Extradition from Britain—Fraud

Two suspects who are on the FBI’s most-wanted list for a US$29 million fraud case, and who were arrested in Shropshire, England, in November, will be extradited to the United States.^[1] Howard Welsh, a British citizen, and Lee Hope Thrasher, an American citizen, are wanted for allegedly running a religious charity fraud, and the men’s solicitors confirmed that the British Government will extradite them.^[2] Earlier this year, their case was sent to Home Secretary Charles Clarke after the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court determined there were grounds for extradition.^[3]

The extradition from the UK will be conducted under the auspices of the very controversial Extradition Act of 2003. We have previously discussed the controversies surrounding the legislation here.

---

[1] FBI-hunt Pair Will Be Extradited, Shropshire Star, Oct. 20, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.

McNabb on the Radio

Senior Principle Douglas McNabb is scheduled to be a guest on New York City's WWRL (1600 AM) today at 6:00 PM EST.

Extradition to Spain—US Soldiers

A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three US soldiers.^[1] The three solders, Sgt. Thomas Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford, and Lt. Col. Philip D. Camp, are wanted in Spain for their alleged participation in the death of a Spanish television cameraman in Baghdad.^[2] The warrant, which charges the three men with murder and “a crime against the international community,” was issued by National Court Investigating Magistrate Santiago Pedraz, and extradition of the three individuals will be sought; the warrant also notes that the US provided “no judicial cooperation” in trying to resolve the death of Jose Couso.^[3]

Getting the US to accede to an extradition of this sort will be enormously difficult for Spain, as the lawyer for the Cousu family acknowledges.^[4] In the first place, according to the second supplementary extradition treaty, neither country is compelled to extradite its own citizens,^[5] though the United States often does.^[6] Furthermore, according to the text of the original treaty, extradition “shall not be granted” if the offense is purely military in nature.^[7] It is not clear whether the offense is purely military in nature or not.

Finally, the US has signaled its hesitance to subject its soldiers to the jurisdiction of a foreign court. In objecting to the United States joining the International Criminal Court [hereinafter ICC], the Pentagon gave a background briefing on July 2, 2002, in which it said,

“Our principal objections to the ICC treaty are that it subjects U.S. nationals -- in particular, the risk is great for our armed forces -- to prosecution by prosecutors and in a court that are not accountable to any kind of authority that we could hold accountable as a country. … [N]obody in our Congress would have a voice in the definition of those crimes, and yet Americans could be prosecuted criminally for violating these purported crimes. … Americans would not be entitled to all of the protections that our Constitution affords to Americans in criminal prosecutions.”^[8]

At the heart of the objection is the fear that American soldiers would be prosecuted for crimes committed during war. The US has also secured agreements from a number of countries that US soldiers would not be extradited to the ICC.^[9]

---

[1] Al Goodman, Spain Issues Warrant for 3 U.S. Soldiers, CNN.com, Oct. 19, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Second Supplementary Extradition Treaty, Feb. 9, 1988, U.S.-Spain, art. 3, S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-24 (1993).
[6] See, e.g., our post on Suwit Prasoprat, here.
[7] Extradition Treaty, May 29, 19709, U.S.-Spain, art. V, para. A, sec. 5, 22 U.S.T. 737 (amended by Third Supplementary Extradition Treaty, Mar. 12, 1996, art. 2, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-15 (1999) (renumbering article V, paragraph A, section 5 to article V, paragraph A, section 4) available here).
[8] Senior Defense Official, Background Briefing on the International Criminal Court, Jul. 2., 2002, available here.
[9] See, e.g., our post on the matter, here.

Extradition from Mexico—Edgar Acevedo

Last week, Mexican authorities in Cabo San Lucas arrested Edgar “Richie” Acevedo, who is wanted in Dallas in connection with the January kidnapping and killing of Dallas restaurateur Oscar Sanchez.^[1] Dallas County prosecutor Fred Burns noted that the extradition process will likely be a protracted affair because, under the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico, extradition requests must go through diplomatic channels.^[2]

According to Mr. Burns, the paperwork involved in the case includes witness affidavits and Mr. Acevedo’s indictment.^[3] The file that the Dallas County prosecutor creates will then be sent to the US Department of Justice and then forwarded to the US Embassy and Mexican authorities.^[4] The file will also need to be translated into Spanish.^[5] As Mr. Burns said, he has “a 60-day window from the day of his arrest to finish all the paperwork. … The clock is ticking.”^[6]

While kidnapping and murder are both extraditable offenses under the treaty,^[7] the death penalty will not be sought because Mexico does not extradite prisoners who could face a death sentence.^[8] In most cases, Mexico does not even extradite if life in prison is sought, a factor which we have discussed here.

---

[1] Holly Yan et al, Paperwork Prolongs Suspect’s Extradition, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 18, 2005, available here (registration required).
[2] Extradition Treaty, May 4, 1978, U.S.-Mex., art. 10, para. 1, 31 U.S.T. 5059.
[3] Yan, supra note 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See Treaty, appx. paras. 4 and 1 respectively.
[8] See Yan; Treaty, art. 8.

Extradition from Ireland—Difficulties

Last week, we mentioned that an Irish couple is wanted in the United States to face charges that they kidnapped their nine-year-old grandson. However, the US finds it very difficult to obtain suspects from that country.

For example, Sean Garland, who we discussed here, is wanted in the United States to face counterfeiting charges. While the US knew that Mr. Garland was in Ireland, it made no extradition request to the Republic of Ireland, instead waiting until Mr. Garland crossed the border into Northern Ireland to attend the annual “ard fheis” of the Workers’ party in Belfast because the “republic’s reputation on extradition warrants is so bad.”^[1] “’Ireland just doesn’t extradite,’ said an American state department official. ‘You would figure that with so much understanding between the two countries it wouldn’t be such a problem, but it is.’”^[2]

In 20 years, there have been only two successful extradition requests from the US, but a spokesman from Ireland’s Department of Justice said “’the reasons for this vary. … In one case there were problems with the extradition documentation, in two cases the courts refused the applications, in one case the attorney general advised extradition was not possible and another requests was withdrawn.’”^[3] Furthermore, two suspects fled Ireland; at this time, five requests are still being processed, including, presumably, the alleged kidnappers.^[4]

In one case between the United Kingdom and Ireland, a suspect wanted in England to stand trial for her alleged role in five IRA bombings, Evelyn Glenholmes, was allowed to walk free because the British arrest warrant spelled her name without an “s.”^[5]

The last successful extradition request from the United States came in 1999.^[6]

---

[1] Enda Leahy, Ireland Under Fire Over Extradition, Sunday Times, Oct. 16, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.