“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:


“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:


U.S. v. Edward J. Snowden – Federal Criminal Complaint

June 21, 2013

As International Extradition Lawyer Douglas McNabb predicted, the U.S. has charged Mr. Snowden in a Federal Criminal Complaint. He was charged on June 14, 2013 with the following federal criminal violations:

  • 18 USC 641 – Theft of Government Property
  • 18 USC 793(d) – Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information
  • 18 USC 798(a)(3) – Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

A copy of the Snowden Federal Criminal Complaint may be found here.

“U.S. charges Snowden with espionage”

The Washington Post on June 21, 2013 released the following:

By Peter Finn and Sari Horwitz,

“Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

The complaint, which initially was sealed, was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered and a district with a long track record of prosecuting cases with national security implications. After The Washington Post reported the charges, senior administration officials said late Friday that the Justice Department was barraged with calls from lawmakers and reporters and decided to unseal the criminal complaint.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Snowden flew to Hong Kong last month after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii with a collection of highly classified documents that he acquired while working at the agency as a systems analyst.

The documents, some of which have been published in The Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, detailed some of the most-
secret surveillance operations undertaken by the United States and Britain , as well as classified legal memos and court orders underpinning the programs in the United States.

The 30-year-old intelligence analyst revealed himself June 9 as the leaker in an interview with the Guardian and said he went to Hong Kong because it provided the “cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained.”

Snowden subsequently disappeared from public view; it is thought that he is still in the Chinese territory. Hong Kong has its own legislative and legal systems but ultimately answers to Beijing, under the “one country, two systems” arrangement.

The leaks have sparked national and international debates about the secret powers of the NSA to infringe on the privacy of Americans and foreigners. Officials from President Obama on down have said they welcome the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs and the safeguards they say are built into them. Skeptics, including some in Congress, have said the NSA has assumed the power to soak up data about Americans that was never intended under the law.

There was never any doubt that the Justice Department would seek to prosecute Snowden for one of the most significant national security leaks in the country’s history. The Obama administration has shown a particular propensity to go after leakers and has launched more investigations than any previous administration. This White House is responsible for bringing six of the nine total indictments ever brought under the 1917 Espionage Act. Snowden will be the seventh individual when he is formally indicted.

Justice Department officials had already said that a criminal investigation of Snowden was underway and was being run out of the FBI’s Washington field office in conjunction with lawyers from the department’s National Security Division.

By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the detention request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.

Snowden, however, can fight the extradition effort in the courts in Hong Kong. Any battle is likely to reach Hong Kong’s highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.

The United States has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and U.S. officials said cooperation with the Chinese territory, which enjoys some autonomy from Beijing, has been good in previous cases.

The treaty, however, has an exception for political offenses, and espionage has traditionally been treated as a political offense. Snowden’s defense team in Hong Kong is likely to invoke part of the extradition treaty with the United States, which states that suspects will not be turned over to face criminal trial for offenses of a “political character.”

Typically in such cases, Hong Kong’s chief executive must first decide whether to issue a warrant for the accused’s arrest. But the extradition treaty also says that in exceptional cases a provisional warrant can be issued by a Hong Kong judge without the chief executive’s approval. The judge must give the chief executive notice, however, that he has issued the warrant.

A spokesperson at the office of Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying said there was no information on Snowden’s case. The police department did not respond to calls or e-mails. At the police station for Central District in Hong Kong Island, police officers on duty said they had not heard anything about Snowden.

If Snowden is arrested, he would appear before a judge. Bail would be unlikely and, instead, Snowden would be sent to the Lai Chi Kok maximum-security facility in Kowloon, a short drive from the high-end Mira Hotel, where he is last known to have stayed in Hong Kong.

Snowden could also remain in Hong Kong if the Chinese government decides that it is not in the defense or foreign policy interests of the government in Beijing to have him sent back to the United States for trial.

Another option would be for Snowden to apply for asylum with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which handles most asylum requests in Hong Kong. The UNHCR was closed Saturday morning and did not immediately respond to requests for comment via e-mail and phone. The asylum application process can take months or even years because Hong Kong has a severe backlog. The Hong Kong government cannot formally surrender individuals until their asylum applications have been processed.

