“defraud NatWest Bank (where the three bankers had worked) of $7.3 million.” They plead guilty and were sentenced to 3 years in prison. Bank fraud isnt a crime in the UK?:dubious:
“plead guilty to one count of wire fraud in February 2009 (2.5 years after his extradition), and was sentenced to 27 months in prison” Wire fraud isnt a crime?:dubious:
I dont see anyone convicted of “crimes which seem pretty minor league” or "offences that break no law in the UK "
Assange obviously would be taken into custody by UK authorities once he leaves the embassy, not by Swedish. And given the special relationship between the UK and the US and especially given the fact that the UK hands over even its own citizens to the US in a heartbeat, the assumption probably is that the UK will deliver him to the Americans rather than to the Swedish, once the US government announces its desire to get hold of him.
You are right, these are serious crimes that are illegal in the UK. However they were not prosecuted in the UK because of lack of evidence.
The prosecution in the US was obtained as a result of a plea bargain. It is amazing what people will admit to in the face of the prospect of spending decades in a Supermax.
While the bankers had the wherewithall to defend themselves. Other victims of the extradition laws did not have the resources to mount a defence.
It is interesting to note that successive UK Home Secretaries have supported the principle of the Treaty despite these cases that seem to serious miscarriages of justice.
I suspect the reason is that they need a legal instrument to rid the UK of suspected terrorists who have rather inconveniently had not committed a crime in the UK.
Public enemy No 1. was Abu Hamza who had been for many years a character who taunted the UK authorities as it tried every way possible to deport him. He loomed large as the face of Islamic terrorism, half blind with hooks on his hands and the press had for years been publishing story after story about he and his family living on welfare at the same time as promoting terrorism. In the UK, if you have no funds, the state is obliged to pay your legal fees. He went through the courts leveraging Human Rights legislation to the considerable exasperation of the government. Bear in mind that London was subject to a bombing campaign in 2005 that claimed many lives. He was a gift to the febrile press in the UK. A terrorist hate figure that looked like a Bond villain.
The UK authorities needed that law to finally get rid of him and allow the US to extradite him.
Abu Hanza will be sentenced in the US in the next month or so.
Sadly, the law was used by other US authorities to pursue cases in the UK, that were not quite so clearly concerned with terrorism: financial crime , copyright infringement. Often with the collusion of the UK government.
Some, like McKinnon, the Aspergers sufferer who claimed to looking for evidence of UFOs, were portrayed by the UK authorities as the perpetrator of a huge security breach against the US military. He was prosecuted after the 2003 extradition act made it possible.
The bankers (who could buy good PR) led to a much public unease in the press regarding the balance of the extradition law. They were similarly prosecuted for these offenses only once the Act was passed.
UK politicians have had to do some deft footwork and media management to keep it in place. It seems have been used as evidence that the Government is doing something about serious international crime. They pass a law, then go looking for likely candidates for its application.
So it is with badly framed laws passed in haste in times of emergency by governments anxious to prove they are in control of the situation.
:smack:
So yes, you can buy break the countries law from outside that country.
But it requires the collusion of the government of the country concerned to bring you to justice.
Here’s a related question: If a person were to do something illegal under US law while abroad, the US requests extradition, and the foreign country refuses to extradite the person, what happens when the person’s status in that country expires? Wouldn’t they just deport him back to the USA anyway when his visa expired? Or does a refusal to extradite come with an offer of asylum?
Much is going to depend on the facts. You are assuming that the person’s right to remain in the host country is time-limited; this is not necessarily the case. And, if it is time-limited, he may have other options than simply waiting for the time to expire and then being deported; he may, for instance, travel to a third country where he has an indefinite right to remain. Or, if he does wait for deportation, he won’t necessarily be deported to the US. What if he’s not a US citizen? What if he has US nationality, plus the nationality of some other country?
In general, a refusal to extradite does not come with an offer of asylum. But in a particular case, the grounds on which extradition is refused might also be relevant to an application for asylum.
There’s a legal exception to married couples. Best to keep that marriage license handy for inspection.
Siam Sam: Wasn’t there a fairly recent case where a naturalized US citizen, formerly a citizen of Thailand, published a book critical of the Thai monarch and when said US citizen visited family in Thailand, was arrested for les majeste?
Yes there was. But I’m not going to discuss that.
Yes, this and other cases are discussed in the Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,36563.html
That was a case where a dual citizen was kidnapped and killed for money, It didn’t make much sense but the US government pushed for extradition to the US to stand trial for the accused.
IIRC, Canada has had several cases where they want to deport someone, but then the person claims they are not going to be safe in their home country. At that point, the person becomes a legitimate refugee and allowed to stay until circumstances change.
Of course, there’s a difference between fear of life and limb and fear of possibly tainted prosecution. But, since generally a person can only be deported to their home country (unless they and the third country agree to leave voluntarily) if a judge has refused to allow their extradition, that’s probably a good case to stay too.
(Canada has also run into situations where they’d like to deport someone, but they’ve destroyed their travel documents and aren’t cooperating, so their (alleged) home country won’t take them without proof they come from there. Negotiations typically follow…)
The case of Charles Ng, who helped torture and kill numerous women in California, probably comes close to this question. Canada was in the process of extradition, and had been refusing to extradite because California would not take the death penalty off the table. After protracted discussion, California said “fine, you keep him. He’ll be out of jail for his Canadian crimes soon, then he’s Canada’s problem.” (Implying as the OP asks, after a denied extradition he was home free in Canada). Eventually the Canadian government decided to let him be extradited, IIRC. He is currently on death row.
Ng is Hong Kong born and, IIRC, the Canadians could have deported him to Hong Kong.
It’s not as simple as that. A person doesn’t become a refugee just by making a claim. There is a well-established process where the claimant has to establish a reasonable basis that the claimant would be in jeopardy if returned to the home country.
This is a completely wrong statement of what happened in the Ng case.
The US applied to extradite him on capital charges.
Ng opposed extradition, arguing that extraditing him to face the death penalty would violate the Canadian Charter.
The government of Canada opposed Ng’s application, and supported the US, arguing in court that Canada could extradite him to the US to face the death penalty, without breaching the Charter.
The Supreme Court ruled in Canada’s favour and rejected Ng’s arguments.
Canada then extradited Ng without any conditions, allowing California to prosecute him on a death penalty charge.
Norway made it illegale in 2009 to purchase sex(as in have sex with a prostitute). Oddly enough, it’s still legal to sell sex. This law has a world wide effect for Norwegian citizens, meaning it’s possible to be prosecuted for buying sex even if the country one is in has no law against it.
Several people have in fact been fined after purchasing sex abroad under this statue, most famously a member of parlament.