Friday, March 03, 2006

Extradition from Britain to Russia—Boris Berezovsky

Russia has officially filed a request with the United Kingdom for the extradition of “self-styled political émigré and tycoon Boris Berezovsky.”[1] Mr. Berezovsky is the latest subject of a number of Russian extradition requests in recent months, almost all which have failed.[2] This request, however, may go differently.

Mr. Berezovsky is in the UK on a grant of political asylum made in 2003, but “statements he made in a January 24 interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station” could jeopardize that status.[3] From his London office, Mr. Berezovsky reported told the station “President Putin violates the constitution and any violent action on the opposition’s part is justified today. … That includes taking power by force, which is exactly what I am working on.”[4] Roughly a month later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw condemned the comments, saying “I am aware of the comments made by Mr. Boris Berezovsky in an interview on January 24. … Advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable, and I condemn these comments unreservedly.”[5] He then warned Mr. Berezovsky that the British government could review his status as a political refugee.[6]

The comments led to Russian filing criminal charges against Mr. Berezovsky for a coup attempt.[7]

In the 1990s, Mr. Berezovsky was an extremely powerful business man, “parlaying a car dealership into a $3bn (€2.5bn, £1.7bn) business empire spanning interests in Aeroflot and, with Roman Abramovich, the Sibneft oil company.”[8] That wealth brought political power, first serving as President Boris Yeltsin’s deputy national security advisor, and then helping bring Mr. Putin to power as Mr. Yeltsin’s successor.[9]

This is at least the second time Russia has requested Mr. Berezovsky’s extradition; its first attempt, in 2002 on embezzlement charges related to Sibneft, failed when the request was seen as politically motivated.[10]

Neither the Home Office, nor Mr. Berezovsky were available for comment, but “he is understood to have written to Mr. Straw saying his interview had been misconstrued,” and it is not clear whether Russia has any evidence other than the Ekho Moskvy interview.[11]

This will be an interesting extradition battle, because Mr. Berezovsky’s statements are clearly political in nature, and if there is no evidence other than the statements, the request will likely fail as being politically motivated. We previously discussed extradition refusals based on “extraneous considerations” such as this on . However, if there is more evidence, there is a possibility that extradition may be granted because violence and attempted violence against heads of state are not typically considered “political offenses” which would bar extradition.


[1] , RIA Novosti, Mar. 3, 2006.
[2] See, e.g., our post on Alexandr Temerko, .
[3] RIA, supra note 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Neil Buckley et al., , Fin. Times, Mar. 3, 2006.
[9] Id.
[10] RIA, supra note 1.
[11] Buckley, supra note 8.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 1:52 PM  

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Extradition from Britain to the United States—Abu Hamza

Backing off from earlier statements maintaining that the United States would wait for “radical” cleric Abu Hamza to finish his jail sentence before requesting his , “U.S. prosecutors urged a British court Wednesday to extradite” him now.[1] Abu Hamza is accused of being connected to the alleged terrorist camp in Bly, Oregon, that never got beyond preliminary planning stages. [2] Other individuals that we have discussed are also accused of being involved in those plans; and are both in other countries fighting their extradition.

The United States is trying to take advantage of a new provision in Britain’s extradition framework that allows for temporary surrender of a suspect before he completes his prison sentence in Britain.[3] If it is successful, it would mean the “one-eyed, hook-handed cleric could become one of the first Britons to be extradited to a foreign court mid-sentence.”[4] If he is extradited and convicted in the United States, “he would return to Britain to complete his jail term before being extradited once again … to serve any penalty received in the United States.”[5]

Abu Hamza, however, is currently appealing his conviction for incitement to murder and “stirring up” racial hatred in the UK.[6]

Under the terms of the 2003 extradition between the UK and the US (which has not yet ratified it), temporary surrender is allowed.[7] If the extradition request has been granted by the Requested State, “the Requested State may temporarily surrender the person sought to the Requesting State for the purpose of prosecution.”[8] That person must remain in custody during the period of prosecution, and then returned to the Requested State “after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person.”[9] However, the Requested State does not have to temporarily surrender the individual; it may defer the extradition proceedings until after the person has served his sentence in the Requested State.[10] Section 186 et seq. of the UK’s covers the re-extradition proceedings that will be necessary if a temporary surrender was allowed, the individual was convicted, and returned to finish his sentence.