Snowden also could attempt to reach another jurisdiction and seek asylum there before the authorities in Hong Kong 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

————————————————————–

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:


Extradition hearing date for Marina Talashkova is set

April 13, 2012
Marina Talashkova
“Marina Talashkova. © Photo: «Вести.Ru»”

The Voice of Russia on April 12, 2012 released the following:

“The extradition hearing date was set on April 10 during the court hearing for Russian flight attendant Marina Talashkova. She is in custody in Canadian prison now awaiting for the decision of her extradition to America. Marina Talashkova was detained by the Canadian authorities on January 15 by the US request. She was arrested over an alleged involvement in a multi-dollar Internet fraud case that occurred in the United States. Here on the line joins us her Toronto defense lawyer – Tyler Hudgson to discuss the new developments in Talashkova’s case.

Thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you for having me.

Mr. Hudgson, what are the most recent updates in the case?

The last court appearance on the case was yesterday, before the court appearance the Canadian authorities at the department of Justice provided us with the American statement of the case and the authorization to proceed from the Canadian Minister of Justice on extradition hearing relating to one count of fraud and one count of possession of stolen property.

US authorities had to present persuasive evidence of Talashkova’s involvement into the scam. So, what are Talashkova’s charges? What evidence did the Americans side present yesterday?

What I can tell you is what of the public knowledge at this time. The Grand Jury indictment is a public document and that document alleges that Marina withdrew money from various bank accounts in Nevada that she opened in her own name, and the deposits into these accounts were made by people that were attempting to purchase vehicles, and these vehicles were never actually provided. What I would point out is that there is no allegation that Marina opened any bank accounts using fake identification or passports, which is alleged for the members of the conspiracy and her role in this is limited essentially to a one week period in July of 2007. So, I think even on the documents that the American authorities have provided her involvement is quite limited.

Mr. Hudgson, what is being done to fight the charges in Talashkova’s extradition?

I can’t speak about what’s been provided too as it is a part of the statements of the case because those are not a part of the public record, they are not public documents. But what I can indicate is that the Americans as they were quite urgent on the extradition act have provided a certification from the prosecuting authorities that they have the evidence available to call in relation to the offences for which they seek to act later. And on yesterday’s court appearance her extradition was scheduled on May 24.

Do you think the American side has enough evidence to extradite her from Canada to the United States, as of yesterday?

That is a very good question and what I want to point out is – the test to extradite somebody is obviously very different from the test required to prove a criminal conviction. So, in order for the Americans to convict Marina or anyone of the criminal offense, they have to prove it beyond the reasonable doubt. To extradite somebody is a much lower threshold test and essentially it is that the prosecuting authorities, in this case the United States, simply are able to provide some evidence of a criminal conduct and the judge that presides the extradition hearing is not really allowed to delve into the quality of the evidence and to assess whether a knowledge is credible. So, it is a much lower threshold.

How does it look to you now? Do you think the Canadian authorities will decide to go ahead with an extradition proceeding?

Well, as I indicated we set the extradition hearing on May 24. At that time the judge decides whether or not there is a sufficient evidence to extradite her and the ultimate decision is left up to the Canadian Minister of Justice. We’ve been working in conjunction with the Russian Embassy in Canada. One of the issues that arisen is that there is no evidence that the Americans attempted to use the 1999 MLAA – Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty that they have with Russia and instead adhered to wait until Marina flew to Toronto on a flight from Moscow to issue a provisional arrest warrant for her. And I think that certainly will become a live issue in her extradition hearing.

Let’s talk about 1999 US-Russian Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty you mentioned a second ago. One of the points in the agreement advises direct assistance between Russia and America and not the third party. Mr. Hudgson, do you think the US has ignored it in Talashkova’s case?

I think that it is fair to say that is certainly the position of the Russian conflict. And in a correspondence that we’ve reviewed and provided to the Canadian Department of Justice, I think the view is that there was an obligation on the United States authorities to use the MLAA that they have in Russia, and the fact that they did so and waited until she arrived in Canada isn’t a decent process. And that is certainly something that will be advocating her on the extradition hearing and ultimately it will be up to the judge to decide.

