“Spain Is Expected to Extradite Ex-Trader in JPMorgan Case”

October 2, 2013

The New York Times on October 1, 2013 released the following:

BY BEN PROTESS AND PETER LATTMAN

“Federal authorities expect that one of the former JPMorgan Chase employees facing criminal charges in connection with the bank’s multibillion-dollar trading loss in London will eventually be extradited to the United States, a senior prosecutor said on Tuesday.

The former trader, Javier Martin-Artajo, is living in Spain.

Although Mr. Martin-Artajo appears to be fighting extradition after briefly surrendering to police in Spain in August, Spanish authorities are expected to cooperate with prosecutors in New York.

“We have a pretty good extradition agreement with Spain,” Lorin L. Reisner, the chief of the criminal division at the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, said on Tuesday. “I expect,” Mr. Reisner said, that Mr. Martin-Artajo “will return to the U.S. via the extradition process.”

Another former trader charged in the case, Julien Grout, could prove more elusive, Mr. Reisner said. After leaving JPMorgan’s London offices, Mr. Grout returned to his native France, which typically does not extradite its citizens.

“It’s more complicated,” Mr. Reisner said.

Mr. Reisner made his remarks at a conference in Midtown Manhattan on white-collar crime. The conference featured panels with leading government officials and criminal defense lawyers, as well as senior lawyers from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which under new leadership has tried to step up its enforcement. Some of those efforts are directed at JPMorgan, the nation’s biggest bank, which is the target of a wider legal crackdown.

The Justice Department is in settlement talks with JPMorgan and is seeking more than $11 billion from the bank over its sale of questionable mortgage securities. The bank also faces lingering investigations into its debt collection practices and its dealings with Bernard L. Madoff, the creator of a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.

The investigation into JPMorgan’s trading loss in London reached a peak in August when the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, along with the F.B.I., announced charges against the two. At the heart of the case was the contention that the two had deliberately “manipulated and inflated the value” of a derivatives bet to hide hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

Both Mr. Martino-Artajo and Mr. Grout deny wrongdoing. Bruno Iksil, a third former trader, known as the “London Whale” for his role in the outsize derivatives trade, reached a nonprosecution deal with the government in exchange for testifying against his former colleagues.

Weeks after the charges, authorities took aim at JPMorgan for “lacking effective internal controls to detect” the traders’ conduct. The civil settlement — which resolved investigations from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the British Financial Services Authority and the S.E.C. — imposed $920 million in penalties on the bank. The deal also required the bank to admit wrongdoing.

At the legal industry conference on Tuesday, the co-head of the S.E.C’s enforcement unit trumpeted JPMorgan’s admission as evidence of a broader policy shift. For decades, the agency permitted defendants to settle cases without acknowledging their misconduct.

“We will demand admissions, and if the defendant isn’t prepared to agree, we will litigate at trial,” said Andrew Ceresney, the S.E.C. official, who gave the keynote address at the conference, run by the Practising Law Institute.

The change has already begun to “bear fruit,” Mr. Ceresney said, citing the JPMorgan case and a settlement with the hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners. Like a guilty plea in a criminal case, an admission of wrongdoing is important to hold the defendant accountable and provides a form of catharsis to the investing public, he said.

Mr. Ceresney, a former defense lawyer at the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, was recused from the JPMorgan case because he once defended the bank. He was hired by the agency’s new chairwoman, Mary Jo White, who also came from Debevoise. Both were federal prosecutors earlier in their careers.

Five months into the S.E.C. job, Mr. Ceresney argued that the new leadership had brought improvements to the agency, which was sharply criticized for missing financial frauds like the Madoff Ponzi scheme and failing to charge any top Wall Street executives tied to the financial crisis. “We wanted to bring the swagger back to the enforcement division, and I think we’re doing that,” he said.

The agency continues to face criticism. Even in the JPMorgan settlement, lawmakers and other critics questioned why the agency had charged the traders but declined to punish the bank’s leadership.

In one sign of change, however, the S.E.C. separately announced on Tuesday that it was paying more than $14 million to a whistle-blower who provided information that led to an enforcement action, by far the most significant payout in the two-year history of its whistle-blower office.

The agency did not identify the tipster or the case this person helped build. But under the whistle-blower program, created under the Dodd-Frank Act, tipsters can reap as much as 30 percent of the money the S.E.C. collects when imposing fines, suggesting that the relevant case was a big one.

The white-collar crime conference coincided with the first day of the government shutdown. Mr. Reisner, the federal prosecutor, described the shutdown as a “complete mess” for his already resource-constrained office.