There are a number of conditions that must be satisfied before an individual can be re-extradited. First, the individual must have been extradited to a category 1 or 2 territory.[11] Second, the individual must have been serving a sentence of imprisonment in the UK before being extradited.[12] Third, the request for the person must have been accompanied by a statement that the person was accused of the commission of an offense.[13] Fourth, there must be a certificate issued by a judicial authority in the Requesting State that a sentence of imprisonment for at least four months was imposed and that the sentence was in specified in the warrant or was committed before his extradition.[14] Finally, the person must have been returned to the UK to serve the remainder of his sentence.[15]

The individual also goes through a re-extradition hearing, which must be done at the time at which the person would be released from prison in the UK.[16] If he is not given a hearing “as soon as practicable” then he must be discharged.[17]


[1] , Associated Press, Mar. 1, 2006. (subscription only); see also , Press Association (via Yahoo!), Mar. 1, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See Extradition Treaty, Mar. 31, 2003, U.S.-U.K., art. 14, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 108-23.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. art. 14, para. 2.
[11] Extradition Act, 2003, c. 41, § 186(2).
[12] Id. § 186(3).
[13] Id. § 186(4).
[14] Id. § 186(5).
[15] Id. § 186(6).
[16] Id. § 187(1) & (2).
[17] Id. § 187(3).

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 9:55 AM  

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Extradition from Canada to Mexico—Everall and Kim

When one country’s citizen is accused of committing a crime in another country, emotions can skyrocket and pleas for help can seemingly fall on deaf ears. So it is with Cheryl Everall and Kimberley Kim, two Canadian women who are accused by Mexico of killing Domenico Ianiero and his wife Annunziata at a resort on the Mayan Riviera last Monday.[1] Members of Canada’s opposition parties have lashed out against the Canadian federal government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper for seeming apathetic about the accusations. “’Where is Stephen Harper, what is he waiting for? Why isn’t he [] taking personal interest in it?’ asked Toronto-area Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis. ‘Get on the phone to (Mexican president Vicente) Fox and say, “What the hell is going on?”’ Karygiannis fumed. ‘These are Canadian citizens, these are our people. Why is he not stepping up to the plate to protect them?’”[2] If only all politicians took so much interest. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter Van Loan says that at this time, Prime Minister Harper “has yet to weigh in with the Mexican government” because “[t]here hasn’t been a need … for the prime minister to get involved.”[3]

The situation the two women are dealing with is typical for most people accused of things they deny: “One minute you’re crying, the next minute—it’s terrifying and you get very upset. It’s devastating. Every day we wake up, you open your eyes thinking it’s a dream, and it’s not,” said Ms. Kim.[4]

The women are expecting a formal request from Mexico, which they will fight “tooth and nail.”[5] The Ianieros lived in the Toronto suburb of Woodbridge, and they were found in their “blood-soaked hotel room,” which was just down the hall from the room in which Ms. Everall and Ms. Kim were staying, with “their throats slashed.”[6] Very quickly, “authorities with the Mexican state of Quintana Roo declared publicly that they had two key suspects: a pair of Canadian women whom they described as having already fled the country for Canada.”[7] The women, however, say that they left Mexico as scheduled, and that no one questioned them.[8] “A third suspect was later added,” but the haste of the announcement, and the “number of their confusing and contradictory statements over the last week,” has led to speculation that “the probe has been either badly botched or manipulated to deflect fears about the safety of tourists in Mexico.”[9]

