Friday, January 13, 2006

International Extradition Weekly Recap 1-13-06


Click here for video

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 5:05 PM  

Extradition to the United States from Where?—Joyce Britton

A disbarred Chicago lawyer has been indicted in a Federal District Court in Chicago.[1] She is accused of overbilling state child-welfare officials, more than US$640,000 in federal taxes, and US$2.6 million in assets to a Swiss bank account.[2] She has been indicted on two counts of tax evasion and four counts of failing to file tax returns.[3]

The only problem? Joyce Britton “is a fugitive believed to be living out of the country, [and] federal investigators are pursuing leads and hope to find and extradite [her].”[4] She may have “fled to Paris or elsewhere overseas” and her former attorney has not “heard from her in quite some time.”[5]

The indictment of Ms. Britton is the first step in obtaining her from whatever country in which she may be found. Under of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court will issue a warrant for each defendant named in the indictment. It must contain the defendant’s name, the offense charged in the indictment, command that the defendant be arrested, and be signed by the court clerk.[6] That warrant is then forwarded to , who may issue a to its member nations. The Red Notice, as we mentioned , is not an international arrest warrant, but a “wanted” notice to member nations that another member nation has a warrant out for that individual. However, many of Interpol’s member countries consider a Red Notice as a valid request for a provisional arrest, which allows a judicial authority to detain the person for extradition purposes.[7]

For example, if Ms. Britton is located in Argentina, the United States may request her provisional arrest through the normal diplomatic channels or directly from the US DOJ and the Ministry of Foreign Relations in Argentina.[8] The application must contain a description of the person, the location of the person, a brief statement of the facts of the case, a citation to the relevant law, an explanation of the reasons for the urgency of the request, and a statement that a formal request for extradition will be presented.[9] The requesting state will then, upon approval of the provisional arrest, have 60 days to make its formal request for extradition.


[1] Michael Higgins, , Chicago Tribune, Jan. 13, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Abdon M. Pallasch, , Chicago Sun Times, Jan. 13, 2006.
[6] Rule 9(b)(1) (incorporating by reference ).
[7] See McNabb Associates, , internationalextradition.com, last visited Jan. 13, 2006.
[8] Extradition Treaty, Jun. 10, 1997, U.S.-Arg., art. 11, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-18 (2000).
[9] Id. art. 11, para. 2.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 2:08 PM  

Extradition from Liberia to the United States—Denied

Wilma Bailey and Melee Kermue will not be to the United States any time soon.[1] we mentioned that their last argument against extradition was a claim that the extradition treaty between the United States and Liberia was no longer in effect. Judge Zotaa seemed to agree, ruling that the Treaty expired in 1944, five years after it came into force. According to Judge Zotaa, “all contracts and treaties have a definite period for termination,” and he said there was no evidence “that after the five years duration of the Treaty, any of the contracting parties gave notice to renew said document.”[2]

This is, with all due respect, a misreading of Article XIII of the which says that the treaty remains in force for five years, “and in case neither of the High Contracting Parties shall have given notice one year before the expiration of that period of its intention to terminate the Treaty, it shall continue in force until the expiration of one year from the date on which such notice of termination shall be given by either of the High Contracting Parties.”[3]

Judge Zotaa also based his decision on the much more defensible ground that Article VIII of the treaty states that “neither of the High Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens, except in cases where such citizenship has been obtained after the perpetration of the crime for which extradition is sought.[4] This was a possibility we mentioned back on .

The Liberian government took exception to Judge Zotaa’s ruling and has appealed to that country’s Supreme Court.[5]


[1] , Liberian Observer, Jan. 13, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] Extradition Treaty, Nov. 1, 1937, U.S.-Liber., art. XIII, 9 Bevans 589 (emphasis added).
[4] Id. art. VIII. See also Liberian Observer, supra note 1.
[5] Liberian Observer, supra note 1.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 1:55 PM  

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Subversion of Normal Legal Processes—Tongsun Park

By now, most people are probably aware that Tongsun Park has been indicted in New York to face charges related to the scandal surrounding the UN’s Oil-for-Food Program.[1] What has been a mystery, and generally remains so, is how Mr. Park was brought from Mexico to Houston. He was originally indicted in April with accepting millions of dollars from the Iraqi government and with acting as an unregistered foreign agent, but he failed to respond to a U.S. warrant on those charges.[2] Mr. Park now faces new charges of , to act as an unregistered foreign agent, and .[3] The April charges—contained in a criminal complaint against Mr. Park, who was out of the country—were not grounds for extradition, so in December, “the government filed a conspiracy charge under seal in New York and issued a warrant for his arrest through , meaning foreign immigration and law enforcement officials were on the lookout for him.”[4] We discuss Interpol in some greater depth on our international crimes .

