Extradition should, ideally, reflect a fundamental agreement between civilized nations that sufficiently serious crimes must not go unpunished. This is what the extradition process is supposed to do. However, extradition procedures can be the result not only of heinous crimes, but also of a variety of other situations in which a government wants to display its power (the “long arm” of its law) in prosecuting a political crime or exerting dominance over another country. Extradition procedures can be the result of heinous crimes because extradition procedures can result from heinous crimes.
Economic sanctions are coercive measures taken against one or more countries to induce a change in policies, or at the very least to demonstrate the opinion of the sender country’s policies regarding the policies of the other country. Sanctions are an instrument of foreign policy. Regularly, the United States imposes them, particularly in the form of unilateral secondary sanctions. These sanctions typically consist of restrictions designed to prevent citizens and companies of third countries from conducting business with a targeted rogue state, group of states, or non-state actors, as well as the extradition of citizens of other countries to the United States to face charges for violations of United States law and investigation.
The fact that hundreds of countries are involved in extradition treaties adds an additional layer of complexity to the process. Since the United States is not subject to a simplifying bilateral regional treaty like many countries in Europe are, nor has it ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, extradition law as it pertains to the United States is particularly complicated. This is due to the fact that the United States has not ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), however, it has taken the lead in being one of the household names as far as international extradition is concerned.
Due to the fact that so many situations involve no actual international authority, the resolution of legal cases involving international law typically consists of more of a negotiation than it does of an actual trial or hearing. This is one more reason wh
Extradition should, ideally, reflect a fundamental agreement between civilized nations that sufficiently serious crimes must not go unpunished. This is what the extradition process is supposed to do. However, extradition procedures can be the result not only of heinous crimes, but also of a variety of other situations in which a government wants to display its power (the “long arm” of its law) in prosecuting a political crime or exerting dominance over another country. Extradition procedures can be the result of heinous crimes because extradition procedures can result from heinous crimes.
Economic sanctions are coercive measures taken against one or more countries to induce a change in policies, or at the very least to demonstrate the opinion of the sender country’s policies regarding the policies of the other country. Sanctions are an instrument of foreign policy. Regularly, the United States imposes them, particularly in the form of unilateral secondary sanctions. These sanctions typically consist of restrictions designed to prevent citizens and companies of third countries from conducting business with a targeted rogue state, group of states, or non-state actors, as well as the extradition of citizens of other countries to the United States to face charges for violations of United States law and investigation.
The fact that hundreds of countries are involved in extradition treaties adds an additional layer of complexity to the process. Since the United States is not subject to a simplifying bilateral regional treaty like many countries in Europe are, nor has it ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, extradition law as it pertains to the United States is particularly complicated. This is due to the fact that the United States has not ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), however, it has taken the lead in being one of the household names as far as international extradition is concerned.
Due to the fact that so many situations involve no actual international authority, the resolution of legal cases involving international law typically consists of more of a negotiation than it does of an actual trial or hearing. This is one more reason why international law is not really that similar to other types of “law.”
In the normal course of events, extradition can only be requested in response to an extraditable offence (that is, an offence included in an extradition treaty between the requesting state and the surrendering state). There are two different avenues that can be pursued in order to ascertain whether or not an offence is extraditable. The method that is considered to be the strictest necessitates that the offence charged be precisely the same as an offence that is specified in the extradition treaty. Alternately, a nation can demand that the acts contributing to the charge could sustain some other charge listed in the treaty under the laws of the surrendering nation, thus obviating the need for an identical treaty offence. This is known as a “stand your ground” requirement.
Due to the lack of unambiguous definitions within international law, the concept of long-arm jurisdiction continues to be contentious. In most cases, the exercise of such jurisdiction in various areas of law or internationally endorsed sanctions is not widely contested. However, when it comes to unilaterally imposed sanctions and controls, which are typically the purview of the United States, there is a greater likelihood of contention arising.
