Friday, December 09, 2005

International Extradition Weekly Recap 12-9-05


Click here for video

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 5:33 PM  

Extradition from Liberia—Kermue and Bailey, Continued

, we discussed the very contentious extradition proceedings of Melee Kermue and Wilma Bailey. Stunningly, the proceedings have become even more contentious as violence seems to have broken out at the Criminal Court “A” within the Temple of Justice Building in Monrovia, Liberia.[1]

The violence began when police, acting upon the orders of Liberia’s Solicitor General, T.C. Gould, “entered to court to forcibly carry out an order of arrest.”[2] Mr. Kermue and Ms. Bailey were said to have remained in detention “despite a valid bond filed at the Magisterial Court,” and the two individuals’ lawyers were petitioning the Criminal Court “A” to have the detention order reversed.[3] Judge James Zotaa apparently granted the reversal and ordered the two to be put in custody of the Sheriff, which angered Mr. Gould, who ordered the two to be forcibly arrested by the police.[4] One eyewitness said that Mr. Gould “even ordered the police to beat and disgrace the judge should he put up any resistance.”[5]

The Sheriff and his men “managed to contain the police brutality and get them out of the premises,” but minutes later, “police jumped on the Marshall of the Supreme Court thus preventing him from entering the building.”[6] One person sustained a stab wound and others were “seriously flogged” by the police.[7]

Judge James Zotaa is very angry and said that “he had ordered his clerk to prepare a Writ ordering the [Justice Minister and Solicitor General] to appear” before his court.[8] “T.C. Gould and the Justice Minister will be arrested and brought before this court,” he said. “These kinds of people should not be allowed to obstruct judicial proceedings and go with impunity.”[9]

When asked where Mr. Kermue and Ms. Bailey are now, Justice Minister Kabineh Jan’eh acknowledged that they were not in police custody and that he simply does not know.[10] He also said that he had not yet been served with an arrest warrant.[11]


[1] See Michael Gebeh, , The Inquirer, Dec. 9, 2005; Sidiki Trawally, , FrontPageAfrica, Dec. 9, 2005; , The Analyst, Dec. 9, 2005.
[2] Gebeh, supra note 1.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Trawally, supra note 1.
[8] Gebeh, supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Trawally, supra note 1.
[11] The Analyst, supra note 1.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 4:37 PM  

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Extradition from Liberia—Wilma Bailey and Melee Kermue

Two Liberians wanted in United States for and have been turned over to judicial authorities in Monrovia.[1] According to the US Marshals, Wilma Bailey and Melee Kermue ran a home health care billing company, and submitted bills to Medicaid for services that were never performed.[2] The money they received went toward vehicles and some of it was sent to Liberia.[3] The two are wanted in connection to a very large Medicaid scam that totaled more than US$36 million.[4]

Ms. Bailey (who also goes by the names of Wilma Kpohanu and Wilma Dennis), and Mr. Kermue were arrested in Monrovia on November 10; the arrest was based on a tip-off by the US Marshals.[5] The proceedings have been quite contentious. On Saturday, Mr. Kermue—who was a failed candidate for Liberia’s Senate—and Ms. Bailey were ordered by a Monrovia City Court to be extradited.[6] They were then turned over to the Justice Ministry and remanded at the Monrovia Central Prison.[7] It seems that the two individuals had been issued a writ of habeas corpus by Monrovian Criminal Court Judge James Zotaa, but the Justice Ministry initially “failed to honor the order of the court by not producing the two petitioners in court.”[8] However, the defendants were eventually turned over to judicial authorities.[9]

According to the terms of the extradition between the United States and Liberia, both money laundering and fraud are extraditable offenses.[10] It is unclear whether Ms. Bailey and Mr. Kermue are citizens of Liberia. If they are, Liberia is not bound by the treaty to extradite them to the United States, because Article VIII states that neither country is obligated to extradite its own citizens “except in cases where such citizenship has been obtained after the perpetration of the crime for which extradition is sought.” Nonetheless, the countries are free to do so if they so choose.


[1] Rodney D. Sieh, , FrontPageAfrica, Dec. 8, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] , Associated Press, Dec. 2, 2005.
[5] Sieh, supra note 1.
[6] , The Analyst, Dec. 5, 2005.
[7] Id.
[8] The Analyst, Dec. 7, 2005.
[9] Sieh, supra note 1; , The Analyst, Dec. 8, 2005.
[10] Extradition Treaty, Nov. 1, 1937, U.S.-Liber., art. II, para. 18, 9 Bevans 589.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 2:12 PM  

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Extradition to Malta—Extradition Dismissed

Chilean Navy Lieutenant Hernán Sepúlveda Mery is free to return to Chile.[1] Lt. Sepúlveda Mery was arrested on October 5 after ending a honeymoon at Disney World, based on an request from Malta.[2] Malta requested his extradition because it accuses Lt. Sepúlveda Mery of an attempted murder he allegedly committed during a street fight while on shore leave in 1999.[3] He does not deny that he was in the brawl, which left a Maltese bouncer with a punctured liver, but denies having anything to do with the stabbing of the bouncer.[4]

US authorities dismissed the extradition request based largely on an investigation conducted by the defense team. Victim statements and forensic reports that had been omitted from the evidence supplied by Maltese officials led federal prosecutors to determine that there was not enough evidence to warrant the extradition.[5]