When Talashkova was detained the Russian General Consulate in Toronto was informed by the Canadian authorities the same day, however Russia did not receive an official note from America. How can you comment on it?

The difficulty is that there is a test for what has to be disclosed for a criminal trial in Canada and there is a very different test for what has to be disclosed for an extradition hearing in Canada. So, we have requested from the Department of Justice the notes of the arresting officers, we haven’t received them yet. And certainly, it will be my opinion, that if the Russian Embassy wasn’t notified of her arrest in a timely fashion, it would violate the Vienna Convention. But I have not been able to review what evidence, if any, is available in relation to whether or not there was a notification of the Russian Embassy. I mean I should point out that I’m not an expert in this area, in the Vienna Convention or international law, but if the Canadian authorities did notify the Russia Embassy in a timely fashion, I don’t think that the fact that the Americans did not would have any direct impact on her extradition hearing in Canada.

Talashkova has already spent almost three months in the prison awaiting for the decision on her extradition. Mr. Hudgson, what is the process for considering the extradition?

The way it works is – she was arrested on what is called a provisional arrest warrant and when one is requesting authorities in Canada, in this case the United States issues a provisional arrest warrant, they have 60 days under the Canadian-American extradition treaty to provide what is called the statement of the case with the synopsis of the evidence on which they plan to lead the trial against her. They did provide that at the very end of the 60 days period. Following that there are 30 days in which the Canadian Minister of Justice has to review what is provided by the American authorities and decide whether or not he is going to issue an authorization to proceed with the actual extradition hearing. All those steps have been taken now. I believe in total there were three court appearances following her initial appearance, like her arrest. And at this point now an extradition hearing has been set for May. And I think that is not unusual, I think it normally does take around 90 days before a date is set for an extradition hearing.

Were you present there during the hearing yesterday?

No. there is a colleague of mine, a woman named Cait Sainsbury who appeared to set a date on my behalf.

But you probably still see Marina Talashkova, how is she holding, how is she taking it?

I think it is fair to say that she is obviously upset and confused. I think it is safe to say that she would much rather be in Russia but I think that she is strong and she is holding together as best as she can in these circumstances. I can tell you that her mother visited her from Russia around a month ago and I think that was certainly helpful.

There was some evidence presented yesterday by the American side. What is Talashkova’s position now? Did she admit the wrongdoing?

No, absolutely. She didn’t admit her guilt or plea guilty. As I said, they don’t present the actual evidence, we don’t get that in Canada, what we get is a summary of the evidence and a certification from the prosecuting authority, in this case a district attorney in California, which indicates that the evidence which is contained in the summary would be and will be admissible in a criminal prosecution in the United States. That is not something that we are entitled to get behind or to question under the extradition act in Canada. So, essentially we have to take their word for it and there was no arraignment, there was no plea yesterday. All that happened yesterday was that the date for the actual hearing was set. And as I said that is May the 24th .

The decision on extradition depends on Canadian court now. Mr. Hudgson, do you think the fact that Russian side was not notified by the American authorities will affect it?

I think we are going to ask the judge to look at it at the hearing on the 24th, is there a sufficiency of the evidence, it is not proof, it is just whether or not the Americans have provided some evidence of criminality, a criminal conduct on Marina’s part. And then additionally we will raise the issue like the fact that the US did not unveil itself as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in criminal matters it has with Russia that was founded in 1999, and instead decided to proceed against Marina by waiting until she was in a neutral territory country so to speak, in Canada, and at that point issued the provisional arrest warrant for her.

Mr. Hudgson, is anything being done to return Talashkova to Russia?

I’m not aware of any such talks. I’m not familiar with whether or not there would be a vehicle or abilities to do that. I can tell you that if a Canadian citizen is arrested and imprisoned in the United States, there is legislation which allows for the transfer of the offender from the United States to Canada to serve out the sentence in Canada. And I believe it works vice versa, I believe the American citizen that arrested and convicted in Canada, and sentenced to imprisonment can also be transferred to the United States. I don’t know whether there is any similar legislation vehicle between the United States and Russia. If there was, it wouldn’t be available to Marina until she was convicted at the criminal trial in the United States.