Numerous cases in the past have contended with this long arm of US extradition. The Natwest three and the Norris case are prime examples. After striking at white-collar criminals at home, the United States went on the hunt for executives it suspected of wrongdoings on foreign soil, and Britain at the time was more than happy to assist in this venture.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, issued an order for Ian Norris to be extradited to the United States on September 30, 2005. The former chief executive officer of Morgan Crucible was being prosecuted for price fixing as well as obstruction of justice. The contention then was that If the Justice Department is ultimately successful in extraditing Norris, it will be the first time that it has successfully extradited a foreign national for price-fixing. Norris was accused of conspiring with other individuals to fix prices. The Department of Justice asserts that Norris participated in a price-fixing conspiracy with other businesses that sold carbon products in the United States and that Norris obstructed justice in connection with an investigation being conducted by a grand jury in the United States into the matter.
After a long fight against the order for his extradition, Norris eventually lost the appeal and was extradited to the US even though he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had requested to be in the care of his wife. The Courts were of the view that One must consider the effect that it would have on the public interest in the prevention of crime if any defendant with familial ties and dependencies, such as those that bind Mr Norris and his wife, were to be exempt from extradition as a result of this position.
Another high-profile case is that of the CFO of Huawei. The United States has recently taken several measures under its sanctions laws regime against ZTE and Huawei, two major Chinese corporations operating in the telecommunications equipment sector, amid deteriorating economic relations between the two countries.
Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei and daughter of its founder, was arrested in Canada on 1 December 2018 at the US’s request. The US government was requesting her extradition on the grounds that she violated US sanctions against Iran. The US Department of Justice filed charges against Huawei, the world’s leading telecom manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker, as well as its affiliates Huawei Device USA Inc. (Huawei USA) and Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. (Skycom) and its CFO, alleging that they engaged in a fraudulent financial scheme that endangered US national security. In particular, Meng was charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank and wire fraud; Huawei and Skycom were charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank fraud, wire fraud, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and conspiracy to violate IEEPA, and money laundering, respectively. She was only released after cutting a deal with the US, details of which have remained in the dark.
An impartial jury of 12 New Yorkers would have decided Meng’s fate if she had been extradited and tried. Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine how an impartial jury could be found amidst rising anti-China sentiment in the United States.
Most recently, an Israeli professor who is currently under house arrest in Cyprus and is being sought by the US for extradition is pleading with his home country to “rescue” him from President Biden. This has sparked rumours that his court case in Larnaca may become a political flashpoint for the island’s new administration, which has close ties to both Tel Aviv and Washington.
Until his extradition hearing on a US international arrest warrant, Israeli professor Gal Luft, an expert in energy security and diplomacy, is being held under house arrest in Cyprus after a district judge in Larnaca ordered him to turn over his passport. According to its website, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) describes Luft as a think tank focused on energy, security, and economic trends and serves as its co-director while being an author and energy security and diplomatic expert.
Luft was detained by Cyprus Police officers at Larnaca International Airport as he attempted to board a flight to Israel on suspicion of trafficking weapons to Libya and China in connection with fraud offences allegedly committed between 2015 and 2023.
However, Luft claims that the real motivation behind his prosecution is retaliation for exposing US President Joe Biden and his family after the 56-year-old allegedly shared with Department of Justice officials incriminating details regarding the son of the then-presidential candidate, Hunter, and implications regarding international business dealings back in 2019.
In the past, Luft has publicly criticized both American foreign policy and the Biden administration as a whole. Luft charged that the Biden administration’s “commitment to democracy going only as far as its interests allow” at a summit in Beijing in 2021 called “International Forum on Democracy: the Shared Human Values.” In an interview, Luft’s lawyer, Mordechai Tzivin, backed up the professor’s claims that he was singled out by Washington for information provided to law enforcement in 2019 as part of Hunter Biden’s criminal investigation.
Unfortunately, the United States government’s practice of persistently singling out foreign nationals for extradition does not always adhere to legal parameters. Concerning details about how the CIA planned to kill or kidnap Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, whose organization exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, were revealed in a recent investigative report posted by Yahoo News. Assange faces extradition to the United States for hacking into US military databases, a crime that is covered by the United States and United Kingdom’s extradition treaty.
The United States government has repeatedly used its legal system as a tool in the pursuit of its geopolitical agenda by seeking the extradition and imprisonment of foreign nationals for political reasons. The United States is not required to provide extensive evidence against the accused under certain extradition agreements. In other words, the domestic court need not have confidence that the defendant would be found guilty at trial but simply comply with these requests to avoid being in the ‘bad books’ of the United States.
As a result, national courts in such countries must exercise heightened prudence when deciding whether or not to extradite a suspect, particularly if the suspect is a Chinese national.
