Strands #290 “You Say You Want A...
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Extradition To The Usa
This story is of interest to me, with the guy likely to be extradited to the US on fraud charges.
https:/
His defence team have stated ‘He is a British citizen who ran a British company in Britain subject to British laws and rules and that is where the matter should be resolved. This is not the end of the battle - far from it’
I’m assuming that the claimed misrepresentation of his company’s worth was made in the UK and if so, that is where the case should be heard IMHO. Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK (unless the US court applies UK laws to the case).
If I murder an American citizen in London, I can see no reason why I should be tried in the USA for such a crime – but the arrangement Tony Blair’s government made with the US, whereby they can request extradition of British citizens and we will roll-over and put them on a plane may override that.
https:/
His defence team have stated ‘He is a British citizen who ran a British company in Britain subject to British laws and rules and that is where the matter should be resolved. This is not the end of the battle - far from it’
I’m assuming that the claimed misrepresentation of his company’s worth was made in the UK and if so, that is where the case should be heard IMHO. Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK (unless the US court applies UK laws to the case).
If I murder an American citizen in London, I can see no reason why I should be tried in the USA for such a crime – but the arrangement Tony Blair’s government made with the US, whereby they can request extradition of British citizens and we will roll-over and put them on a plane may override that.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am not sure that a contract can state where a criminal trial can take place. - or else we would specify a place that didnt have an extradition agreement....
// extradition of British citizens and we will roll-over and put them on a plane may override that.// were American lawyers coming out with an AB one liner:
"ya Brits roll over and we yanks never give nuttin'"
and on review - you know a sue gray police review a year later - numbers found to be equal
// extradition of British citizens and we will roll-over and put them on a plane may override that.// were American lawyers coming out with an AB one liner:
"ya Brits roll over and we yanks never give nuttin'"
and on review - you know a sue gray police review a year later - numbers found to be equal
which is here
https:/
the mandarin who wrote that has taken a great suck of a lemon and clearly has a drip on the end of his nose
https:/
the mandarin who wrote that has taken a great suck of a lemon and clearly has a drip on the end of his nose
This DM article appears to confirm what I thought, that the contract was governed by UK law.
'He sold a British company in a contract governed by English law with the English courts to police it.’
So now anyone in the UK conducting themselves (in the UK) under UK laws, needs to be aware that they could be extradited and prosecuted under US law.
IMHO this needs to a challenged in our highest court – this is an unacceptable burden on our citizens; which other country in the world would say that their citizens can be prosecuted in a foreign country for acts committed in their homeland?
https:/
'He sold a British company in a contract governed by English law with the English courts to police it.’
So now anyone in the UK conducting themselves (in the UK) under UK laws, needs to be aware that they could be extradited and prosecuted under US law.
IMHO this needs to a challenged in our highest court – this is an unacceptable burden on our citizens; which other country in the world would say that their citizens can be prosecuted in a foreign country for acts committed in their homeland?
https:/
If I murder someone in New York (and manage to return to the UK) it would be quite reasonable that I was extradited to the US to stand trial for that murder (under the laws applicable to where the crime occurred). It would be unreasonable that I was tried in the UK for that crime, otherwise the UK court would have to apply the NY State/US laws to the case.
Similarly if I murder someone in London, it would be unreasonable that I was extradited to the US to stand trial for that crime under US law.
In the above, change murder to ‘commit fraud’ and I see no difference. If I commit any crime in the UK, what is to stop the US requesting my extradition to stand trial for the crime in the US?
Similarly if I murder someone in London, it would be unreasonable that I was extradited to the US to stand trial for that crime under US law.
In the above, change murder to ‘commit fraud’ and I see no difference. If I commit any crime in the UK, what is to stop the US requesting my extradition to stand trial for the crime in the US?
// Which other country in the world would say that their citizens can be prosecuted in a foreign country for acts committed in their homeland?//
this has an answer by th e way ( Turkey) apparently claims jurisdiction over all crimes everywhere
we claim jurisdiction over sex offences wherever committed
but all this is irrelevant to wire fraud over international frontiers
this has an answer by th e way ( Turkey) apparently claims jurisdiction over all crimes everywhere
we claim jurisdiction over sex offences wherever committed
but all this is irrelevant to wire fraud over international frontiers
and War Crimes - the law lords didnt like 1992 but the gubmint said we are doing it anyway
Yeah I quite like the Sacoolas papallel - it isnt of course (parallel) - that is diplomatic - and wrongly handled ab initio ( bitta latin there - o did I say I have written to the prime minister in Latin?) - they should have arrested and then let her argue the toss locked inside the slammer
and tehre is no doubt rightly or wrongly she had a diplomatic doo-dah
anything else?