As Mr. Park was denied bond yesterday, and transferred from Houston to New York,[5] there are perhaps some answers. It seems that Mr. Park was stopped by Mexican immigration authorities last Friday as he was traveling from Canada to Panama.[6] What happened after that is not clear. According to the Houston Chronicle, “FBI agents stationed in Mexico City then escorted him onto a Continental Airlines flight to Houston, where he was taken into custody.”[7] According to the New York Times, however, “Christine Monaco, an F.B.I. spokeswoman in New York, [initially] said the agents had made the arrest in Houston, but denied they had any role in apprehending him in Mexico.”[8] However, a subsequent Times article states, “Mexican immigration officials apprehended him at Mexico City’s airport on the basis of an Interpol notice.”[9] The officials then put him on a commercial flight to Houston, accompanied by F.B.I. agents.[10] This is supported in the Chronicle, which noted that Mr. Park “was not aware of the new charge, so he was surprised when Mexican immigration officials detained him as he went through Mexico City on his way to Panama on Friday.”[11] He waited some time in a room at the Mexico City airport, and then was escorted onto a plane to Houston, on which he was accompanied by some men that he did not know; a “New York FBI official said Wednesday that agents from the FBI’s Mexico City office accompanied him.”[12]

Thus, it seems that the FBI had some role in the apprehension and removal of Mr. Park from Mexico, though Reuters reports that FBI agent Robert Midcap “said Mexican agents then flew with Park on a Continental Airlines flight to Houston, where U.S. authorities arrested him.”[13] Asked whether it was a Mexican or American decision to, as Reuters put it, “deport” Mr. Park, Mr. Midcap replied “[i]t was the Mexican government that expelled him. … That was the government’s decision, the Mexican government’s decision.”[14]

And that is the crux of the problem with this case. In some ways it doesn’t entirely matter whether the men accompanying Mr. Park were FBI agents or Mexican agents. What matters is that Mr. Park was, as Mr. Midcap said, “expelled.” This was the second time in as many days that Mexico sent someone to the United States from Mexico without following the normal legal processes of either extradition or deportation. Last , we mentioned Arthur March, who was going through extradition proceedings when he suddenly was arrested in front of his favorite donut shop in Mexico and transferred to FBI custody in Guadalajara, Mexico, where he was then sent to Houston. The details of that activity are unknown.

The fact that Mr. Park faced no deportation hearing, nor an extradition hearing, is extremely troubling. The fact that at least two people in one week have been expelled from Mexico without going through the normal legal processes is doubly troubling. Normally, an individual picked up on an Interpol notice would face a deportation or extradition hearing. It seems, however, that Mexico has found it expedient to simply place the person on a plane without bothering with its legal system. This does not bode well for the rights of individuals.


[1] See, e.g., Larry Neumeister, l, Associated Press (via Wash. Post), Jan. 6, 2006.
[2] , Associated Press (via Wash. Post), Jan. 11, 2006.
[3] Id.
[4] Tom Fowler, , Houston Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2006.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Simon Romero, et al., , NY Times, Jan. 10, 2006.
[9] Simon Romero, , NY Times, Jan. 11, 2006.
[10] Id.
[11] Fowler, supra note 4.
[12] Id.
[13] , Reuters, Jan. 11, 2006.
[14] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 3:55 PM  

Extradition from Liberia to the United States—Wilma Bailey and Melee Kermue Continued

The bizarrely interesting case involving Wilma Bailey and Melee Kermue in Liberia is apparently expected to have a decision made in it shortly.[1] According to Monrovia’s The Analyst, Criminal Court “A” Judge James Zotaa will make his decision to either have the defendants extradited to face and charges in the US, or “set them free for lack of substantial legal justification” to have them extradited.[2]

Their case has been one of the more contentious cases we have ever seen. When we discussed Ms. Bailey and Mr. Kermue, we noted that there was a controversy about admitting into evidence photocopies of the extradition request because the originals had been lost. Judge Zotaa ultimately agreed to enter the evidence.[3] A few weeks before that, we that violence had erupted at the Temple of Justice Building, resulting in the temporary disappearance of Ms. Bailey and Mr. Kermue, as well as Judge Zotaa calling for the arrest of Liberia’s Justice Minister and Solicitor General. Before , there was controversy about whether a writ of habeas corpus had been honored.