Right. By is there an agreement between Canada and Russia so she would be sent to Russia from Canada?

No, there is no real vehicle I’m aware of that would allow her to return to Russia pending her extradition hearing.

We were talking about Marina Talashkova who is awaiting decision on her extradition to the United States from Canada. The hearing date is set for May 24. Here with us was her defense lawyer Tyler Hudgson. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Take care!

For the American edition of the Voice of Russia, I’m Lyudmila Chernova.”

————————————————————–

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 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.


US cites United Nations treaty in Megaupload case

February 13, 2012

Computer World on February 13, 2012 released the following:

“Judge in bail hearing questions whether Dotcom extradition is lawful

BY MICHAEL FOREMAN

The United States government will be relying on a United Nations treaty aimed at combating international organised crime as the legal basis of its extradition to the US of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and other co-accused.

While the extradition hearing is scheduled to take place on February 22, some of the legal arguments that will be made at that hearing were foreshadowed at a bail-refusal appeal heard at Auckland High Court on February 3.

During the bail appeal, Dotcom’s lawyer Paul Davison QC, said the US was seeking to have Dotcom and other employees of Megaupload extradited in relation to charges of conspiracy to commit racketeering, money laundering and copyright infringement.

At this point the judge, Justice Raynor Asher interrupted Davison, asking him: “These are extradition offences? I assume you have satisfied yourself on that?”

Davison replied that criminal breach of copyright was not a scheduled offence [under New Zealand’s extradition treaty with the US]. The racketeering charge was said to have a similarity with a scheduled offence however “everything is derivative” from the copyright infringement charge.

“The funds which were derived from the business activity and the involvement of a group of people around the business activity is the basis of the allegation that this was racketeering … the movement of business proceeds and funds then becomes an allegation of money laundering, but the whole thing is pinned back to the existence of a criminal breach of copyright.

“I am not able to advance a position at this stage which would be as strong as to say that there is no strength to the US government’s case. But suffice to say that there is a substantial challenge to it, and it’s not at all clear that this is an extraditable situation.”

Asked whether he had discussed these matters with Crown prosecutor Anne Toohey, Davison said he had been waiting for ten or 12 days for the prosecution to respond to his request for documents.

“I have been frustrated by being unable to get access to a range of documents that underpin the steps that were taken to issue the provisional [arrest] warrant.”

“I have been requesting the Crown to provide me with the requisite documents, I have been told that the police hold the requisite documents and the police will respond.”

Davison said that the legal basis of the extradition request “may give rise to another proceeding”.

“It is a fundamental matter, it’s not being overlooked, and it is likely to be litigated,” he said.

Fergus Sinclair, a lawyer with the Crown Law Office who appeared as co-counsel with Toohey on behalf of the United States, said that while it was true no copyright offences were named in the extradition treaty, certain crimes where they involved trans-national organised crime, were subject to section 101b of the Extradition Act.

Under this section any offence which was punishable by a prison sentence of more than four years was deemed to be extraditable, and under the New Zealand Copyright Act the distribution of an infringing work could be punished by up to five years in prison.

Sinclair cited the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (TOC), which was passed by a UN general assembly resolution in 2000, as the basis of invoking the organised crime provisions of the Extradition Act.

Under the terms of TOC Sinclair said an “organised criminal group” had to consist of a structured group of three or more persons acting in concert with the aim of committing serious crime.

He said there were seven defendants in the Megaupload case, and that according to US grand jury indictment of January 5 members of the Megaupload conspiracy engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale with estimated harm to copyright holders in excess of US$500 million.

Since the bail appeal hearing, several legal commentators have expressed the view that the Megaupload extradition case could be appealed to the New Zealand Supreme Court.

IT lawyer Rick Shera said that Davison’s submissions reinforced his opinion that the extradition case would be complicated.

“My view has always been that there’s a clear issue as to whether the extradition treaty is the end of the story or whether section 101b of the Extradition Act would be involved. Whatever happens you still go back to the [New Zealand] Copyright Act where differences between the NZ and US legislation may become significant.