Yeah I quite like the Sacoolas papallel - it isnt of course (parallel) - that is diplomatic - and wrongly handled ab initio ( bitta latin there - o did I say I have written to the prime minister in Latin?) - they should have arrested and then let her argue the toss locked inside the slammer
and tehre is no doubt rightly or wrongly she had a diplomatic doo-dah
anything else?
Yeah the sex crime thing is a bi of a mess. Best parsible taste - say that an assault has occurred on a camping course where all the defendants are in the UK etc
Bonhoeffer ( yes the grandchild of thingey) came unstuck on this and ended up not convicted (" we really cant work out what went on" as predicted) but struck off as a doctor
still not wire Fraud - but fun on a sunday
Bonhoeffer ( yes the grandchild of thingey) came unstuck on this and ended up not convicted (" we really cant work out what went on" as predicted) but struck off as a doctor
still not wire Fraud - but fun on a sunday
I don’t think any country can unilaterally claim legal jurisdiction throughout the world and expect all persons to be extradited from wherever.
Even our claim over sex crimes would have to take into account the legality of those ‘crimes’ within the jurisdiction of where they occurred.
I don’t think this company sale involved wire fraud, so such a comment is irrelevant.
Even our claim over sex crimes would have to take into account the legality of those ‘crimes’ within the jurisdiction of where they occurred.
I don’t think this company sale involved wire fraud, so such a comment is irrelevant.
"Professor Philipp Bonhoeffer was ruled guilty of sexually motivated conduct by a panel at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on Friday. Prof Bonhoeffer was found to have behaved inappropriately towards children in Kenya and a boy in France. He was dismissed by the central London hospital in 2010."
and as evry fule kno
the only Nobel Prize winner who served time for child molesting was Gadjusek and HIS crimes were committed in PNG
After his research trips in the South Pacific, Gajdusek had brought 56 male children back to live with him in the US, and provided them with high school and college education. One of these boys, now a grown man, later accused Gajdusek of molesting him as a child.
served 12 m - one of his victims now in SF was wired and the Feds were amazed to hear G say " I know I did wrong: I am so sarry"
wired - nothing to do with wire fraud
and as evry fule kno
the only Nobel Prize winner who served time for child molesting was Gadjusek and HIS crimes were committed in PNG
After his research trips in the South Pacific, Gajdusek had brought 56 male children back to live with him in the US, and provided them with high school and college education. One of these boys, now a grown man, later accused Gajdusek of molesting him as a child.
served 12 m - one of his victims now in SF was wired and the Feds were amazed to hear G say " I know I did wrong: I am so sarry"
wired - nothing to do with wire fraud
So you commit fraud in the UK, and then find yourself subject to the laws governing fraud in another country – this seems fundamentally unfair.
If the UK made similar extradition agreements with every other country in the world – then UK citizens would have to comply with all criminal laws in place around the world, not just those in the UK and USA.
If the UK made similar extradition agreements with every other country in the world – then UK citizens would have to comply with all criminal laws in place around the world, not just those in the UK and USA.
I think we also need to disentangle contact law from criminal law. Failures under contract law would not render a person liable to extradition. This is criminal law we're talking about here. This alleged crime was committed in the UK. The only involvement the US has is that the alleged victim is a US company. I see no difference between a fraud victim and a murder victim so far as prosecution and extradition goes. The only possible sticking point is that apparently, before its sale to HP, Autonomy (the company subject to the sale) had a presence in the USA. So it may be that which is seen as a route to Mr Lynch's extradition. But I still find this troubling because (a) a politician is making a decision which could possibly see Mr Lynch lose his liberty and (b) the decision seems to have been based on the (as yet unfinalised) results of a civil contract matter. As mentioned, the burden of proof is far lower in civil matters than in criminal matters and the usual way round for such things to be dealt with is to hear the criminal matter first and then the civil matter afterwards. Mr Lynch was told he would not be prosecuted and he should be able to rely on that when defending the civil case against him.
.// I think we also need to disentangle contact law from criminal law// 'we' can't - I can of course
the judge - a/c to that oracle of truth DM has already approved extradition.
the summary judgement is here:
https:/
and my! my! you only need to get to para 6 for the first mench of wire fraud
carry on AB legal beagles !
the judge - a/c to that oracle of truth DM has already approved extradition.
the summary judgement is here:
https:/
and my! my! you only need to get to para 6 for the first mench of wire fraud
carry on AB legal beagles !
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
News61 mins ago