In perhaps the final chapter of this saga, the defendants have, according to The Analyst declined to “present evidence in the case on grounds that there exists [no] extradition treaty between the Liberian Government and that of the United States.”[4] They acknowledged that there was an extradition between the governments signed in 1937, but that “the life span of the treaty elapsed five years after the treaty came into force.”[5]

Citing Article XIII of the treaty, which states that the treaty remains in force for 5 years after its signing, but upon notice of termination by one of the contracting parties, the treaty would be “trashed” one year after that notice is given.[6] This is an accurate representation of what is said in Article XIII,[7] but they apparently provided no evidence that either country ever requested the termination of the treaty, a point that the government made at the final hearing.[8] The US State Department, too, seems to believe the treaty is still in force, listing it in its “ compilation.[9]


[1] , The Analyst, Jan. 11, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] , The Analyst, Jan. 5, 2006.
[4] The Analyst, supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See Extradition Treaty, Nov. 1, 1937, U.S.-Lib., art. XIII, 54 Stat. 1733, 9 Bevans 589.
[8] The Analyst, supra note 1.
[9] See US Dept. of State, Treaties in Force 2005 188 (6 of 10), Jan. 1, 2005.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 3:23 PM  

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Extradition from Australia to Croatia—Captain Dragan

Croatia is expected to formally request the of a Serb commander, Dragan Vasiljkovic, who has been charged with committed during Croatia’s 1991-1995 independence war.[1] Mr. Vasiljkovic, who is also known as Captain Dragan, has dual Australian and Serbian citizenship and currently works in Perth as a golf teacher.[2] He is accused of “torturing and killing Croat soldiers and civilians on the rebel Serb-held territories when he commanded a Serb paramilitary unit.”[3]

Mr. Vasiljkovic has been quite visible in the media lately, saying things such as agreeing to return to Croatia only “as the commander of a tank brigade,” and that the Croatian government was “fascist.”[4] He also has declared “war” on Croatian Justice Minister Vesna Skare Ozbolt, calling her a “housewhore” and a “promiscuous bitch.”[5]

Extradition from Australia to Croatia is governed by three international instruments. The first is the extradition between the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia, signed on December 6, 1900.[6] That treaty was also applicable to Australia. On September 3, 1996, in “accordance with notes exchanged between Australia and Croatia,” the treaty would continue in force between Australia and Croatia.[7] Furthermore, in 2004, Croatia was declared by Australia to be an extradition country.[8]

According to the treaty, extradition is possible for the following offences: murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, and indecent assault.[9] Under the terms of this treaty, either government “may, in its absolute discretion, refuse to deliver up its own subjects.”[10] This means that Australia could, if this were the only applicable treaty, refuse to extradite Mr. Vasiljkovic.

However, under two other international agreements, the Geneva Conventions and the Principles of International Co-Operation In The Detection, Arrest, Extradition And Punishment Of Persons Guilty Of War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity [hereinafter Principles], Australia could be seen to have a duty to either extradite Mr. Vasiljkovic or prosecute him itself.

Under Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (relating to the protection of civilians during a time of war), the parties to the Convention “shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.”[11] Even then, however, there is no duty on Australia to extradite the suspect.

The duty might be found in article 5 of the Principles, which states “Persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity shall be subject to trial and, if found guilty, to punishment, as a general rule in the countries in which they committed those crimes. In that connection, States shall co-operate on questions of extraditing such persons.”[12] There is, however some question whether the Principles are binding on UN member nations, especially since they are contained in a General Assembly resolution; the General Assembly only has the power to discuss matters and to make recommendations.


[1] , Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 12, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Natasha Robinson, , Jan. 11, 2006.
[6] Extradition Treaty, Dec. 6, 1900, Austl.-Yugo., Austl. T.S. No. 123.
[7] , FRLI Number: 2003B00279 (2003).
[8] See , Statutory Rules 2004 No. 339.
[9] Treaty, supra note 6, art. II.
[10] Id. art. III.
[11] , Aug. 12, 1949, art. 146, 6 U.S.T. 3516.
[12] , G.A. Res. 3074 , U.N. GAOR, 28th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/9326, A/L.711/Rev/1(1973). (PDF)

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 4:05 PM  

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Extradition from Britain to the United States—Ian Norris

Ian Norris, the former CEO of Morgan Crucible, is preparing to begin his High Court appeal against his ordered from Britain to the United States.[1] Mr. Norris is facing seven counts of of industrial carbon products in the US between 1989 and 1998, as well as two charges of obstruction of justice.[2] His hearing begins on Thursday, and two days will be spent appealing against the original decision in June to extradite him, and the next two days will be spent appealing against Home Secretary Clarke’s decision in October to uphold the court’s decision.[3]

Mr. Norris’s case took on new importance when Sir Digby Jones excoriated the UK about the ease with which the United States can secure extradition: “This is totally unacceptable,” he said. “It might be acceptable for the bloke who wraps Semtex around his body but not for a 62-year-old executive with prostate cancer. The process of justice is being abused. America is being an ignorant bully.”[4]