Extradition should, ideally, reflect a fundamental agreement between civilized nations that sufficiently serious crimes must not go unpunished. This is what the extradition process is supposed to do. However, extradition procedures can be the result not only of heinous crimes, but also of a variety of other situations in which a government wants to display its power (the “long arm” of its law) in prosecuting a political crime or exerting dominance over another country. Extradition procedures can be the result of heinous crimes because extradition procedures can result from heinous crimes.
Economic sanctions are coercive measures taken against one or more countries to induce a change in policies, or at the very least to demonstrate the opinion of the sender country’s policies regarding the policies of the other country. Sanctions are an instrument of foreign policy. Regularly, the United States imposes them, particularly in the form of unilateral secondary sanctions. These sanctions typically consist of restrictions designed to prevent citizens and companies of third countries from conducting business with a targeted rogue state, group of states, or non-state actors, as well as the extradition of citizens of other countries to the United States to face charges for violations of United States law and investigation.
The fact that hundreds of countries are involved in extradition treaties adds an additional layer of complexity to the process. Since the United States is not subject to a simplifying bilateral regional treaty like many countries in Europe are, nor has it ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, extradition law as it pertains to the United States is particularly complicated. This is due to the fact that the United States has not ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), however, it has taken the lead in being one of the household names as far as international extradition is concerned.
Due to the fact that so many situations involve no actual international authority, the resolution of legal cases involving international law typically consists of more of a negotiation than it does of an actual trial or hearing. This is one more reason why international law is not really that similar to other types of “law.”
In the normal course of events, extradition can only be requested in response to an extraditable offence (that is, an offence included in an extradition treaty between the requesting state and the surrendering state). There are two different avenues that can be pursued in order to ascertain whether or not an offence is extraditable. The method that is considered to be the strictest necessitates that the offence charged be precisely the same as an offence that is specified in the extradition treaty. Alternately, a nation can demand that the acts contributing to the charge could sustain some other charge listed in the treaty under the laws of the surrendering nation, thus obviating the need for an identical treaty offence. This is known as a “stand your ground” requirement.
Due to the lack of unambiguous definitions within international law, the concept of long-arm jurisdiction continues to be contentious. In most cases, the exercise of such jurisdiction in various areas of law or internationally endorsed sanctions is not widely contested. However, when it comes to unilaterally imposed sanctions and controls, which are typically the purview of the United States, there is a greater likelihood of contention arising.
Numerous cases in the past have contended with this long arm of US extradition. The Natwest three and the Norris case are prime examples. After striking at white-collar criminals at home, the United States went on the hunt for executives it suspected of wrongdoings on foreign soil, and Britain at the time was more than happy to assist in this venture.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, issued an order for Ian Norris to be extradited to the United States on September 30, 2005. The former chief executive officer of Morgan Crucible was being prosecuted for price fixing as well as obstruction of justice. The contention then was that If the Justice Department is ultimately successful in extraditing Norris, it will be the first time that it has successfully extradited a foreign national for price-fixing. Norris was accused of conspiring with other individuals to fix prices. The Department of Justice asserts that Norris participated in a price-fixing conspiracy with other businesses that sold carbon products in the United States and that Norris obstructed justice in connection with an investigation being conducted by a grand jury in the United States into the matter.
After a long fight against the order for his extradition, Norris eventually lost the appeal and was extradited to the US even though he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had requested to be in the care of his wife. The Courts were of the view that One must consider the effect that it would have on the public interest in the prevention of crime if any defendant with familial ties and dependencies, such as those that bind Mr Norris and his wife, were to be exempt from extradition as a result of this position.
Another high-profile case is that of the CFO of Huawei. The United States has recently taken several measures under its sanctions laws regime against ZTE and Huawei, two major Chinese corporations operating in the telecommunications equipment sector, amid deteriorating economic relations between the two countries.
Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei and daughter of its founder, was arrested in Canada on 1 December 2018 at the US’s request. The US government was requesting her extradition on the grounds that she violated US sanctions against Iran. The US Department of Justice filed charges against Huawei, the world’s leading telecom manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker, as well as its affiliates Huawei Device USA Inc. (Huawei USA) and Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. (Skycom) and its CFO, alleging that they engaged in a fraudulent financial scheme that endangered US national security. In particular, Meng was charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank and wire fraud; Huawei and Skycom were charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank fraud, wire fraud, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and conspiracy to violate IEEPA, and money laundering, respectively. She was only released after cutting a deal with the US, details of which have remained in the dark.