He said that with 10 criminal trials under way in Federal District Court in Manhattan, he spent much of Monday seeking to prevent the government paralegals working on those cases from being furloughed.”

————————————————————–

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 here.

We previously discussed 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:


Blocked Transfer Draws Attention to U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty

October 18, 2012

World Politics Review on October 18, 2012 released the following:

“By Catherine Cheney

On Tuesday, the British government announced that it would not extradite British hacker Gary McKinnon to the United States, marking the first time an extradition has been halted under the 2003 Extradition Act between the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

McKinnon, who is accused of serious crimes including hacking American military databases, has fought extradition for the past 10 years. But in light of new evidence about his health, British Home Secretary Theresa May, the government’s top authority on domestic affairs, cited McKinnon’s human rights as her main consideration. Extraditing McKinnon would put him at high risk of suicide, she said.

Trend Lines spoke to two experts about perceptions of the treaty, which has at times generated controversy, especially in the U.K.

“In the significant, overwhelming majority of extradition treaties, the requesting country is required to show probable cause that the individual probably committed the crime with which he has been charged,” explained Douglas McNabb, a senior principal for McNabb Associates and an expert in U.S. federal criminal law and international extradition.* “In the U.S.-U.K. treaty, the U.S. is not required to show probable cause. All the U.S. has to do is show a copy of the indictment and the arrest warrant and request that the individual be sent to the U.S.”

On the other hand, McNabb said, if the U.K. sought to have someone extradited from the U.S. to the U.K., the U.K. would be required to show probable cause.

According to McNabb, the treaty was negotiated because the Bush and Blair administrations “wanted to make it easier for the U.S. to have terrorists extradited from the U.K. to the U.S., so they provided for this expedited extradition process,” he said.

The fact that the significant majority of people extradited from the U.K. to the U.S. have been white-collar criminals, not terrorists, he added, has created a rift between the two states.

However, Ted Bromund, senior research fellow in Anglo-American relations at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, argued that much of the controversy surrounding the agreement is because it is “misunderstood and mischaracterized” in the U.K.

“It is useful to bear one simple fact in mind: it was Britain that wanted the 2003 treaty, not the U.S.,” Bromund wrote in an email to Trend Lines. “When the U.S. delayed ratifying the treaty, Britain criticized [Washington]. Now many in Britain condemn the very treaty they wanted, which came as part of a long, and completely British, effort to reform their extradition system.”

Most extraditions to and from the U.S. are completely uncontroversial, Bromund explained. McNabb, too, referred to five terrorism suspects who were extradited from the U.K. to the U.S. earlier this month, noting that at the time, “we did not hear anything about this treaty being unfair.”

Bromund said that while the McKinnon case has generated controversy, he does not see any serious risk of fallout for the treaty.

“In the McKinnon case, the U.S. made a perfectly legal extradition request. Britain has (finally) decided not to extradite him, not because of anything wrong with the U.S. or its request, but because Mr. McKinnon is mentally ill,” he explained. “Britain has the right to decide that, so the subject is now closed.”

Both experts pointed to the news that the U.K. plans to create a forum bar as being more significant. In cases where prosecution would be possible both in the U.K. and abroad, the forum bar would enable British courts to block prosecution overseas.

“What upsets those in the U.K. is that if the majority of the criminal conduct occurred in the U.K., as compared to the U.S., then their thought is that these guys ought to be tried in the U.K.,” McNabb said.

“We have seen the U.S. take a very aggressive approach extraterritorially,” McNabb said. Over the past decade, some defendants have raised concerns, and attracted attention, for being “shipped off to the U.S.” for crimes they committed at home. Over time, McNabb said, these cases, combined with the perceived inequality of the treaty, put enough pressure on the British to make some changes.

Bromund expressed concern over the creation of the forum bar.

“Depending on how this is worded — and that is important — this could require British courts to discriminate in favor of British subjects, and thus against foreigners, when considering extradition requests,” he said. In the past, Bromund explained, everyone has been equal before the law in the U.K., with the nationality of the accused making no difference as far as extradition goes. The forum bar could change that, he said.

While the U.K. home secretary has called the 2003 deal “broadly sound,” introducing the forum bar would be a major change to the law, something both experts said is worth keeping an eye on.”

————————————————————–

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 the United Kingdom 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:


Judge Ponders Canadian Man’s Extradition to the United States

October 17, 2012

ABC News on October 17, 2012 released the following:

EDMONTON, Alberta
Associated Press

“A judge will rule Friday whether to extradite a Canadian man to the United States on charges that he helped coordinate Tunisian jihadists believed responsible for separate suicide attacks in Iraq in 2009 that killed five American soldiers outside a U.S. base and seven people at an Iraqi police complex.

