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

June 20, 2013

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

“By Sari Horwitz and Jia Lynn Yang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————————————————–

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

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

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

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

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

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


“Treaty gives Hong Kong option to reject Snowden extradition to the US”

June 10, 2013

South China Morning Post on June 10, 2013 released the following:

By: Staff Reporter

“Hong Kong could refuse to extradite US whistleblower Edward Snowden if Beijng wanted to keep him, according to a treaty signed between the United States and Hong Kong almost two decades ago.

Hong Kong has the “right of refusal when surrender implicates the ‘defense, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy'” of the People’s Republic of China, according to the US-Hong Kong Extradition Treaty signed in 1997.

Snowden chose to seek refuge in Hong Kong because of the city’s “strong tradition of free speech”, he said in an interview with the Guardian published earlier today. He also said that he was concerned about being handed to mainland Chinese or US authorities.

The US justice deparment has initiated an investigation into his leaking of a secret US data gathering programme, that has collected records of trillions of online messages and phone calls over several years. US members of congress have already called for his extradition to the US to stand trial.

China does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

According to notes on the treaty submitted to the US Senate, the Hong Kong negotiators had insisted on including clauses making it easily possible to deny extradition to the US, arguing that such a clause was essential in obtaining mainland Chinese approval for the treaty.

As such, article 3 of the treaty allows the Chinese government to refuse surrendering a person if it thought the surrender “relates to (its) defense, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy”.

Hong Kong can also refuse if the city or the mainalnd have begun proceedings for the prosecution of that person. Hong Kong can reject an application if the city felt that the request was “politically motivated” or that Snowden would be prosecuted for his political opinions.

Extradition requests can be made either through the US Consulate Generale in Hong Kong or Interpol, according to the treaty.”

————————————————————–

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:


“Mastros set free in France, but U.S. may still go after them”

June 6, 2013

The Seattle Times on June 5, 2013 released the following:

“Appeals court says the 88-year-old developer and his wife won’t be extradited to the U.S., where they are charged with bankruptcy fraud.

By Sanjay Bhatt
Seattle Times business reporter

Fugitive Seattle businessman Michael R. Mastro may well live out the rest of his life as a free man in the foothills of the French Alps.

A French appellate court Wednesday denied on humanitarian grounds the U.S. Department of Justice’s request to extradite Mastro and his wife, Linda, said Jim Frush, a Seattle attorney who represents the 88-year-old former real-estate magnate at the center of one of Western Washington’s biggest bankruptcies.

“I spoke with Mike, who was understandably very happy and relieved and indicated to me that he and Linda were about to leave for dinner,” he said.

The Mastros had been under electronic monitoring and restricted to their apartment after 6:30 at night as part of an earlier French order.

A federal grand jury indicted the Mastros on charges of bankruptcy fraud in August 2011, two months after the couple disappeared from sight.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle declined to comment Wednesday on the French court’s ruling, saying only that it was examining its options, including a possible appeal.

It’s likely the Justice Department filed a “red notice” with Interpol, a global law-enforcement agency, that puts 190 countries on notice of the outstanding arrest warrant for the couple, said Douglas McNabb, an international criminal-defense lawyer in Washington, D.C.

If the Mastros try to leave France for any other country, they could be held there and possibly extradited to the United States to face the criminal charges, McNabb said.

But if the French court’s ruling isn’t appealed and the Mastros stay put in France, “the ballgame is over with,” he said.

The ruling of the appeals court in Chambéry can be appealed to the Council of State, France’s highest judicial body and roughly equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Juliet Sorensen, a law professor at Northwestern University who teaches international criminal law.

A treaty signed by the two nations in 1996 requires each to honor a request to extradite persons charged with certain offenses that are punishable in both countries.

But there are exceptions, including one that allows either nation to deny extradition if surrendering the person “might entail exceptionally serious consequences related to age or health,” according to the treaty.

The French appellate court ruled that extraditing the Mastros could have such consequences, and wasn’t persuaded by the Justice Department’s arguments to the contrary, Frush said.

Developer’s downfall

Mastro’s four-decade career as a prolific developer ended in a spectacular crash in 2009 when three banks forced him into bankruptcy court.