An impartial jury of 12 New Yorkers would have decided Meng’s fate if she had been extradited and tried. Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine how an impartial jury could be found amidst rising anti-China sentiment in the United States.
Most recently, an Israeli professor who is currently under house arrest in Cyprus and is being sought by the US for extradition is pleading with his home country to “rescue” him from President Biden. This has sparked rumours that his court case in Larnaca may become a political flashpoint for the island’s new administration, which has close ties to both Tel Aviv and Washington.
Until his extradition hearing on a US international arrest warrant, Israeli professor Gal Luft, an expert in energy security and diplomacy, is being held under house arrest in Cyprus after a district judge in Larnaca ordered him to turn over his passport. According to its website, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) describes Luft as a think tank focused on energy, security, and economic trends and serves as its co-director while being an author and energy security and diplomatic expert.
Luft was detained by Cyprus Police officers at Larnaca International Airport as he attempted to board a flight to Israel on suspicion of trafficking weapons to Libya and China in connection with fraud offences allegedly committed between 2015 and 2023.
However, Luft claims that the real motivation behind his prosecution is retaliation for exposing US President Joe Biden and his family after the 56-year-old allegedly shared with Department of Justice officials incriminating details regarding the son of the then-presidential candidate, Hunter, and implications regarding international business dealings back in 2019.
In the past, Luft has publicly criticized both American foreign policy and the Biden administration as a whole. Luft charged that the Biden administration’s “commitment to democracy going only as far as its interests allow” at a summit in Beijing in 2021 called “International Forum on Democracy: the Shared Human Values.” In an interview, Luft’s lawyer, Mordechai Tzivin, backed up the professor’s claims that he was singled out by Washington for information provided to law enforcement in 2019 as part of Hunter Biden’s criminal investigation.
Unfortunately, the United States government’s practice of persistently singling out foreign nationals for extradition does not always adhere to legal parameters. Concerning details about how the CIA planned to kill or kidnap Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, whose organization exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, were revealed in a recent investigative report posted by Yahoo News. Assange faces extradition to the United States for hacking into US military databases, a crime that is covered by the United States and United Kingdom’s extradition treaty.
The United States government has repeatedly used its legal system as a tool in the pursuit of its geopolitical agenda by seeking the extradition and imprisonment of foreign nationals for political reasons. The United States is not required to provide extensive evidence against the accused under certain extradition agreements. In other words, the domestic court need not have confidence that the defendant would be found guilty at trial but simply comply with these requests to avoid being in the ‘bad books’ of the United States.
As a result, national courts in such countries must exercise heightened prudence when deciding whether or not to extradite a suspect, particularly if the suspect is a Chinese national.
y international law is not really that similar to other types of “law.”
In the normal course of events, extradition can only be requested in response to an extraditable offence (that is, an offence included in an extradition treaty between the requesting state and the surrendering state). There are two different avenues that can be pursued in order to ascertain whether or not an offence is extraditable. The method that is considered to be the strictest necessitates that the offence charged be precisely the same as an offence that is specified in the extradition treaty. Alternately, a nation can demand that the acts contributing to the charge could sustain some other charge listed in the treaty under the laws of the surrendering nation, thus obviating the need for an identical treaty offence. This is known as a “stand your ground” requirement.
Due to the lack of unambiguous definitions within international law, the concept of long-arm jurisdiction continues to be contentious. In most cases, the exercise of such jurisdiction in various areas of law or internationally endorsed sanctions is not widely contested. However, when it comes to unilaterally imposed sanctions and controls, which are typically the purview of the United States, there is a greater likelihood of contention arising.
Numerous cases in the past have contended with this long arm of US extradition. The Natwest three and the Norris case are prime examples. After striking at white-collar criminals at home, the United States went on the hunt for executives it suspected of wrongdoings on foreign soil, and Britain at the time was more than happy to assist in this venture.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, issued an order for Ian Norris to be extradited to the United States on September 30, 2005. The former chief executive officer of Morgan Crucible was being prosecuted for price fixing as well as obstruction of justice. The contention then was that If the Justice Department is ultimately successful in extraditing Norris, it will be the first time that it has successfully extradited a foreign national for price-fixing. Norris was accused of conspiring with other individuals to fix prices. The Department of Justice asserts that Norris participated in a price-fixing conspiracy with other businesses that sold carbon products in the United States and that Norris obstructed justice in connection with an investigation being conducted by a grand jury in the United States into the matter.