Sayfildin Tahir Sharif, who holds dual Canadian and Iraqi citizenship, was arrested in 2011 on a U.S. warrant and has been fighting extradition to New York.

The prosecution contends that evidence from intercepted Internet and phone conversations shows that Sharif was directly involved in supporting terrorists who conducted the suicide bombings.

Sharif, 40, never left Canada as part of the alleged conspiracy. He was born in Iraq but moved to Toronto as a refugee in 1993 and became a Canadian citizen. He has also gone by other names, including Faruq Muhammad’Isa.

His lawyer, Bob Aloneissi, argued in final submissions Tuesday that the prosecution provided no clear evidence that Sharif helped support a terrorist group.

Aloneissi said Sharif’s right to legal advice was violated when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, FBI and U.S. Justice Department officials interrogated him immediately following his Jan. 19, 2011, arrest at an Edmonton apartment.

A U.S. Department of Justice investigator interviewed him with an FBI agent and a RCMP corporal present, the extradition request said. The interview “was conducted in compliance with United States law,” with Muhammad ‘Isa signing a waiver before voluntarily answering questions, it said.

During the interview, Muhammad ‘Isa admitted he corresponded by email from Canada with two of the terrorists while they were in Syria, and knew that they were on a mission to kill Americans, the paperwork says. The documents allege he corresponded with “facilitators” who were trying to get the attackers into Iraq, and wired one of them $700.

Justice Adam Germain of Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench reserved his ruling until Friday.

Germain pointed out the standard of evidence required to extradite someone is much lower than is required for use in a criminal trial.

On Monday, Germain ruled that videotaped statements that Sharif made to police during his interrogation would be admitted as evidence.

If convicted of terrorism charges in the United States, Sharif could face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.”

————————————————————–

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 Canada 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:


Gary McKinnon extradition to US blocked by Theresa May

October 16, 2012

BBC News UK on October 16, 2012 released the following:

“British computer hacker Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to the US, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

Mr McKinnon, 46, who admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs, has been fighting extradition since 2002.

The home secretary told MPs there was no doubt Mr McKinnon was “seriously ill” and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.

Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.

She said it was now for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to decide whether he should face trial in the UK.

Mrs May said: “Since I came into office, the sole issue on which I have been required to make a decision is whether Mr McKinnon’s extradition to the United States would breach his human rights.

“Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes. But there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill.

“He has Asperger’s syndrome, and suffers from depressive illness. The legal question before me is now whether the extent of that illness is sufficient to preclude extradition.

“After careful consideration of all of the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights.”

Mrs May also said measures would be taken to enable a UK court to decide whether a person should stand trial in the UK or abroad – a so-called forum bar.

It would be designed to ensure extradition cases did not fall foul of “delays and satellite litigation”, she said.

“I believe extradition decisions must not only be fair, they must be seen to be fair. And they must be made in open court where decisions can be challenged and explained,” she said.

“That is why I have decided to introduce a forum bar. This will mean that where prosecution is possible in both the UK and in another state, the British courts will be able to bar prosecution overseas if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so.”

Mr McKinnon, from Wood Green, north London, who has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, faced 60 years in jail if convicted in the US.

Mr McKinnon’s mother Janis Sharp was delighted with the decision, saying: “Thank you Theresa May from the bottom of my heart – I always knew you had the strength and courage to do the right thing.”

His MP, David Burrowes, who had threatened to resign as a parliamentary aide if Mr McKinnon was extradited, welcomed the decision.

Mr Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate in north London, tweeted: “Compassion and pre-election promises delivered today.”

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said it was a dramatic decision – the first time a home secretary had stepped in to block an extradition under the current treaty with the US.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said: “This is a great day for rights, freedoms and justice in the United Kingdom.

“The home secretary has spared this vulnerable man the cruelty of being sent to the US and accepted Liberty’s long-standing argument for change to our rotten extradition laws.”

Mark Lever, chief executive of the National Autistic Society, said he was “delighted that the years of waiting are finally over for Gary and his family”.

But Labour former home secretary Alan Johnson criticised the decision and claimed Mrs May had made a decision which was “in her own party’s best interests but it’s not in the best interests of this country”.

He said: “Gary McKinnon is accused of very serious offences. The US was perfectly within its rights and it was extremely reasonable of them to seek his extradition.”

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper asked Mrs May about the implications of her decision: “Clearly other people subject to extradition proceedings or immigration proceedings do cite medical conditions as a reason not to extradite so it would be useful for Parliament and the courts to understand the tests you have applied and whether that will set precedent in other cases.”