If Mexico does decide to request the extradition of the two women from Canada, it will be done by the terms of the signed in 1990. The treaty, like most modern treaties, contains a dual-criminality clause.[10] Neither country, however, is obligated to extradite its nationals, but if the extradition request is refused solely because the person sought is a national of the Requested State, then the Requested State has an obligation to prosecute that individual itself.[11] The Mexican authorities will have to submit the following documents:
  • information about the description, identity, location, and nationality of the person sought;
  • a statement prepared by a judicial or public official of the conduct constituting the offense for which extradition is requested
    • indicating the place and time of its commission,
    • the nature of the offence
    • and the legal provisions describing the offence and the applicable punishment, which must be shown to have been in effect that the time of the commission of the offense;
  • the original or a certified true copy of the arrest warrant
  • evidence that would justify committal for trial of the person sought, including evidence to establish identity; and
  • originals or certified true copies of exhibits, statements, depositions, and the like.[12]

[1] Tara Brautigam and Romina Maurino, , Canadian Press (via Yahoo!), Feb. 28, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 16 1990, Can.-Mex., art. II, para. 1, C.T.S. 1990 No. 35.
[11] Id. art. III.
[12] Id. art VIII.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 11:14 AM  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

International Extradition—Mexico, Lebanon, and Jordan

A number of stories demand a little attention today. The first comes from Mexico, the second from Lebanon, and the third from Jordan.

Over the weekend, one of the FBI’s 10 most-wanted individuals was arrested in Tijuana, Mexico.[1] Genaro Espinosa Dorantes, is accused of “burning, beating, and torturing to death Luis Osvaldo Cisneros, his girlfriend’s four-year-old son.”[2] This allegedly happened at the end of February 2003.[3] On February 20, the child’s mother, Martha Cano Patlan, reportedly “agreed to cooperate with police and was taken into custody” in Dolores Hidalgo, Mexico.[4]

Mr. Espinosa is charged with first-degree murder in Tennessee, but as we have mentioned a number of times , Mexico does not extradite people who face the death penalty. Tennessee authorities can still seek life imprisonment however.

Also making extradition headlines is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s extradition request made to Lebanon. Among the five men who are the subject of the extradition request is Wassef Ali Hassoun, the Utah Marine who allegedly faked his own kidnapping in 2004, and is now charged by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service with desertion.[5] Along with Mr. Hassoun, Sec. Rice has requested the extradition of Imad Mugniyah, Hassan Izzeddine, Ali Atwa, and Mohammed Ali Hammadi.[6] Up to now, the Lebanese government has refused the requests of those four men, mainly because, as a spokesman for Premier Fouad Siniora said, “[t]here of those wanted by the U.S. have been pardoned under the General Amnesty Law, and one of them has already served his sentence. So it is not clear why the issue is still being raised.”[7]

Mr. Hammadi, if you , is the man who was recently released from German prison after serving a sentence for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which resulted in the death of a Navy Seal diver.[8] Under Lebanon’s General Amnesty Law of 1991, “all crimes committed by militias and armed groups during the 15-year Civil War, which ended in 1990, were pardoned.”[9] As we have mentioned before, in the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty between the US and Lebanon, the final determination whether to send any of the individuals to the United States will based on Lebanon’s domestic laws.

Finally, a Jordanian lawyer is planning to sue Jordan’s Ministry of the Interior “for handing over a Jordanian-American citizen to Washington where he has been charged with plotting attacks on soldiers in Iraq.”[10] The individual who has been extradited to the US is Mohamed Amawi, who was indicted last week for allegedly plotting to attack US and coalition soldier in Iraq.[11] He was also “specifically charged with making ‘verbal threats to kill or inflict bodily harm against the president of the US’ George W. Bush.”[12]

The controversy stems from the fact that Mr. Amawi holds dual US and Jordanian citizenship. A Jordanian government spokesman said yesterday that Mr. Amawi “is an American citizen. He is accused in a criminal case in the US. He was deported on the basis of this.”[13] Mr. Amawi’s lawyer, however, countered by saying “Even if that is true, he is still a Jordanian citizen and the constitution is clear”; it clearly states that “no Jordanian may be deported from the territory of the kingdom.”[14]

The extradition between the US and Jordan, however, states that if “all conditions in the Treaty relating to extradition are met, extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.”[15] The terms of that treaty, however, may not have been followed at all.