According to the extradition with Malta, attempts to murder are extraditable offenses.[6] However, extradition can take place only if there is sufficient evidence, according to the laws of the requested state, to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial.[7] Furthermore, sufficient evidence for the extradition must be provided within two months from the date of the fugitive’s apprehension.[8] If it is not so provided, then the fugitive must be set at liberty.[9]


[1] See Theresa Bradley, , Miami Herald, Dec. 6, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Extradition Treaty, Dec. 22, 1931, U.S.-Malta, art. 3, para. 1, 12 Bevans 482.
[7] Id. art. 9.
[8] Id. art. 11.
[9] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 8:00 AM  

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

McNabb in the News

Matthew R. McNabb has had his letter to the editor concerning universal jurisdiction published in the November / December Legal Affairs.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 5:33 PM  

Extradition from Italy—Benedetto Cipriani

An Italian citizen wanted for a triple homicide in Connecticut is fighting his extradition to the United States.[1] Benedetto Cipriani, whose extradition seemed to Connecticut prosecutors a done deal, has filed a motion to stay extradition proceedings against him.[2] Earlier this year, Mr. Cipriani’s extradition was ordered by a court in Rome, and an appeal to a higher court failed as that court ruled on September 19 to uphold the lower court’s ruling.[3] At that time, it seemed that Mr. Cipriani had no other legal avenues to pursue. The Italian Justice Ministry must give its final approval to the extradition, and after filing for a stay in the proceedings, it is unclear how long the extradition would be delayed.[4]

Mr. Cipriani was arrested in Italy in April on accusations that he hired three men to kill the husband of a former lover.[5] Just days after three men were found shot to death at a car repair garage, Mr. Cipriani flew to Rome; he claims he has nothing to do with the murder and that he returned to Italy to care for his elderly mother.[6]

from Italy is governed by the extradition between the United States and Italy. According to the treaty, murder is an extraditable offense because it is an offense that is punishable under the laws of both nations by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year.[7] This type of dual criminality provision is becoming more popular than the traditional laundry list of extraditable offenses found in treaties with countries such as , , and the

Article IX of the treaty, however, states that if the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting party (the United States) and the laws of the requested party (Italy) do not provide for punishment for that offense, extradition shall not be granted unless assurances are given to the requested party that the death penalty will not be imposed. Under Italy’s constitution, Italian citizens will not be extradited if they face the death penalty.[8] There seems to be some debate about whether proper assurances have been provided to Italian authorities that American prosecutors will not seek the death penalty.[9]


[1] , Hartford Courant, Dec. 6, 2005 [hereinafter HC].
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Extradition Treaty, Oct. 13, 1983, U.S.-Italy, art. II, para. 1.S. Treaty Doc. No. 98-20 (1984).
[8] HC, supra note 1.
[9] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 7:48 AM  

Monday, December 05, 2005

Extradition from Bahamas—Viktor Kozeny

Bahamas Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell has given his approval for the commencement of proceedings of Viktor Kozeny.[1] In October, Mr. Kozeny was indicted in New York on 27 counts related to attempts to bribe senior government officials in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.[2] When Mr. Kozeny’s indictment was announced in October, it was noted that he had been arrested by Bahamas authorities, and that his co-defendants had voluntarily surrendered to the FBI’s offices in Manhattan.[3]

According to the indictment, Mr. Kozeny controlled two companies which participated in a privatization program in Azerbaijan.[4] Under that program, Azeri citizens could use free government-issued vouchers to bid for shares of state-owned industries that were to be privatized, and these vouchers were intended to be freely traded.[5] Mr. Kozeny, it is alleged, directed others to purchase vouchers and options using millions of dollars of cash that were flown into Azerbaijan on his private jet.[6] It is also alleged that he paid millions of dollars in bribes to Azeri government officials to insure that his investment consortium would gain a controlling interest in “SOCAR,” the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic.[7] Mr. Kozeny is charged with violating the Foreign Practices Act [hereinafter FCPA], and with to commit .

The fascinating thing about Mr. Kozeny’s case is that he is a Czech national and an Irish citizen, wanted in New York for acts committed in Azerbaijan, and facing extradition from the Bahamas. The hook the United States is using to put him on trial is that the companies he controls have shareholders who are by and large American citizens and “domestic concerns”; “[a]s such [Mr.] Kozeny was an agent of ‘domestic concerns’ as that term is defined in the FCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(h)(1)(A).”[8]

Extradition from the Bahamas is governed by the extradition between the US and the Bahamas, signed on March 9, 1990. Under the treaty, an offense is extraditable if it is punishable under the laws in both countries by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year.[9] In terms of offenses committed outside the territory of the requesting state, the treaty states that an offense that is described in the treaty “shall be an extraditable offense whether or not the offense was committed within the territory of the Requesting State.”[10] However, in such circumstances, “extradition shall be granted if the law of the Requested State provides for punishment of an offense committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances.”[11] This is an issue we have seen arise in the case of , who is wanted out of Australia.


[1] , Associated Press, Dec. 3, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] US Attorney’s Office, , Oct. 6, 2005. (PDF)
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] , No. 05 Crim. 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) at 4. (PDF)
[9] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 9, 1990, U.S.- Bah., art. 2, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-17 (1994).
[10] Id. art. 2, para. 4.
[11] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 12:55 PM