Mastro told the court he had nearly $587 million in liabilities, including more than $100 million he owed to individual investors and local groups such as the Italian Club of Seattle.

Against those liabilities, Mastro reported assets of $249 million, most of it debt others owed him.

State regulators also charged him with breaking the law by making false statements to “Friends & Family” investors and selling unregistered securities, charges that Mastro denied.

Mastro and his wife disappeared suddenly in June 2011 after they ignored a bankruptcy judge’s order to hand over two giant diamond rings worth more than $1.4 million.

They officially became fugitives a month later when warrants were signed for their arrest. But those warrants were for contempt of court, a civil violation, and experts said it would be difficult to extradite the Mastros without a criminal charge.

Then in August 2011, the U.S. Attorneys Office filed a sealed criminal complaint against the Mastros, charging them with bankruptcy fraud.

The complaint was made public last October after the Mastros were arrested near Lake Annecy, in the French Alps, where they had rented a succession of apartments.

The next month, a federal grand jury issued a superseding indictment containing 43 counts for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.

The diamond rings, along with nearly 300 other pieces of jewelry, were seized in France in October after the Mastros were apprehended.

The collection is worth more than $3 million, according to the court-appointed trustee in Mastro’s bankruptcy case, James Rigby, who has recovered only a fraction of the money owed to creditors. The Mastros’ attorneys are fighting in court to stop the FBI from transferring some jewelry to the trustee.

The Mastros spent seven weeks in a French jail before a court placed them on supervised release with electronic monitoring pending an extradition proceeding.

Health concerns

In February, the three judges of the Court of Appeal in Chambéry ruled that the Mastros had been charged with offenses that were subject to extradition, but noted that lengthy incarceration likely would have serious consequences on their health.

The court’s 19-page ruling in February mentioned Mastro’s age and a serious head injury he suffered in a fall in Palm Desert, Calif., two years ago. The court also mentioned the “psychological frailty” of Linda Mastro, who is in her 60s, revealing that she attempted suicide shortly after the couple was arrested in France.

At a hearing in late May, the Justice Department’s representative told the French court that if the Mastros were extradited and convicted in the United States, they would not ask for more than two years in prison, Frush said Wednesday, citing information he received from Thomas Terrier, the Mastros’ attorney in France. Moreover, U.S. officials told the court the federal Bureau of Prisons was equipped to manage the Mastros’ health concerns, Frush said.

Terrier could not be immediately reached for comment.

Sorensen, the Northwestern University law professor, said the French government had discretion to extradite the Mastros despite the exception in the treaty, and said the Council of State had heard extradition appeals from the United States in the past.

Investor reaction

News of the French court’s ruling dismayed Kirkland resident Barry Bloch, one of the “Friends & Family” investors who loaned the developer money in return for pledges of interest payments.

“What a joke,” Bloch said after hearing from a reporter of the ruling.

Bloch and his wife, Teresa, loaned Mastro money and knew him for about four years before the developer’s fortunes unraveled.

“It didn’t bankrupt us, but it’s a sizable amount of money, and it’s disgusting that he isn’t brought to justice,” said Barry Bloch, 68.

He recalled an exchange with the developer at Mastro’s Seattle office on Rainier Avenue South as the real-estate market was imploding, but before the banks forced Mastro into bankruptcy court.

“I asked him how he sleeps at night, and he said, ‘I sleep like a baby.’ That spoke volumes,” Bloch said.”

————————————————————–

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 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:


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:


Libya says Mauritania agrees Senussi extradition

March 20, 2012

Reuters on March 20, 2012 released the following:

“By Laurent Prieur and Hadeel al Shachi

(Reuters) – Mauritania has agreed that Muammar Gaddafi’s intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, arrested in Nouakchott last week, can be extradited to Libya, Libya’s deputy prime minister said.

The decision, if implemented, sets Libya on a collision course with France and the international war crimes court in The Hague, which also want Senussi, Gaddafi’s right-hand man before the Libyan dictator’s overthrow and death in a popular revolt last year.

“I have met the President of Mauritania and he agreed to the extradition of Senussi to Libya,” Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abu Shagour wrote on Twitter on Tuesday in a comment conformed as official by a Libyan government representative.