One aspect that makes Mr. Norris’s extradition case so compelling is that Britain did not have a specific price-fixing statute until 2002,[5] which was well after the time period that Mr. Norris is accused of doing the alleged act. Under the dual-criminality component of the existing extradition between the US and the UK, an offense is extraditable if it is a crime in both countries punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.[6] However, both the British district judge and the Home Office felt that the alleged conduct “equates to the offence of conspiracy to defraud,” which both countries have criminalized.[7]

British District Judge Nicholas Evans, when he made his decision to approve extradition said that it would not be “unjust or oppressive” to send Mr. Norris to the US, and said that “if convicted and sent to prison … all Mr. Norris’s medical needs will be met.”[8]

We last mentioned Mr. Norris a couple of weeks in connection with stepped-up efforts by the EU to target price-fixing.


[1] Christopher Hope, Telegraph, Jan. 10, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id. See also our post on Alexandr Temerko, .
[5] Christopher Hope, , Telegraph, Oct. 1, 2005; see also Christopher Hope, , Telegraph, May 12, 2005.
[6] See Extradition Treaty, Jun. 8, 1972, U.S.-U.K., art. III, para.1(a), 28 U.S.T 227.
[7] Hope, supra note 5.
[8] Christopher Hope, , Telegraph, Jun. 2, 2005.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 5:25 PM  

Monday, January 09, 2006

Extradition from Trinidad and Tobago to the United States—Ramesh Doon

Ramesh Doon is expected to have his hearing begin on January 18.[1] Mr. Doon is wanted in the United States for a US$200 million cocaine bust.[2] He and four other people were arrested at a warehouse in Trinidad & Tobago on January 22, 2001, while allegedly preparing cocaine amounting to 899.2 kilograms for shipment in packages of frozen cassava.[3] Prior to that arrest, 275 kilograms of cocaine had been seized in the US and was connected to the trafficking scheme involving Mr. Doon, Ronald Rackal (who has been convicted in the US and sentenced to 21 years in prison), Jitram Sookdeo, Hafeez Mohammed (who also has been sentenced in the US to 11 years in prison), and Indaryartee Dwarika (who has been sentenced in the US to 3 years in prison).[4] Mr. Sookdeo has disappeared and a warrant is out for his re-arrest.[5]

This is apparently the second time Mr. Doon is facing extradition; last year, the US “discontinued its pursuit of him.”[6] In July, a Trinidad & Tobago prosecutor, George Busby, noted that Mr. Doon’s extradition request had been withdrawn “because of a problem with the documents relating to his matter,” but also cautioned that “fresh proceedings may be brought against him once the correct documents were forwarded” by the United States.[7]

The international extradition between the United States and Trinidad & Tobago is an interesting “dual-criminality” treaty. According to the Letter of Submittal by President Bill Clinton, the treaty “defines an extraditable offense as one punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year.”[8]

However, the text of the treaty suggests it is a little more complicated than that. While most dual-criminality treaties say something to the effect that an offense is extraditable “if it is punishable under the laws in both Parties by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty.”[9] The treaty between the US and Trinidad & Tobago however, is a little different. It states that an offense is extraditable “if, under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago, it is an indictable offense and if, under the laws of the United States, it is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty.”[10] While it remains true that extradition from the United States is based on the deprivation of liberty for more than one year standard, it seems that extradition to the United States is easier to be obtained because the offense merely needs to be indictable. This sort of unbalanced extradition requirement is also seen in the new United States-United Kingdom extradition which has yet to be ratified by the US Senate, where the UK must provide probable cause while the US must only provide information about a crime to secure extradition.


[1] Hayden Mills, , Trinidad & Tobago Express, Jan. 7, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Darren Bahaw, , Trinidad & Tobago Express, Jul. 1, 2005.
[8] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 4, 1996, U.S.-Trin. & Tobago, Letter of Submittal, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-21 (1999).
[9] See, e.g., Extradition Treaty, Jun. 10, 1997, ., art. 2, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-18 (2000); Extradition Treaty, Jun. 17, 1996, , art. 2, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-16 (1999).
[10] See Treaty, supra note 8, art. 2, para. 1.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 12:42 PM  

Sunday, January 08, 2006

McNabb in the News

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb is quoted in the Denver Post in an article about Joe Nacchio who has been indicted on charges.

Mr. Nacchio’s defense so far is that the Qwest board of directors ordered him to “unload millions’ worth of company shares,”[1] which could be a vital defense:
"He would argue that what he was doing was with full knowledge and authorization of the board," said Douglas McNabb, senior principal of McNabb Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based criminal defense law firm not involved in the Nacchio case. "That's huge."[2]

[1] Andy Vuong, , Denver Post, Jan. 8, 2006.
[2] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 7:55 AM