American lawyer, David Rivkin, a former White House adviser, said the decision was “laughable”, adding, “Under that logic, anybody who claims some kind of physical or mental problem can commit crimes with impunity and get away with it.”

US extradition expert Douglas McNabb said the US Attorney’s Office would be furious and he suspected it would ask Interpol to issue a red notice – making other nations aware there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr McKinnon in the US – which would mean he could be arrested if he left the UK.

The family of terror suspect Babar Ahmad said while they welcomed the decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon, questions had to be asked.

Mr Ahmad was one of five terror suspects, including radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, extradited to the US earlier this month. His co-accused, Talha Ahsan, who was also extradited, was diagnosed with Asperger’s in June 2009, according to a European Court of Human Rights judgement.

Both are accused by US authorities of running a pro-jihad website.

Mr Ahmad’s family said: “Why within the space of two weeks, a British citizen with Asperger’s accused of computer-related activity is not extradited, while two other British citizens, one with Asperger’s, engaged in computer-related activity are extradited. A clear demonstration of double standards.”

US authorities have described Glasgow-born Mr McKinnon’s actions as the “biggest military computer hack of all time” and have demanded he face justice in America.

They insisted his hacking was “intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion”.

The Americans said his actions caused $800,000 (£487,000) worth of damage to military computer systems.

Mr McKinnon has previously lost appeals in the High Court and the House of Lords against his extradition, but two years ago a High Court judge ruled Mr McKinnon would be at risk of suicide if sent away.

Earlier this year Mrs May put the decision on hold to allow Home Office appointed psychiatrists to conduct an assessment.

They also concluded Mr McKinnon would be likely to take his own life if he was sent to face trial in the US.

Mr McKinnon was arrested in 2002 and again in 2005 before an order for his extradition was made in July 2006 under the 2003 Extradition Act.”

————————————————————–

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 the United Kingdom 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:


New Zealand judge in Kim Dotcom extradition case steps down after jokingly calling US ‘enemy’

July 18, 2012

The Washington Post on July 18, 2012 released the following:

“By Associated Press

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — A New Zealand judge has stepped down from overseeing the extradition case of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom after jokingly referring to the United States as “the enemy.”

The comment by Auckland District Court Judge David Harvey raised questions about his impartiality. He was discussing Internet copyright at a conference last week when he told an audience, “We have met the enemy, and he is U.S.”

Harvey’s comments referencing late cartoonist Walt Kelly were recorded and posted on the Internet.

The U.S. is attempting to extradite Dotcom on racketeering and money laundering charges that allege his file-sharing site was facilitating massive Internet piracy.

Harvey will be replaced by judge Nevin Dawson. An extradition hearing has been scheduled for March.”

————————————————————–

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 New Zealand 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:


US ‘the enemy’ says Dotcom judge

July 16, 2012

New Zealand Herald on July 16, 2012 released the following:

“By Hamish Fletcher

The judge due to hear Kim Dotcom’s extradition case has referred to the United States as “the enemy” in a discussion about copyright law.

District Court Judge David Harvey has heard parts of the case against the Megaupload founder, who was arrested with three colleagues in January after a request from the United States. The FBI has accused Dotcom and others working at Megaupload website of the world’s biggest case of criminal copyright violation.

Judge Harvey is not due to hear the internet mogul’s extradition case until next year but made his views on copyright known during the launch of the “Fair Deal” campaign last week.

The campaign is opposing any changes to New Zealand’s copyright laws that may form part of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

The TPP trade deal is currently being negotiated and the 13th round of talks are finishing up.

The negotiations are secret but it is known that the United States entertainment industry is pushing for stronger copyright provisions among the 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region negotiating the deal.

When talking about how the TPP would affect copyright in New Zealand, Harvey said it could stop the practice of hacking around DVD region codes.

These codes can mean movie players in New Zealand are unable to read DVDs from other parts of the world such as the United States.

It is legal in New Zealand to use methods to get around these regional codes and make the DVDs watchable but Judge Harvey said the TPP would change this.

“Under TPP and the American Digital Millennium copyright provisions you will not be able to do that, that will be prohibited… if you do you will be a criminal – that’s what will happen. Even before the 2008 amendments it wasn’t criminalised. There are all sorts of ways this whole thing is being ramped up and if I could use Russell [Brown’s] tweet from earlier on: we have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S.”

Judge Harvey’s remark is a play on the line “we have met the enemy and he is us” by American cartoonist Walt Kelly.

The judge had used Kelly’s quip while speaking at an internet conference earlier last week and it was promoted on Twitter by Public Address journalist Russell Brown.

