Extradition from Britain

Haroon Rashid Aswat, who was deported from Zambia to Britain on Sunday, August 7, is now the subject of an extradition request from the United States.^[1] He is wanted by the United States for allegedly seeking to set up a training camp for people who would “fight jihad in Afghanistan.”^[2] The allegations against Mr. Aswat are detailed in a U.S. criminal complaint that charges him with providing material support to terrorists.^[3] A British judge has ruled that Mr. Aswat will remain in custody until September 8.^[4]

Extradition from Britain is governed by the terms of the British Extradition Act of 2003 [hereinafter Act], which came into force on January 1, 2004.^[5] Part 1 of the Act, covers seven EU countries, and removes the need for an evidential burden.^[6] Part 2 of the Act, which applies to non-EU countries, keeps the burden, but 42 countries, including the US, have been granted a fast track process by the UK, which allows them to provide "information" rather than "prima facie evidence" a crime has been committed.^[7] Extradition requests from Britain to the United States however, will have to show evidence of “probable cause.”^[8]

The Act incorporates the terms of the new extradition treaty between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. While the treaty is still being debated by the United States Senate for ratification, it has gone into effect for the United Kingdom, under contentious circumstances.^[9] The text of the treaty was not made public until two months after it had been signed, which denied Parliament the ability to debate its provisions.^[10] Furthermore, the UK’s “new extradition scheme has been brought into effect not by the treaty … but rather by a statutory instrument of the UK Parliament, made under the Extradition Act of 2003, which does not require ratification by the US at all.”^[11]

The new Act was ostensibly for the purposes of combating terrorism, but recent U.S. extradition requests have been primarily financial, most famously in the case of the “NatWest Trio.”^[12]

---

[1] See Alan Cowell, Briton Sought on U.S. Terror Charges Appears in London Court, N.Y. Times, Aug. 9, 2005, at A6, also available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Jill Lawless, British Judge Orders Terror Suspect Wanted in U.S. to Remain in Custody Until Sept. 8, Associated Press, Aug. 11, 2005; see also Terror Suspect Remains in Custody, BBC News Online (Aug. 11, 2005), available here.
[5] Sally Louise Ireland, Criminal Law Legislation Update, J. Crim. L. 68(90) (2004).
[6] Bill Wilson, Bankers at Centre of Extradition Test Case, BBC News Online (Sep. 27, 2004), available here.
[7] Id.
[8] Paul Garlick, The Mysterious Case of the New US Extradition Scheme, N. L. J. 154.7128(738) (2004).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] See, Wilson, supra note 6; Jill Treanor, Judge Backs Extradition of NatWest Bankers, Guardian, Oct. 16, 2004, available here; John Bowker, NatWest Three Thrown Legal Lifeline, Scotsman, Jul. 9, 2005, available here.

Extradition to Slovenia

The United States extradited a Slovene man to stand trial in that country for defrauding Slovenians out of millions of dollars during the 1990s.^[1] The man, Davorin Sadar, fled from his Slovenian trial in 2000, and was arrested in Laredo, Texas in October, 2004, after it was discovered that his visa had expired.^[2] On November 8, 2004, Slovenia asked the United States to extradite Mr. Sadar, and began preparing the necessary documents for extradition.^[3]

There is no named extradition treaty between Slovenia and the United States. However, in 1991, following the collapse of Yugoslavia, Slovenia assumed succession of all conventions that were binding to the former Yugoslavia, including the extradition treaty dated October 25, 1901 between the former Yugoslavia and the United States.^[4] Under the terms of the U.S.-Yugoslavia treaty, each country will “deliver up persons who, having been charged with … any of the crimes and offenses specified in the following article, committed within the jurisdiction of one of the high contracting parties, shall … be found with the territories of the other.”^[5] One of the specified crimes is “obtaining money, valuable securities or other property, knowing the same to have been … fraudulently obtained, when such act is made criminal by the laws of both countries and the amount of money … fraudulently obtained or received, is not less than two hundred dollars.”^[6]

Mr. Sadar’s 1998 indictment says that he defrauded 3,000 investors out of a total of $116 million.^[7]

---

[1] U.S. Extradites Slovene Man Wanted on Fraud Charges, Associated Press, Aug. 9, 2005, [hereinafter U.S. Extradites] available here.
[2] Id.
[3] U.S. to Extradite Prisoner From Slovenia, Associated Press, Nov. 9, 2004, also available here.
[4] See Department of State, Judicial Assistance in the Republic of Slovenia, available here.
[5] Extradition Treaty, Oct. 25, 1901, U.S.-Yugo., art. I, 32 Stat. 1890.
[6] Id. art. II, para. 6.
[7] U.S. Extradites, supra note 1.

