Extradition to the Philippines—Michael Ray Aquino

One of the two men who caused a ruckus last week on charges that classified information had been disclosed to certain unnamed Philippines individuals is wanted in the Philippines for his alleged involvement in the murders of two men there.^[1] Michael Ray Aquino, who was indicted last week on charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered agent, is thought to be Leandro Aragoncillo’s middleman in Mr. Aragoncillo’s plot to send classified information to the foes of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the President of the Philippines.^[2] The Philippines would very much like to have Mr. Aquino extradited from the United States to the Philippines to stand trial for the murder of public relations officer Bubby Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito.^[3] Mssrs. Dacer and Corbito were killed in November 2000 after they were abducted in Manila; their charred corpses were recovered in the Philippines province of Cavite.^[4]

The Secretary of Justice in the Philippines, Raul Gonzalez, does not believe that it is likely Mr. Aquino will be extradited any time soon; because Mr. Aquino is facing trial on the espionage charges in the United States, Sec. Gonzalez has said that the Philippines may have to wait until Mr. Aquino, if he is convicted, has served whatever sentence he might be given.^[5]

Sec. Gonzalez could be right in thinking that the US would like to avoid extraditing Mr. Aquino until they have finished prosecuting him. However, under the terms of the extradition treaty, Mr. Aquino could be sent back to the Philippines. The treaty between the Philippines and the United States allows extraditions under a dual-criminality rubric; in other words, if an offense is a crime in both countries, that offense is extraditable.^[6]

In related news, the United States has asked for help from the Philippines in the investigation of Mssrs. Aragoncillo and Aquino.^[7] “[I]nvoking the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty,^[8] [the US] will request the Philippine government to provide evidence relative to the espionage case,” and the chief of the Philippines’ National Bureau of Investigation’s [hereinafter NBI] Interpol Division, Ric Diaz, said that “the NBI had received information that US authorities would make the request in two to three weeks.”^[9] Chief Diaz stated that the NBI could provide documents and investigate who benefited from the stolen FBI information.^[10]

Under the terms of the MLAT, the assistance that can be provided includes taking testimony,^[11] providing documents and other evidence,^[12] locating people,^[13] and executing requests for searches and seizures.^[14]

---

[1] Tetch Torres, DoJ: Chances of Michael Ray Aquino’s Extradition Slim, Daily Inquirer, Oct. 14, 2005, available here.
[2] Id. We have previously discussed Mr. Aragoncillo here.
[3] Torres, supra note 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Extradition Treaty, Nov. 13, 1994, U.S.-Phil., art. 2, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 104-16 (1996).
[7] Jonathan Vicente, US to Ask RP’s Help on Espionage Case, Manila Times, Oct. 15, 2005, available here.
[8] Hereinafter MLAT.
[9] Vicente, supra note 7.
[10] Id.
[11] Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Nov. 13, 1994, U.S.-Phil., art. 1, para. 2, sec. (a), S. Treaty. Doc. No. 104-18 (1996).
[12] Id. art. 1, para. 2, sec. (b).
[13] Id. art. 1, para. 2, sec. (d).
[14] Id. art. 1, para. 2, sec. (f).

Extradition from Japan—9/11 Fraud

Two Japanese individuals, Hidetoshi Cho and Toshiko Yamasaki, are about to be handed over to the United States after a Tokyo High Court judge ruled on September 26 that the Japanese government can legally extradite them to the United States where they are wanted for defrauding US aid organizations in the aftermath of 9/11.^[1] The two individuals are accused of swindling checks worth a total of US$14,500 out of aid organizations including the US Red Cross, even though they suffered no damage during the terrorist attacks.^[2] The two are also accused of conspiring to defraud the US government out of US$1 million in October 2001 by attempting to take out a post-disaster loan, claiming that their business had suffered from the incident; the loan was not approved.^[3]

The two have been detained since July after a request for their extradition was made in June.^[4] On October 3, Justice Minister Chieko Nono issued an order to have the two handed over to the United States.^[5]

According to the extradition treaty between Japan and the United States, fraud is an offense for which extradition can be granted.^[6]

---

[1] Japan to Hand Over Pair to U.S. Over 9/11 Attacks-Linked Fraud, Kyodo News, Oct. 13, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 3, 1978, U.S.-Japan, art. II, para. 1, 31 U.S.T. 892 (incorporating paragraph 16 of the appendix).

