“US Revokes Extradition Request for Bulgarian Mother-of-Two”

July 23, 2013

novinite.com on July 23, 2013 released the following:

“The US has revoked its request for the extradition of Gergana Chervenkova, a Bulgarian mother of two, who was charged in a US court with illegal online drug sales and participating in a crime group specialized in money laundering.

“The United States has withdrawn its request for the extradition of Ms. Gergana Ilieva Pavlova Chervenkova, who is charged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York with federal narcotics and fraud offenses,” the US Embassy in Bulgaria said in a statement.

“The request was withdrawn in part because of new information obtained by the prosecution, and not because of any deficiency in the request under the terms of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Bulgaria. When a request is withdrawn, the Extradition Treaty permits the submission of a new request for an individual’s extradition,” the statement says.

The statement came four days after the Sofia Appellate Court yet again postponed its conclusive ruling on the extradition request, according to reports of mediapool.bg.

Gergana Chervenkova faced the prospect of being extradited to the US on charges of participating in a group involved in unauthorized online drug trade in her capacity of financial manager for the British company “Euromedonline Ltd.”

She faced a penalty of 68 years of imprisonment for the offenses.

The US authorities sent statements indicating that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents had solid evidence that the Bulgarian had been involved in illegal drug sales.

Chervenkova worked at “BG Global Services”, a company servicing British firm “Euromedonline Ltd.”

Her job was to process weekly reports from the sales system and to calculate the accumulated fees and commissions for doctors and pharmacies based on sales realized through the site. Cherevenkova’s responsibilities did not involve selling drugs.

While waiting for the court ruling on the extradition request, she spent several months in custody, until she was released by the Sofia Appellate Court on a bail of BGN 1000 on July 2.”

————————————————————–

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 Bulgaria 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 rejects Russia’s extradition request for jailed businessman Bout”

November 10, 2012

RT on November 10, 2012 released the following updated story:

“The US Justice Department has turned down Russia’s request to extradite businessman Viktor Bout, currently serving a 25-year prison term. Moscow condemned the decision, saying it will continue to advocate for Bout.

The US Justice Department refused the extradition request over the seriousness of the crimes with which he was charged, among other reasons, Bout’s lawyer Albert Dayan said.

“We have received an official response from the Justice Department,” Dayan told Itar-Tass news agency. “The denial to grant the request is explained by the fact the prisoner has a pending appeal, by the seriousness of the crime, by objections from the law enforcement authorities, and also by the fact that his criminal past renders such request impossible.”

According to Dayan, the request for extradition to Russia may be filed again in two years.

“Our only hope right now is the appeal,” said Dayan, adding that Bout was “jailed for political reasons, and hasn’t committed any crimes.”

Bout maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, and said the trial had been unfair after it ended.

The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US Justice Department’s decision. Konstantin Dolgov, Foreign Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law said that Russia will continue advocating for the businessman’s, who has not committed any crimes against the US or American citizens.

Bout was arrested in Thailand in 2008 on the request of the United States.

In November 2011, the former Soviet officer and founder of an air cargo company, was convicted by a New York federal court of “conspiracy to kill Americans and US officials,” and of supplying arms to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), which the US government lists as a terrorist organization.

In April 2012, a US judge sentenced the Russian businessman to 25 years in jail, five years of supervised release, and a $15 million fine. Bout was charged with conspiracy to acquire and export surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. US prosecutors sought a life sentence for conspiracy to murder US citizens, but the judge found the charges unfounded.

Viktor Bout was later transferred to serve his sentence to a maximum security prison in Colorado dubbed the ‘Alcatraz of the Rockies.’ The move elicited condemnation from Moscow, who expressed concern for Bout’s health and called the move a selective punishment that violated his human rights.”

————————————————————–

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:


West Michigan man fights extradition to Mexico in alleged 2001 killing of wife, unborn child

April 17, 2012

MLive.com on April 17, 2012 released the following:

“By John Agar

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A West Michigan man suspected in the 2001 killing of his pregnant wife is fighting extradition to Mexico where the government wants him tried for murder.

Jose Luis Castillo, a U.S. citizen born in Texas, is accused of killing and beheading his wife, Maria Elena Mata Hernandez, and stuffing her body into a suitcase.

He has a hearing this week in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids.

As part of a treaty with Mexico, U.S. prosecutors in Grand Rapids have asked Magistrate Judge Hugh Brenneman Jr. to find the complaint sufficient, and forward the extradition request to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for a final decision.

Defense attorney Donald Garthe said his client, who is serving eight to 15 years in prison for third-degree sexual assault in Berrien County, is fighting the extradition complaint. He noted that the complaint names “Jose Luis Castillo” as the suspect, while his client’s name is Raul Luis Castillo Jr.

Raul Castillo is on his birth certificate and state prison records. The government says he uses both names.

Regardless, Garthe said Monday: “He denies he killed his wife.”

He said that testimony of witnesses is not credible, and that there is no evidence from the crime scene linking his client to the killing. Garthe said witnesses only identified his client as the suspect after being told by authorities, 10 years after the killing, “that the murderer’s name was Raul Castillo.”

In the request for extradition, prosecutors said that a diplomatic note sent to the U.S. detailed the woman’s late May 2001 killing in the municipality of Soledad de Graciano, San Luis Potosi.

The government said Castillo strangled and suffocated her, which led to the death of her unborn child. He then allegedly abducted the daughter he had with his wife, referred to as Mata in court documents, and left for the U.S.

Under Mexican law, because he did not have legal custody of the child, he was accused of kidnapping her.
The couple were married in 1999 and moved to Michigan, her family told authorities.

They then left for Mexico because he was wanted in the U.S. for abducting a son from a previous relationship, records said.