Sevan Extradition from Cyprus

Following on yesterday’s news that Benon Sevan would likely be facing charges for illegal kickbacks, we noted that Mr. Sevan, as a citizen of, would likely not be extradited because, under the extradition treaty, Cyprus is not obligated to extradite its own citizens.

Reuters is reporting that Cyprus is indeed “unlikely to extradite the Cypriot former head of the U.N. oil-for-food programme.”^[1] According to the article, it is unknown whether Mr. Sevan would willingly return to the United States, and when asked how authorities would respond to an extradition request, a senior Cypriot official stated “There is a constitutional prohibition on extraditing one of our nationals to another jurisdiction.”^[2] Therefore, a Cypriot court could likely cite the constitution to bar the extradition of Mr. Sevan.^[3]

At the moment, while Mr. Sevan was known to be in Cyprus as recently as Saturday, August 6, Cypriot Foreign Minister George Iacovou told Reuters “I am not even aware of him being here.”^[4]

---

[1] Michele Kambas, Cyprus Unlikely to Extradite Oil-for-Food Official, Reuters, Aug. 10, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.

Britain-Pakistan Extradition Treaty

Britain and Pakistan are expected to finalize a new extradition treaty, the negotiations of which had begun several months ago. Pakistan, Britain Close to Inking Extradition Treaty, Reuters, Aug. 8, 2005, also available here. The text of the new, as-yet unsigned, treaty has apparently been agreed to, but once signed, it would take some months for it to come into force. Id.

The new treaty has some prominence in the news recently because of the July 7 London “Tube” attacks, in which it was discovered that three of the four bombers were Britons of Pakistani descent. Id.

The new treaty could potentially have consequences for the United States. The 1931 extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States was made applicable to India, and by extension to Pakistan, under article 14 in 1942. See Extradition Treaty, Dec. 22, 1931, U.S.-U.K., art. 14, 47 Stat. 2122; see also U.S. Dept. of State, Treaties in Force 2004, available here. In 1997, the United States signed an extradition treaty with India. See, Extradition Treaty, Jun. 25, 1997, U.S.-India, TIAS __,1997 U.S.T. LEXIS 97. There is no formal bilateral treaty with Pakistan at the moment, and it remains to be seen what is in the new U.K.-Pakistan treaty, and how the new U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty (S. Treaty No. 108-23), which has not yet been ratified by the Senate, affects the United States’ ability to request extradition of persons from Pakistan.

Benon Sevan

Following up on yesterday’s posts about the Oil-for-Food scandal, the former head of the program, Benon Sevan, could soon face charges after the investigation said that it has found enough evidence of a kickback scheme to support prosecution. Edith M. Lederer et al., Ex-U.N. Program Director May Face Charges, Wash. Post, Aug. 9, 2005, available here. Mr. Sevan has been accused of taking nearly $150,000 in bribes to steer Iraqi oil contract to a firm run by relatives of the former U.N. Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali. Senior Oil-for-Food Aide Took $1m in Bribes, Times Online, Aug. 9, 2005, available here. Mr. Sevan denies any wrongdoing, and has claimed that the money in question came from his aunt in his native Cyprus, and that he declared them on his U.N. tax returns. Id. The investigatory committee rejects the claim, and Mr. Sevan has returned to Cyprus. Id.

It is unclear from where the potential criminal charges against Mr. Sevan could come. According to the Washington Post story, Mr. Sevan is the subject of a New York state criminal investigation. It is quite possible that Mr. Sevan could be charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering, much like his colleague, Alexander Yakovlev.

Furthermore, prosecuting Mr. Sevan could prove difficult because he is currently located in Cyprus. See James Bone et al., From Rags to Riches to Ruined Reputation, Times Online, Aug. 9, 2005, available here. As a Cypriot, he will not necessarily be extradited to the United States. Id. The extradition treaty between Cyprus and the United States states that

• neither country is obligated to extradite its own citizens, but may do so as long as the extradition would not violate its laws and Constitution; and
• if extradition is refused solely on the basis of nationality, then the refusing country is under an obligation, at the behest of the requesting state, to prosecute the individual itself. Extradition Treaty, Jun. 17, 1996, U.S.-Cyprus, art. 3, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-16 (1998) (entered into force, Sept. 14, 1999).