Extradition from the Netherlands—Refused

A district court in the Netherlands has refused to extradite a Dutch citizen of Egyptian descent to the United States.^[1] The decision not to send the unnamed individual to the United States to face telecommunications fraud charges was made because of concerns about the suspect’s basic rights.^[2] The individual is suspected of facilitating contacts between al Qaeda operatives, and a preliminary finding in August stated “[t]he risk that the [individual] will be confronted with suspicions of involvement in the al Qaeda network is certainly not imaginary. … This gives sufficient reason to believe that with regard to him, fundamental legal guarantees—such as direct, unlimited and undisturbed contact with a lawyer and timely access to a judge—could be threatened.”^[3]

In response to that finding, the United States sent a diplomatic note to the judge, but the Court, in upholding this finding yesterday, said that it was unspecific and insufficient.^[4] The note, cited in the judgment, said that the United States viewed the request for guarantees as unwarranted and unnecessary: “We note that persons extradited to the United States are accorded, at their trial, the full panoply of rights under United States law, including under the United States [C]onstitution.”^[5] Furthermore, the United States pointed to the rule of specialty in the extradition treaty that requires the Requesting state to try the suspect only for the offenses for which extradition is granted.^[6]

The treatment of Jose Padilla, who we have discussed here, seems to have factored into the Dutch judge’s decision. Furthermore, this decision could be an indication of how the extradition request for Wesam Delaema, who we discussed here, will be decided.

---

[1] Niclas Mika, Dutch Court Blocks Egyptian’s Extradition to US, Reuters, Oct. 12, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. See also Extradition Treaty, Jun. 24, 1980, U.S.-Neth., art. 15, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 97-7 (1983).

McNabb in the News

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb was a guest on BBC Radio 4- File on Four and discussed the opening of the firm's new offices in London and Milano. In that context, Mr. McNabb discussed his role of giving evidence in a London courtroom as an expert witness on US federal criminal law and international extradition. He also discussed the enhancing global position that the US government is taking with regard to federal criminal prosecutions.

Extradition from Ireland—Kidnapping

Representatives of an Irish couple have told the High Court in Ireland that they will “strenuously” fight extradition to the United States.^[1] Timothy and Ethel Blake are accused of kidnapping their nine-year-old grandson Dylan Benwell from his mother who lives in Illinois.^[2] An indictment in Illinois alleges that the Blakes took their grandson back to Ireland in July of 2004 after visiting their daughter Serena Benwell, and her husband, John Benwell, in Winthrop Harbor, Illinois, which is near the Illinois-Wisconsin border.^[3] According to Illinois police investigators, the abduction was well-planned and involved forged documents, disguises, and double airline bookings.^[4] Mrs. Benwell has stated that the Blakes were obsessed with Dylan and that they are emotionally unstable—she only allowed them to visit, she claims, because Mr. Blake told her he was dying of cancer and wanted to make amends.^[5] The Blakes, who cared for Dylan after his natural father died, have countered by saying that Dylan had been abused.^[6]

The extradition treaty between the United States and Ireland states that an offense is extraditable if it is punishable under the laws of both nations for a period of more than one year.^[7] Aggravated kidnapping is a Class X felony in Illinois,^[8] which is punishable by more than a year of imprisonment. Kidnapping is also a crime in Ireland,^[9] which is punishable by more than a year of prison.

---

[1] ‘Child Kidnap’ Couple to Fight US Extradition Request, The Corksman, Oct. 11, 2005, available here. (registration required)
[2] Id.
[3] Roy O’Hanlon, News Briefs: Grandparents Facing Extradition, Irish Echo Online, Oct. 5, 2005, available here.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Extradition Treaty, Jul. 13, 1983, U.S.-Ir., art. II, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 98-19 (1984).
[8] 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/10-2 (2005).
[9] Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, Section 17 (1997).

McNabb in the News

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb was a guest on WWRL's Legally Speaking, where he discussed the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2005. He also compared and contrasted the House and Senate bills that are currently in Conference Committee.

Extradition from Northern Ireland—Counterfeiting

The president of Northern Ireland’s Workers Party has been released on bail by the Belfast County Court in Ireland, pending his potential extradition to the United States on counterfeiting charges.^[1] Sean Garland, who is also an IRA Border Campaign veteran, is wanted in the United States on allegations that since the early 1990s he and others have “engaged in buying, transporting and either passing as genuine or reselling large quantities of high quality counterfeit $100 notes.”^[2] Furthermore, it is alleged that Mr. Garland had arranged for North Korean agencies to purchase “quantities of notes.”^[3]

Mr. Garland was arrested at the end of last month at his party’s annual conference after a warrant for his arrest had been issued on May 19.^[4] The British government opposed the bail application, arguing that there was a “substantial risk” that Mr. Garland would not return to face his extradition, instead opting to flee to the Republic of Ireland.^[5] The Recorder of Belfast, Judge Tom Burgess, however, released Mr. Garland on bail with the requirement that three sureties of £10,000 each were to be lodged with the court and that Mr. Garland was ordered to reside with a friend in Co Down.^[6]

Mr. Garland is something of a large figure in the IRA movement, stealing weapons from the British Army in 1954, surviving a 1957 raid on the Brookeborough police barracks, and surviving an assassination attempt two decades later.^[7]

Extradition from Northern Ireland is handled by the United Kingdom’s very controversial Extradition Act of 2003, which we have discussed here.

---

[1] Henry McDonald, IRA Veteran Bailed over US Counterfeiting Charge, The Observer, Oct. 9, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.