According to an Associated Press article, Mr. Amawi was arrested “last weekend in Jordan” and he arrived in the United States three days later.[16] There is almost no way that a full extradition hearing was conducted in that time frame. Either Mr. Amawi was deported, which would suggest a violation of Jordan’s constitution, or he was simply bustled onto a plane and flown to the United States. Details, unfortunately, are lacking. If it is the latter, Mr. Amawi will join at least individuals who were seemingly summarily removed from Mexico, as individuals sent to the United States without due process considerations.


[1] , Associated Press (via CBS News), Feb. 28, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Matthew D. LaPlante, , Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 28, 2006.
[6] Rym Ghazal, , Daily Star (Lebanon), Feb. 27, 2006.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] , Agence France-Presse (via Gulf Times), Feb. 28, 2006.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 28, 1995, U.S.-Jord., art. 3, S Treaty Doc. No. 104-3 (1995).
[16] Shafika Mattar, , Feb. 27, 2006. (subscription only)

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 9:18 AM  

Monday, February 27, 2006

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

Ramesh Doon, a Trinidadian man wanted in the United States on allegations that he helped smuggle nearly one ton of cocaine into the United States, has been from Trinidad and Tobago.[1] An American, Gabriel Lee Hernandez, was also extradited with Mr. Doon.[2] Both men arrived in Florida accompanied by US Marshals.[3]

Mr. Doon is the fourth Trinidadian to be extradited to Fort Lauderdale to face charges of allegedly into the United States by hiding it in packages of cassava.[4] The other three individuals—Ronald Rackal, Hafeez Mohammed, and Indaryartee Dwarika—have already been convicted in the plot and have received prison sentences ranging from 70 months to 21 years in prison.[5]

We previously discussed Mr. Doon on .

Mr. Hernandez, whose charges do not relate to Mr. Doon’s, was arrested at the end of April last year “after six kilos of heroin, valued at $5 million, were found in his suitcase.”[6] He was attempting to board an American Airlines flight to Puerto Rico when he was apprehended; he was charged with possession of heroin and attempting to export the drug.[7] The US “discovered that they wanted [Mr.] Hernandez so they brought extradition proceedings against him,” but he consented to extradition and is being sent to New York.[8]

An individual can waive extradition proceedings by the terms of the extradition between the US and Trinidad and Tobago. According to the treaty, “[if] the person sought consents to surrender to the Requesting State, the Requested State may surrender the person as expeditiously as possible without further proceedings.”[9]

This standard is different than some other extradition treaties. For example, the between the United States and Switzerland calls the waiver “Simplified Extradition” and the person sought must “irrevocably agree[] in writing to extradition” and be personally advised by the competent judicial authority of the right to formal extradition proceedings.[10]


[1] Francis Joseph, , Newsday (Trinidad and Tobago), Feb. 25, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 4, 1996, U.S.-Trin. & Tobago, art. 15, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-21 (1999).
[10] Extradition Treaty, Nov. 14, 1990, U.S.-Switz., art. 18, S. Treaty Doc. No. 104-9 (1997).

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 8:50 AM  

McNabb in the News (2-27-06)

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb has been quoted in an article in The Independent, a leading London newspaper, that addresses the reluctance of foreign companies to do business in the US.
Douglas McNabb, the Texan lawyer who appeared as an expert witness for the defence at the NatWest hearing, says that law-abiding businessmen have much to lose if they are wrongly accused. "Maybe the US is wrong and you have to go through the whole process to prove it. My view is that in order to have a chance of winning an international extradition case, you have to have counsel from both countries, and you have to have a lot of money."[1]

[1] Stephen Foley, , The Independent, Feb. 26, 2006.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 7:07 AM