“I would expect that after the first or second round, one or other of the parties will appeal.

“There hasn’t been a case like this in New Zealand before and, as far as you can you look at it from a general perspective and considering what is at stake, you would want it to be heard by the Supreme Court.””

————————————————————–

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 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.


Mais’ Alleged Killer Could Be Extradited

July 10, 2011

The Gleaner on July 9, 2011 released the following:

“Glenroy Sinclair, Assignment Coordinator

HEAD OF the Criminal Investigation Branch, Assistant Commissioner Ealan Powell, and his team are now busy wrapping up their preliminary investigation before drafting a provisional warrant for the United States to extradite the driver of the BMW X6 implicated in the murder of Kingston College schoolboy, Khajeel Mais.

This is because fresh information has suggested that the BMW X6 driver is a US citizen.

“We have that information, but before we can do anything, we have to complete our file and then draft a provisional warrant,” Powell told The Gleaner yesterday.

A provisional arrest request is an urgent petition to arrest a person pending receipt of an extradition request. It may be appropriate when it is believed that the fugitive may flee the jurisdiction.

There are allegations that prior to the shooting, the X6 driver had originally planned to leave the island on Monday, July 4, which is Independence Day in the United States. But immediately after the shooting, he reportedly purchased another ticket and departed the following day to New York.

The Gleaner understands he has an original address in Florida, and the police, with their overseas counterparts, are now probing his whereabouts.

Mais, 17, was gunned down last Friday. He was a passenger in a taxi which collided with a BMW X6 on Highland Drive, St Andrew.”

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


Major Adam Benoit Arrested by the US Marshals on a Provisional Arrest Warrant Seeking His Extradition From the United States to Costa Rica

July 7, 2011

KPLC-TV on July 6, 2011 released the following:

“International criminal arrested in Lake Charles

Posted By Kristian Claus

The following is a news release from: The US Marshals, Western District of Louisiana

LAKE CHARLES, La. — Thirty-seven-year-old Major Adam Benoit was arrested by members of the US Marshals Violent Offender Task Force with critical assistance from the Louisiana State Police, Intelligence Division at a Lake Charles area Casino at about 12:45 a.m. Saturday.

Benoit was arrested on a provisional arrest warrant seeking his extradition from the United States to Costa Rica. The warrant was signed in the Western District of Louisiana on charges stemming from a June 2, 2010, armed robbery that allegedly occurred in Heredia, Costa Rica.

The charges in Costa Rica are referred to as, “Grave Theft with Violence on People.” Allegedly, Benoit and an associate robbed a taxi cab driver with a knife.

At the direction of the Attorney General and through agreement with the Department of Justice, the US Marshals Service is the primary agency responsible for investigating foreign fugitive cases; cases involving fugitives in the United States who are sought by other countries.

United States Attorney Stephanie Finley stated, “This arrest reflects the hard work of the Marshals Service of the Western District of Louisiana and the District’s Violent Offender Task Force.

The Marshals Service is on the front line every day in our fight against crime. They play a vital role in keeping our communities safe.

The apprehension of Major Benoit should send a message to anyone who is actively avoiding arrest or has an outstanding warrant, in this country or from a foreign country, that the Marshals Service will find you and bring you to justice.”

The Western District of Louisiana’s Violent Offender Task Force (VOTF) in Lafayette and Lake Charles is a team comprised of full-time law enforcement officers from the Lafayette City Marshals, Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office, Lafayette Police Department, St. Mary Parish Sheriff’s Office, St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office, Lake Charles Police Department, Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, and Louisiana Probation and Parole.

Further, VOTF calls upon part-time TFO’s throughout its coverage area. In 2010 VOTF in Lafayette and Lake Charles closed approximately 600 Warrants, most of which were violent felony offenses.

US Marshals Task Forces throughout the United States arrested more than 82,000 state and local fugitives and over 36,000 federal fugitives.”

US Marshals Wanted Poster for Major Adam Benoit.

Costa Rica Extradition Treaty with the United States.

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