence must be construed as having retroactive effect. This is not a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution because the treaties do not criminalize acts that were not criminal prior to the execution of the treaty, but merely provide a means by which individuals who committed acts that were offenses at the time of their commission may be held to answer for those offenses.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 32

July 18, 2011

Fiscal Offenses As Extraditable Offenses

The majority of extradition treaties negotiated prior to 1970 do not include as extraditable offenses violations of law relating to taxes, customs, currency controls or the import and export of commodities. However, current practice of the United States is to draft extradition treaties to include such violations. Because other countries have shown a positive attitude towards the inclusion of these offenses, it can only be anticipated that the United States will continue to seek their inclusion in all future extradition treaties.

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 extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 31

July 18, 2011

Multilateral Conventions that Extend List of Extraditable Offenses

The United States has become a party to many multilateral conventions. These conventions provide that the offenses with which they deal are automatically extraditable offenses between the countries that are parties to the conventions. The following is a listing of conventions with which the United States is a party:

  • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague);
  • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal);
  • Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (Montreal);
  • Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna) (1988 Vienna Drug Convention);
  • Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (1972 Protocol to Single Convention);
  • Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Significance (O.A.S);
  • Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (United Nations);
  • International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (United Nations);
  • Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (United Nations);
  • Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (United Nations);
  • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome);
  • Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (Rome);
  • Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (O.E.C.D.);
  • Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (O.A.S.);
  • Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials (O.A.S.);
  • International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (United Nations);
  • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (United Nations);
  • United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime;
  • Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime; and
  • Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.
  • To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

    Douglas McNabb and other members of the firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

    Bookmark and Share


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 30

July 15, 2011

Definition of an Extraditable Offense

The method by which extradition treaties have attempted to define extraditable offenses has gone through many mutations. Originally, each treaty listed offenses for which extradition could be granted. Treaties negotiated in the 1960’s and 1970’s combined listings with dual criminality, resulting in treaties that required a listed crime to be one punishable within the United States and the requesting country. From the 1970’s through the early 1980’s, extraditable offenses included not only those listed but those offenses, whether listed or not, which were punishable offenses under the federal laws of the United States and the laws of its treaty partner. Finally, beginning in 1982, the United States adopted a policy of seeking to define extraditable offenses solely in terms of dual criminality. Because many older treaties remaining in effect have not been amended to reflect current trends, the definition of an extraditable offense may vary.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List 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.

Bookmark and Share