Senussi, whose whereabouts had been unclear for months, was arrested at Mauritania’s Nouakchott airport late on Friday when he stepped off a flight from Morocco.

A senior Libyan delegation to Mauritania feted President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz for his “brave stance” in arresting Senussi and during talks at his presidency stressed that Senussi should be extradited to Libya.

“We greatly appreciate the position of the president who promised us that good will come of this matter,” said a statement attributed to Shagour earlier and issued by Mauritania’s official news agency AMI.

France and the International Criminal Court also want Senussi. The ICC has indicted him for crimes against humanity, while he is also alleged to have had a role in the 1989 bombing of an airliner in which 54 French nationals died.

“We want Senussi to be extradited to France. We feel we owe it to the victims’ families and to justice,” French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said of a step that would allow France to confirm the life sentence already handed down to Senussi in absentia by a French court.

LOCKERBIE BOMBING

Separately, diplomatic sources said the United States – which on Monday confirmed it had contacts with Mauritania over Senussi – had requested access to him before any transfer.

“The Americans put in a request to Mauritanian authorities yesterday (Monday) morning to be able to meet Senussi while he is still in Mauritania, said one diplomatic source. A second diplomat also confirmed the request had been made.

No comment was immediately available either from the Mauritanian or U.S. governments.

Senussi’s name has been linked to the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland of a Pan Am jet that killed 270 people. A State Department spokeswoman said on Monday the United States had long expressed an interest in talking to him about it.

Human rights groups doubt Senussi, 62, will have a fair trial in Libya and have called for his transfer to the ICC.

Amnesty International described the Libyan judicial system as “paralyzed”, noting it had not successfully investigated the death of prisoners in rebel detention or high-profile cases like the death of former military chief Abdel-Fattah Younis.

“The Libyan judiciary has done nothing. It has held no one accountable and has not investigated a single case yet,” Amnesty’s Donatella Rovera told Reuters.

However, Deputy Justice Minister Khalifa Faraj Ashour told Reuters in Tripoli the former intelligence chief would be tried fairly in his home country.

“Security is good, the courts are working fine in almost all of the country,” he said. “Even if there is a security breach once in a while, we can deal with it.”

“HIDDEN MONEY”

Ashour said it was too early to discuss what charges Senussi could face in Libya. Interpol has issued a Red Notice for him at Libya’s request for fraud offences including embezzling public funds and misuse of power for personal benefit.

“In general, we can say one of the crimes is financial corruption. He knows a lot about hidden money,” Ashour said.

Senussi is also suspected of a key role in the killing of more than 1,200 inmates at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison in 1996. It was the arrest of a lawyer for victims’ relatives that sparked Libya’s Arab Spring revolt in February last year.

“Senussi being handed over to Libya and tried here would be a great support for the Libyan revolution and the country’s courts,” Ashour said. “You have to realize that he committed many other crimes in Libya before the revolution.”

According to Mauritanian security sources, Senussi, who for decades was hated and feared by many ordinary Libyans, is being held in the main police training school in Nouakchott.

The sources said the facility – which is surrounded by a high wall blocking all view from outside – was the only one which could keep Senussi in sufficient security while affording him a degree of comfort.

According to two sources, a team of military doctors including Aziz’s personal medic performed a medical check on Senussi on Sunday while he was still being held at a residence in the grounds of Nouakchott’s international conference centre.”

————————————————————–

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 C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Fugitive cop who fled to Brazil likely to avoid extradition

September 9, 2011

Sun Sentinel on September 8, 2011 released the following:

“Fugitive cop who fled to Brazil likely to avoid extradition

By Megan O’Matz and Jerome Burdi, Sun Sentinel

BOYNTON BEACH— Fugitive David Britto may be out of reach of American authorities forever.

This city’s former Police Officer of the Year was under house arrest, awaiting trial on drug trafficking charges, when he cut the electronic monitoring bracelet from his ankle Aug. 24 and hopped on a plane in Miami, bound for his native country, Brazil, according to court documents filed Wednesday.

Brazil’s constitution prohibits the extradition of Brazilian nationals.

“Basically he’s gone unless the Brazilian government, through political pressure, allows U.S. agents to pick him up,” said attorney David Rowe, an adjunct law professor at the University of Miami and an extradition expert.

Britto, 28, appears to have successfully gambled on a high-stakes escape, rather than risk facing years in prison. He is to stand trial beginning Tuesday.

The daring run, however, raises questions about how he pulled it off and who, if anyone, helped him.

On Thursday, the U.S. Marshals Service, which is spearheading the hunt for Britto, said federal agents are looking at every possible way of getting Britto back to Miami, where he faces one count of conspiring to possess and traffic 500 grams of methamphetamine.

“We’re still pursuing him,” Marshals Service spokesman Barry Golden said. “He’s one of the big cases that are on the top of our list … We’re still tracking down every lead. We’re trying to get him back into custody at all costs.”

Attempts to get Britto back are sure to be challenging, if not downright impossible.

A 1964 treaty between the United States and Brazil allows for the extradition of anyone accused or convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of a year or more.

But in 1988, Brazil amended its constitution, expressly stating that “no Brazilian shall be extradited.”

People born elsewhere who become Brazilian citizens, however, can be handed over if they’re charged with certain drug-related crimes. Foreigners who find safe harbor in Brazil and are accused of political crimes elsewhere are not extradited.

The strict policy has strained Brazil’s diplomatic relations.

Earlier this summer Italy denounced Brazil for refusing to turn over political refugee Cesare Battisti, a former Italian militant, convicted in absentia of killing four people in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, Brazil’s refusal to extradite an Ohio woman, Claudia Hoerig, charged in the 2007 murder of her husband, has outraged an Ohio congressman.

U.S. Rep. Timothy Ryan, a Democrat, introduced legislation in June to withhold $14 million a year in aid to Brazil until it reverses its ban on extraditing nationals. The bill is in a House committee.

Ryan has gone so far as to post an ever-changing clock on his website, showing the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds that Hoerig “has escaped justice.” On Thursday, it registered 1,641 days.

“It’s been a nightmare experience on our end up here,” Trumbull County, Ohio, Prosecuting Attorney Dennis Wilkins said of efforts to extradite Hoerig. “I’ve dealt with President [George W.] Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the attorney general and now with [President Barack] Obama and Hillary Clinton, and we’ve not gotten satisfactory action.”

In Florida, the tamper alert on Britto’s ankle bracelet went off the night of Aug. 24, notifying a federal probation officer, according to court records. But U.S. Marshals were not told until the next morning. Only then was a warrant was issued for his arrest, authorities said.

That gave Britto a window of time to escape.

“You cannot respond the next morning. That’s a major security breach,” said Rowe, the University of Miami law professor.

Court documents say Britto, who speaks Portuguese, boarded a plane Aug. 24 in Miami bound for Brasilia, the capital of Brazil.

It is unclear what documentation he used to board the international flight.

As a standard condition of bond, Britto had to relinquish “all passports and travel documents” to the Pretrial Services Office.

“Mr. Britto’s Brazilian passport was revoked as a standard condition of release by the court,” said Laura Sweeney, a Justice Department spokeswoman in Washington.

Britto was free on a $100,000 bond. He and his mother signed for half the bond and the other half was guaranteed by bailbonds.com, a Miami company.

Britto may be able to live out his days in Brazil, but he likely is landlocked, said Douglas McNabb, whose Washington, D.C., firm specializes in international extradition law.

Federal authorities likely will file a lifetime “red notice” with Interpol’s 188 member countries that will trigger Britto’s arrest if he leaves Brazil.

“He may leave Brazil a month from now or 30 years from now and go to Costa Rica,” McNabb said. “And when he goes through customs, his red notice [shows up].”

That’s what happened to director Roman Polanski, who was arrested in 2009 in Switzerland after being wanted by the United States since 1978 on a statutory-rape conviction. He hid in France, avoiding extradition countries, until he was captured. Polanski was freed by Swiss authorities on a legal technicality the following year.

It’s unknown if someone helped Britto reach Brazil.

According to his website, http://www.blessedwarrior.com, he was born in Brazil and moved to Queens, N.Y., when he was 7.

He joined the Boynton Beach police in 2006.

The Police Department still has an open internal investigation into Britto’s escape, but he’s likely to be fired soon, police said Thursday.”

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch 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.

Bookmark and Share