The couple had a daughter, but the mother did not register her birth in Castillo’s name because he was wanted in the U.S.

He admitted to others that he killed her “as revenge for denouncing him to the authorities …,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Daniels wrote in court documents.

In early June 2001, the woman’s body was discovered inside a suitcase in an apartment after a witness reported an unbearable odor. The body, bound with plastic rope, had multiple injuries. Police found a bloody machete.

Witnesses said Castillo was last seen headed for Nuevo Laredo, which borders the U.S.

Castillo is believed to have spent time in the Benton Harbor area. Last year, he was sentenced to state prison for sexual assault.

Federal authorities took custody in February while Castillo was held at Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon. Authorities were concerned that if Castillo had been acquitted of sexual assaultl, he would flee. Federal prosecutors last year filed paperwork, recently unsealed, seeking custody.

Daniels said a hearing on Thursday would establish probable cause. In court documents, he discounted Castillo’s denials.

“Although the defendant was the last person seen with Maria and fled with (their daughter) Jennifer immediately after the murder, and the body was found in a suitcase belonging to him, and the severed head was found in a plastic bag given to him, both in the apartment he had rented, alongside the “Tommy” jeans that he wore, he now contends that there is insufficient evidence to link him to the brutal murder of his wife and unborn child.””

————————————————————–

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

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico here.

————————————————————–

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

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

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


Namibia: Alexander Attacks Root of Extradition Request

April 12, 2012

AllAfrica.com on April 12, 2012 released the following:

“BY WERNER MENGES

ISRAELI-BORN businessman Jacob ‘Kobi’ Alexander took his fight against a request for his extradition to the United States of America right to the heart of the matter in the High Court in Windhoek yesterday.

The specification of the United States as a country to which people can be extradited from Namibia is unconstitutional and should in any event not apply to Alexander, the leader of Alexander’s legal team, South African senior counsel Peter Hodes, argued during a hearing before Judge Kato van Niekerk.

If Alexander and his legal team succeed with their attack on the specification of the US in terms of the Extradition Act it could be the end of the extradition request which led to his arrest in Windhoek about five and a half years ago.

Alexander (59), who is free on bail of N$10 million, is wanted in the US on 35 criminal charges connected to allegations that he had committed fraud with the receipt of options to obtain shares in Comverse Technology Inc, a New York-based company that he had helped found in 1982 and ran until early in 2006.

He and his family have been living in Namibia since late July 2006. They previously lived in New York City.

The US authorities are alleging that Alexander became a fugitive from American justice in July 2006.

The proclamation through which the US was specified as a country to which the extradition of people from Namibia may be affected was signed by President Hifikepunye Pohamba on August 31 2006.

The proclamation was published in the Government Gazette on September 27 2006. Alexander was arrested in Windhoek on the same date.

All of the alleged acts over which the US authorities want Alexander to be extradited date from the period between January 1998 and March 2006.

Alexander is opposing the extradition request. He is denying that he is guilty of the charges filed against him in the US, and has stated that if he is ever extradited, he would “vigorously contest” those charges.

In the case in which Judge Van Niekerk started hearing arguments yesterday Alexander is asking the court to declare that the proclamation specifying the US as a country to which people can be extradited from Namibia is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it applies to any request for Alexander’s extradition to the US.

In the alternative to that part of his application Alexander is asking the court to review and set aside the President’s decision to issue the proclamation.

He is also asking the court to declare that the proclamation does not give the US the status of a country to which persons can be extradited from Namibia.

He is further asking the court to review and set aside the decision of the Minister of Justice, Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana, to authorise Windhoek Regional Court Magistrate Dinnah Usiku to conduct the extradition enquiry in respect of the request for Alexander’s surrender to the US authorities.

Hodes argued that the proclamation was issued in order to result in the arrest of Alexander and to set in motion extradition proceedings against him – all of which resulted in a limitation of his constitutional rights.

He pointed out that in a letter which Iivula-Ithana – at that stage holding office as both Minister of Justice and Attorney General – wrote to the President on August 21 2006 she stated that the US would in due course be asking Namibia to surrender a fugitive who was wanted in the US, and that the US should for that reason be specified as a country for extradition in terms of the Extradition Act.

That letter indicated that the proclamation was aimed at Alexander – and for that reason, the proclamation is unconstitutional, Hodes argued.

He based this argument on an article of the Constitution which states that any law limiting any fundamental rights or freedoms protected by the Constitution must be of general application and “shall not be aimed at a particular individual”.

“Here it is aimed at a specific individual. That makes the proclamation unconstitutional,” Hodes said.

Senior counsel Wim Trengove, representing the President, Justice Minister and Prosecutor General, readily agreed that Alexander’s case had been the trigger for the proclamation. That does not make the proclamation unconstitutional, though, he argued.

The proclamation is not intended to operate only in relation to Alexander, and not for all similar extradition matters involving the US in future, Trengove argued.

Alexander’s situation brought to the fore the need to specify the US as a country in terms of the Extradition Act, Trengove said. “That is how legislation happens,” he remarked.

The interpretation which Alexander’s legal team has attached to the proclamation is fundamentally flawed, he argued.

The hearing of arguments is scheduled to continue today.”

————————————————————–

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.


Extradition Treaty Law and Procedure – Part 4

July 5, 2011

Filing of Complaint for Apprehension (Request for Extradition)

Typically, there exist two means by which requesting countries apply for extradition of individuals from the United States. Usually a representative of the requesting country, through diplomatic channels, makes a request for extradition directly to the United States Department of State. However, a representative of the requesting country may make a request for extradition by filing such request in federal or state court in whose jurisdiction the individual is found. The direct filing of an application for extradition by a foreign country in state or federal court is rare but permissible under federal law.

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

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

Bookmark and Share