After a long fight against the order for his extradition, Norris eventually lost the appeal and was extradited to the US even though he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had requested to be in the care of his wife. The Courts were of the view that One must consider the effect that it would have on the public interest in the prevention of crime if any defendant with familial ties and dependencies, such as those that bind Mr Norris and his wife, were to be exempt from extradition as a result of this position.
Another high-profile case is that of the CFO of Huawei. The United States has recently taken several measures under its sanctions laws regime against ZTE and Huawei, two major Chinese corporations operating in the telecommunications equipment sector, amid deteriorating economic relations between the two countries.
Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei and daughter of its founder, was arrested in Canada on 1 December 2018 at the US’s request. The US government was requesting her extradition on the grounds that she violated US sanctions against Iran. The US Department of Justice filed charges against Huawei, the world’s leading telecom manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker, as well as its affiliates Huawei Device USA Inc. (Huawei USA) and Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. (Skycom) and its CFO, alleging that they engaged in a fraudulent financial scheme that endangered US national security. In particular, Meng was charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank and wire fraud; Huawei and Skycom were charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank fraud, wire fraud, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and conspiracy to violate IEEPA, and money laundering, respectively. She was only released after cutting a deal with the US, details of which have remained in the dark.
An impartial jury of 12 New Yorkers would have decided Meng’s fate if she had been extradited and tried. Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine how an impartial jury could be found amidst rising anti-China sentiment in the United States.
Most recently, an Israeli professor who is currently under house arrest in Cyprus and is being sought by the US for extradition is pleading with his home country to “rescue” him from President Biden. This has sparked rumours that his court case in Larnaca may become a political flashpoint for the island’s new administration, which has close ties to both Tel Aviv and Washington.
Until his extradition hearing on a US international arrest warrant, Israeli professor Gal Luft, an expert in energy security and diplomacy, is being held under house arrest in Cyprus after a district judge in Larnaca ordered him to turn over his passport. According to its website, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) describes Luft as a think tank focused on energy, security, and economic trends and serves as its co-director while being an author and energy security and diplomatic expert.
Luft was detained by Cyprus Police officers at Larnaca International Airport as he attempted to board a flight to Israel on suspicion of trafficking weapons to Libya and China in connection with fraud offences allegedly committed between 2015 and 2023.
However, Luft claims that the real motivation behind his prosecution is retaliation for exposing US President Joe Biden and his family after the 56-year-old allegedly shared with Department of Justice officials incriminating details regarding the son of the then-presidential candidate, Hunter, and implications regarding international business dealings back in 2019.
In the past, Luft has publicly criticized both American foreign policy and the Biden administration as a whole. Luft charged that the Biden administration’s “commitment to democracy going only as far as its interests allow” at a summit in Beijing in 2021 called “International Forum on Democracy: the Shared Human Values.” In an interview, Luft’s lawyer, Mordechai Tzivin, backed up the professor’s claims that he was singled out by Washington for information provided to law enforcement in 2019 as part of Hunter Biden’s criminal investigation.
Unfortunately, the United States government’s practice of persistently singling out foreign nationals for extradition does not always adhere to legal parameters. Concerning details about how the CIA planned to kill or kidnap Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, whose organization exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, were revealed in a recent investigative report posted by Yahoo News. Assange faces extradition to the United States for hacking into US military databases, a crime that is covered by the United States and United Kingdom’s extradition treaty.
The United States government has repeatedly used its legal system as a tool in the pursuit of its geopolitical agenda by seeking the extradition and imprisonment of foreign nationals for political reasons. The United States is not required to provide extensive evidence against the accused under certain extradition agreements. In other words, the domestic court need not have confidence that the defendant would be found guilty at trial but simply comply with these requests to avoid being in the ‘bad books’ of the United States.
As a result, national courts in such countries must exercise heightened prudence when deciding whether or not to extradite a suspect, particularly if the suspect is a Chinese national.
Hits: 1437
Leave a Reply