Judge Harvey, who has served on the bench since 1989, would not comment when asked if these statements were appropriate given his involvement in Kim Dotcom’s case.

Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge said the comments could be seen as “unhelpful”.

However, without knowing the details of the TPP discussion or related copyright issues he was unable to say whether the comments were appropriate.

“To the extent that the North Shore District Court has some jurisdiction, it can be seen as probably an extra-judicial comment that isn’t helpful.

“But on the other hand, it was part of a quasi-academic conference discussing developing areas of law. I think judges should be free to make comments, as long as it doesn’t appear to show any predetermination with respect to the specific case in the court before them.”

Crown Law, which is representing the FBI in the extradition case, would not comment on the issue.”

————————————————————–

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 New Zealand 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:


Kim Dotcom: I’ll extradite myself to US if they give my money back

July 12, 2012

The Guardian on July 10, 2012 released the following:

“Megaupload founder fighting extradition from New Zealand says he is determined to beat American authorities at their ‘foul game’

Toby Manhire in Auckland

From a semi-rural suburb north of Auckland, Kim Dotcom is mounting an increasingly belligerent counter-offensive against US authorities’ efforts to prosecute him over his now defunct Megaupload file storage site.

In an interview with the Guardian, Dotcom, who remains on bail in Coatesville, New Zealand, awaiting an extradition hearing, declared himself to be in “fighting mood” and eager to refute a “case built on malicious conduct”.

The charges against him, he said, were part of a “foul game” on the part of the US government, and that funds permitting, “I am going to war.”

Dotcom is being sought by the US to face criminal copyright charges related to the MegaUpload file storage site, which at its peak amounted for an estimated 4% of all internet traffic.

Prosecutors allege he and his co-accused associates were complicit in and encouraged the distribution of copyright-protected films, music and other material.

The German-born New Zealand resident’s remarks, in an email interview with the Guardian, follow Tuesday’s announcement that his extradition hearing, scheduled to begin in less than a month, has been put back until April next year.

On Wednesday morning Dotcom laid down the gauntlet to the US department of justice, offering to travel to the US under his own steam and faces charges – with conditions. “Hey DOJ,” Dotcom said on his Twitter account, “we will go to the US. No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers and living expenses.”

He told the Guardian that the offer was genuine but he was not holding his breath. “Considering the way the US government has conducted their case and the way I was treated, I never expect to get a fair trial in the United States,” he said.

“We are not expecting to hear back regarding the offer and I remain committed to fighting extradition in New Zealand.”

Dotcom has 22 lawyers working on his case in different countries. He says he faces a mounting legal bill, exacerbated by the rescheduled extradition hearing.

The delay was made inevitable by the need to first resolve a clutter of outstanding legal disputes. The Auckland high court ruled last month that the January raid on Dotcom’s mansion was conducted illegally, that evidence has been wrongly withheld from his legal team, and that the FBI had inappropriately cloned hard drives and taken them from the country.

An earlier district court instruction for the FBI to provide copies of cloned drives to Dotcom’s lawyers is expected to be appealed, and other decisions may also be taken to higher courts.

Those who interpreted the postponement as a victory for Dotcom were mistaken, he told the Guardian. “People might think it’s good news. But it’s not. Justice delayed is justice denied. And that’s the foul game the US government is playing. They have terminated my business without a trial. They have frozen my assets without a hearing.

“They are appealing the decision of a New Zealand judge who has ordered the US government to provide evidence before the extradition hearing starts.”

US authorities had dragged other countries into a vendetta driven by special interests, he said. “They have been misleading the Hong Kong and New Zealand government to destroy a legitimate business and 220 jobs by telling them stories about child pornography and terrorist propaganda on Megaupload,” he said.

“This whole case is built on malicious conduct. It is a stillborn case and everyone can see it. I am in a fighting mood and if I get my assets unlocked or somehow find funding to defend myself I am going to war.”

The Megaupload founder last week alleged that the pursuit of Dotcom was directly ordered by the US vice-president, Joe Biden, at the behest of Hollywood studio executives – a claim the Motion Picture Association of America has rejected.

Next in Dotcom’s sights is Biden’s boss, in a rather more colourful medium. Dotcom, who has been recording an album with the help of Black Eyed Peas producer Printz Board at studios belonging to Crowded House’s Neil Finn, is expected to release a new song and video this week pointing the finger directly at Barack Obama. The song reportedly includes the lyrics “”We must oppose / those who chose / to turn innovation into crime”.

The track, Dotcom wrote in an email to the Guardian, would mark “the birth of a powerful movement and CHANGE””

————————————————————–

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 New Zealand 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: