Memorandum of Law in Support of Extradition

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF: RADU NEMES, and DIANA NEMES
NO. MJ14-5067 KLS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EXTRADITION On March 17, 2014 the United States filed an initial complaint for the extradition of fugitives 1 Radu NEMES and Diana NEMES at the request of the Government of Romania pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the Government of Romania. Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Romania and the Protocol to the Treaty Between the United States of America and Romania on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, U.S. - Rom., September 10,
It is common to refer to a person for whom an international extradition request has been made
25 as a fugitive. E.g. Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 286-304 (1933); Collins v. Loisel, 26 intention in leaving the country seeking extradition. See M. Cherif Bassiouni, International th 27 Extradition: United States Law and Practice 769 & n.74 (4 ed. 2002) (Presence in the United
States, even if fortuitous, is sufficient . . . for consider the relator a fugitive for purposes of 262 U.S. 426, 429 (1923). This term is not pejorative and says nothing about the persons
28 extradition.).
MEMORANDUM FOR EXTRADITION IN RE: RADU NEMES AND DIANA NEMES/ - 1 MJ14-5067 KLS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970
1 2007, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 110-11 (2008). In this matter, the United States acts on 2 behalf of the Romanian government in accordance with United States treaty obligations. 3 Romania has submitted a formal request for Radu NEMES and Diana NEMES 4 arrest, extradition and surrender, supported by appropriate documents, to the United 5 States Department of State. By statute, this Court must hold a hearing to consider the 6 evidence of criminality presented by Romania and to determine whether it is sufficient 7 to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention. 18 U.S.C. 8 3184. If the Court finds the evidence sufficient, it must certify the same to the 9 Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive according to the treaty. 10 Id. 2 11 As summarized in the complaint, Radu NEMES is wanted by Romania for trial on 12 charges of Tax Evasion and Setting Up an Organized Criminal Group, offenses that 13 correspond to Tax Evasion and Conspiracy respectively, in violation of Title 26, United 14 States Code, Section 7201, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Setting Up an 15 Organized Criminal Group also corresponds to Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations 16 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962. Diana NEMES is also wanted 17 by Romania for trial on charges of Tax Evasion as well as a charge of Supporting an 18 Organized Criminal Group, an offense that corresponds to Conspiracy and Aiding and 19 Abetting in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 2. 20 Public Prosecutors with the Romanian National Anti-Corruption Directorate, 21 Section for Combating Corruption, initiated a criminal investigation in March 2012, 22 related to a criminal organization controlled by Radu Nemes that had devised a scheme to 23 evade taxes on the wholesale distribution of diesel fuel. The investigation focused on the 24 sales of diesel fuel by the Nemes organization between May 2011 and July 2012. During 25 26 27 28
After the Court has completed its Alimited inquiry, the Secretary of State conducts an independent review of the case to determine whether to issue a warrant of surrender.@ Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 824, 829 (11th Cir. 1993). AThe Secretary exercises broad discretion and may properly consider myriad factors affecting both the individual defendant as well as foreign relations, which the extradition magistrate may not.@ Id. MEMORANDUM FOR EXTRADITION IN RE: RADU NEMES AND DIANA NEMES/ - 2 MJ14-5067 KLS
2
1 that period the Nemes organization sold approximately 990,000 tons of diesel fuel, but, 2 using a series of shell companies controlled by Radu and Diana Nemes and their co3 conspirators, falsely reported to the Romanian Government the sale of lower grade 4 industrial and maritime fuel, resulting in payment of significantly lower excise taxes and 5 value added taxes. By covering up the sale of diesel fuel and falsely reporting the sale as 6 lower grade fuel, the Nemes avoided a tax liability of approximately 53 million Euros. 7 The Nemes and other co-conspirators imported diesel fuel through the Oil 8 Terminal at Constanta, Romania, using a company they controlled by the name of SC 9 Inkasso Jobs SRL. They transported the diesel to a factory warehouse of a second 10 company they controlled, SC Excella Real Grup SRL, purportedly to be combined with 11 brut oil for the manufacture of inferior fuels, specifically CL Navo, a maritime fuel and 12 CLG, an industrial fuel. 13 The Nemes criminal organization employed an accountant who oversaw several 14 bookkeepers responsible for creating false accounting records, including invoices and 15 payment records, to make it appear that brut oil was being purchased and transported to 16 the SC Excella Warehouse to undergo the manufacturing process to make CL Navo and 17 CLG inferior fuels. Instead the diesel fuel was trucked to the SC Excella factory 18 warehouse facility, where the trucks remained idle with full loads of diesel for several 19 hours, and then the trucks departed and transported the diesel to clandestine locations, 20 where it was transferred to trucks belonging to Benz Oil and Ana Oil. Upon transfer to 21 the Benz Oil and Ana Oil trucks, the diesel was further distributed to retail petrol stations. 22 The companies that purportedly supplied the brut oil to SC Excella Real Grup for use in 23 the manufacturing process, were in reality shell companies that never actually supplied 24 SC Excella with any brut oil. 25 The Nemes organization also created additional shell companies that the 26 organization utilized to falsely document the distribution and sales of the inferior fuels 27 allegedly manufactured and by SC Excella Real Grup. These shell companies were 28 opened using homeless and indigent people who were recruited by the organization to
1 operate the companies in name only. In fact, the Nemes organization sold the higher 2 grade diesel fuel to retail distributors while only paying the lower excise taxes and value 3 added taxes on the inferior fuel sales to the Romanian Government. 4 The revenues generated from the sale of the diesel fuel without payment of the 5 appropriate taxes were laundered through a series of shell companies controlled by Radu 6 and Diana Nemes and their co-conspirators. Furthermore, the Nemes criminal 7 organization directed and oversaw large cash withdrawals in an attempt to disguise the 8 excess revenues generated from the sale of the higher valued diesel oil. The illegal 9 proceeds were further laundered through bank accounts held in the names of companies 10 controlled by Radu and Nemes Diana in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and then further 11 transferred to the United States. 12 Romanian authorities initiated criminal charges against Radu and Diana Nemes 13 and several other defendants on July 9, 2012. Arrest warrants were issued on July 10, 14 2012, and on July 25, 2012, the Court of Appeal of Bucharest Second Criminal Section 15 issued warrants for international pursuit in view of extradition for Radu and Diana 16 Nemes. Radu and Diana Nemes are currently residing in Yelm, Washington where they 17 own multiple properties and business interests purchased with the proceeds of their 18 Romanian tax fraud scheme. 19 Because an extradition hearing is not a criminal or civil proceeding, but is sui 20 generis, the government offers this memorandum setting out the legal principles that 21 govern the hearing to be held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3184. Extradition law is an area of 22 law unto itself. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has expounded on many of the 23 questions over the years and has settled a number of those principles. 24 25 I. THE ROLE OF THE EXTRADITION JUDGE IS LIMITED
Extradition is primarily an executive responsibility with a specially defined role
26 for a judicial officer, who is authorized by statute to determine whether to certify to the 27 Secretary of State that the submitted evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge. 18 28 U.S.C. 3184. The Secretary of State, and not the court, makes the decision regarding
1 whether the fugitive should be surrendered to the requesting country. 18 U.S.C. 3184, 2 3186; Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 824, 828 (11th Cir. 1993); Lo 3 Duca v. United States, 93 F.3d 1100, 1110 n.10 (2d Cir. 1996). The Executive Branch 4 remains primarily responsible for extradition, while the extradition judge is assigned the 5 limited duty of determining the sufficiency of the request under the applicable treaty 6 provisions. See id. That judicial function is carried out by conducting the hearing 7 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3184. 8 At the hearing, the court should consider the evidence presented on behalf of the 9 requesting country and determine whether the legal requirements for certification, as 10 defined in the treaty, statutes and case law, have been established. If any explanatory 11 evidence is offered by the fugitive, the court rules on its admissibility. Once the 12 evidentiary record is complete, the court should make written findings of fact and 13 conclusions of law as to each of the elements for certification, including separate findings 14 for each offense as to which extradition is sought. Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 15 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 (1973). If the court certifies the evidence to 16 the Secretary of State, the court must commit the fugitive to the custody of the United 17 States Marshal to await the further determination by the Secretary regarding surrender to 18 the representatives of the requesting state. The court provides its certification to the 19 Secretary of State together with a copy of the evidence and a transcript of any testimony 20 presented at the hearing. 18 U.S.C. 3184; see Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 110421 05 (9th Cir. 2000). Following the certification, the decision of whether to surrender the 22 fugitive to the requesting country rests with the Executive Branch, specifically with the 23 Secretary of State. 24 In fulfilling its function under Section 3184, the judicial officer should liberally 25 construe the applicable extradition treaty in order to affect its purpose, namely, the 26 surrender of fugitives to the requesting country. Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 27 301 (1933), cited in Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 14 (1936) 28
1 and United States ex rel. Sakaguchi v. Kaulukukui, 520 F.2d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 1975). 2 As the Supreme Court explained: 3 4 5 6 7 In choosing between conflicting interpretations of a treaty obligation, a narrow and restricted construction is to be avoided as not consonant with the principles deemed controlling in the interpretation of international agreements. Considerations which should govern the diplomatic relations between nations, and the good faith of treaties, as well, require that their obligations should be liberally construed so as to effect the apparent intentions of the parties to secure equality and reciprocity between them.
8 Factor, 290 U.S. at 293. In order to carry out a treaty obligation, the treaty should be 9 construed more liberally than a criminal statute or the technical requirements of criminal 10 procedure, Factor, 290 U.S. at 298. This country does not expect foreign governments 11 to be versed in our criminal laws and procedures. Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 184 12 (1902). Thus, [f]orm is not to be insisted upon beyond the requirements of safety and 13 justice. Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925), cited in Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 14 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1994). 15 Statements by the United States Department of State as to interpretation of treaties 16 should be given great weight by the court. See El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tseng, 525 17 U.S. 155, 168 (1999), cited in United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 887 18 (9th Cir. 2000); Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184-185 19 (1982) (Although not conclusive, the meaning attributed to treaty provisions by the 20 Government agencies charged with their negotiation and enforcement is entitled to great 21 weight.). 22 23 24 II. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION ARE WELL-SETTLED
An extradition certification is in order where: (1) the judicial officer is authorized
25 to conduct the extradition proceeding; (2) the court has jurisdiction over the fugitive; (3) 26 the applicable treaty is in full force and effect; (4) the crimes for which surrender is 27 requested are covered by the applicable treaty; and (5) there is sufficient evidence to 28
1 support a finding of probable cause as to each charge for which extradition is sought. See 2 e.g., Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925) Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 3 1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999). 4 5 A. Authority of the Court Over the Proceedings
The extradition statute authorizes proceedings to be conducted by any justice or
6 judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the 7 United States, or any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State. 8 Consequently, both magistrate judges and district judges may render a certification 9 under Section 3184. See Austin v. Healey, 5 F.3d 598, 601-602 (2d Cir. 1993) 10 (magistrate had authorization to conduct the extradition hearing without specific 11 delegation of authority); Ward v. Rutherford, 921 F.2d 286, 287 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (both 12 statute and local rule made plain magistrates authority to conduct extradition hearing); 13 Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 311 F.2d 547, 553-555 (5th Cir. 1962) (any judicial officer in 14 class authorized by statute may conduct extradition hearing). 15 16 B. Jurisdiction Over the Fugitive
It is also well settled that the court has jurisdiction over a fugitive found within its
17 jurisdictional boundaries. 18 U.S.C. 3184 (court may, upon complaint made under 18 oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, . . . issue [its] warrant for the 19 apprehension of the person so charged); see also Pettit v. Walshe, 194 U.S. 205, 219 20 (1904); Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181 (1902); In re Pazienza, 619 F. Supp. 611 (S.D.N.Y. 21 1985). 22 23 C. Treaty in Full Force and Effect
Section 3184 provides for extradition in instances in which a treaty or convention
24 is in force between the requesting state and the United States. See, e.g., In re Chan Kam25 Shu, 477 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 847 (1973). In this case, the 26 government has provided a declaration from Julie B. Martin, an attorney in the Office of 27 the Legal Adviser for the Department of State, attesting that there is a treaty in full force 28 and effect between the United States and Romania. The Department of States
1 determination in this regard is entitled to deference from the Court. See Terlinden v. 2 Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 288 (1902); Kastnerova v. United States, 365 F.3d 980, 985-987 3 (11th Cir. 2004); United States ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 4 1997); Then v. Melendez, 92 F.3d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1996) (since the continuing validity 5 of a treaty between two countries presents a political question, the judiciary must defer to 6 the intentions of the relevant executive authorities). 7 8 D. Crimes Covered by the Treaty
Extradition treaties create an obligation for the United States to surrender fugitives
9 under the circumstances defined in the treaty. Article 1 of the treaty applicable in this 10 case provides for the return of fugitives charged with, found guilty of, or convicted of an 11 extraditable offense as that term is defined under the treaty. The documents submitted 12 by Romania establish that Radu Nemes has been charged in Romania with the crimes of 13 Tax Evasion in violation of Article 9, paragraph 1(a), (b), and (c) and paragraph 3 of the 14 Act No. 241/2005, and Setting Up an Organized Criminal Group in violation of Article 7, 15 paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Act No. 39/2003 of the Criminal Code of Romania. The 16 Romanian extradition documents further establish that Diana NEMES has been charged 17 in Romania with the crimes of Tax Evasion in violation of Article 9, paragraph 1(a), (b), 18 and (c) and paragraph 3 of the Act No. 241/2005, and Supporting an Organized Criminal 19 Group in violation of Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Act No. 39/2003 of the 20 Criminal Code of Romania. 21 Article 2 of the treaty applicable here defines offenses as extraditable if the 22 criminal conduct is punished under the laws of both the United States and Romania by a 23 deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty. 24 Consequently, the court should examine the description of criminal conduct provided by 25 Romania in support of its charge and decide whether that conduct would have been 26 criminal under U.S. law, if committed in this country. A requesting country is not 27 obliged to produce evidence on all elements of a criminal offense nor to establish that its 28 crimes are identical to ours. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6, 15 (1916).
The Supreme Court

1 noted in Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1922), that dual criminality is not a technical 2 concept involving a comparison of elements of the two countries offenses: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The law does not require that the name by which the crime is described in the two countries shall be the same; nor that the scope of the liability shall be coextensive, or, in other respects, the same in the two countries. It is enough if the particular act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions. 259 U.S. at 312 (emphasis added); accord Gallo Chamorro v. United States, 233 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 811 (1995); United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 766 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1105 (1996). Dual criminality is established if the conduct involved in the foreign offense would be criminal under either U.S. federal law, the law of the state in which the hearing is held, or the law of a preponderance of the states. Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa, 638 F.2d 105, 107-108 (9th Cir. 1981). The court should approach challenges to extradition with a view toward finding the offense within the treaty, McElvy v. Civiletti, 523 F. Supp. 42, 48 (S.D. Fla. 1981), because extradition treaties should be interpreted with a view to fulfill our just obligations to other powers. Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 184 (1902); see also Clarey v. Gregg, 138 F.3d 764, 765 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding dual criminality was established under U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty even though the statute under which the fugitive was charged with simple homicide in Mexico criminalized a broader range of conduct than the U.S. felony murder statute). Foreign governments should not be expected to be versed in our criminal laws and procedures. Id. at 184-185. Radu and Diana NEMES criminal activity in Romania, had it occurred in the United States, would be subject to prosecution under several U.S. statues including Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201 (Tax Evasion), Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (Conspiracy), Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956 (Money Laundering), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Aiding and Abetting).
1 2
E.
Probable Cause that the Fugitives have Committed the Offenses
The standard of proof to find the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge . . .
3 pursuant to Section 3184 is the familiar domestic requirement of probable cause. The 4 court must conclude there is probable cause to believe that the crimes charged by 5 Romania were committed and the persons before the court committed the crimes. See 6 Mirchandani v. United States, 836 F.2d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1988); Hoxha v. Levi, 465 7 F.3d 554, 561 (3d Cir. 2006); Sindona v. Grant, 619 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1980). The 8 evidence is sufficient and probable cause is established if a person of ordinary prudence 9 and caution can conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief in the probable guilt of the 10 accused. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 (1975). As the Supreme Court explained: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 //
the proceeding before the commissioner is not to be regarded as in the nature of a final trial by which the prisoner could be convicted or acquitted of the crime charged against him, but rather of the character of those preliminary examinations which take place every day in this country before an examining or committing magistrate for the purpose of determining whether a case is made out which will justify the holding of the accused, either by imprisonment or under bail, to ultimately answer to an indictment, or other proceeding, in which he shall be finally tried upon the charge made against him. Benson v. McMahon, 127 U.S. 457, 463 (1888); see also Collins, 259 U.S. at 316 (The function of the committing magistrate is to determine whether there is competent evidence to justify holding the accused to await trial, and not to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction.); accord Merino v. U.S. Marshal, 326 F.2d 5, 12 (9th Cir. 1963); Fernandez, 268 U.S. at 312 (Competent evidence to establish reasonable grounds is not necessarily competent evidence to convict.); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 752 (9th Cir. 2005).
//
1 2 3 4 5 A. III. EXTRADITION IS SUI GENERIS AND FOLLOWS UNIQUE PROCEDURES An Extradition Hearing Is Not a Criminal Proceeding
The extradition hearing prescribed by 18 U.S.C. 3184 is unique in nature. See,
6 e.g., Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 824, 828 (11th Cir. 1993); Jhirad 7 v. Ferrandina, 536 F.2d 478, 482 (2d Cir. 1976) (extradition is sui generis). As 8 described in Jhirad, an extradition hearing is sui generis, meaning its own type of case, 9 with its structure and process defined by statute and treaty. Id. An extradition hearing is 10 not a criminal proceeding; its purpose is to decide the sufficiency of the charge under the 11 treaty, not guilt or innocence. See Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 461 (1913); Benson, 12 127 U.S. at 463; Mirchandani, 836 F.2d at 1226 (an extradition hearing is analogous to a 13 preliminary hearing on criminal charges). The limited nature of the hearing has resulted 14 in special procedural and evidentiary rules that apply. For example, the person whose 15 extradition is sought is not entitled to the rights available in a criminal trial. See e.g., 16 Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 122 (1902) (rights available to one charged with criminal 17 offense in this country are not applicable to offenses committed outside the United States 18 against the laws of another country); Mirchandani, 836 F.2d at 1226 (principles of res 19 judicata do not apply to extradition proceedings and the government is free to pursue the 20 extradition of an individual in repeated proceedings until it is successful). The purpose of 21 an extradition hearing under Section 3184 is not to try the underlying charge. That is for 22 the foreign court. Neely, 180 U.S. at 123. 23 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply to extradition proceedings. 24 Rule 1(a)(5)(A) provides specifically that the rules do not govern the extradition and 25 rendition of a fugitive. The Federal Rules of Evidence are also inapplicable. Rule 26 1101(d)(3) provides: [t]hese rules except for those on privilege- do not apply to . . . 27 extradition or rendition. See also Afanasjev v. Hurlburt, 418 F.3d 1159, 1164-1165 28
1 (11th Cir. 2005); Melia v. United States, 667 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1981).
Moreover, the
2 fugitive has no right to discovery, Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 3 2005); Koskotas v. Roche, 931 F.2d 169, 175 (1st Cir.1991); Messina v. United States, 4 728 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1984); he has no right to cross examine witnesses who might 5 testify at the hearing, Oen Yin-Choy v. Robinson, 858 F.2d 1400, 1407 (9th Cir. 1988), 6 cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106 (1989); Messina v. United States, 728 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 7 1984); his right to present evidence is severely limited, Messina, 728 F.2d at 80; there is 8 no Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 9 1994); Martin, 993 F.2d at 829; the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy 10 does not apply to successive extradition proceedings, Collins v. Loisel, 262 U.S. 426, 429 11 (1923); Matter of Extradition of McMullen, 989 F.2d 603, 612-613 (2d Cir. 1993), the 12 exclusionary rule is not applicable, Romeo v. Roache, 820 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1987); 13 Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635, 636-637 (2d Cir. 1980); and the defendant does not 14 have the right to confront his accusers, Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 517 (1916). 15 16 17 B. Extradition Hearings Rely on Written Submissions and Do Not Require Live Witnesses
A certification of extradition may be and typically is based entirely on the
18 authenticated documentary evidence and information provided by the requesting 19 government. See, e.g., Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.2d 1134, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2008) 20 (investigation report by public prosecutor that summarized witness statements and other 21 evidence held to constitute competent evidence); Bovio v. United States, 989 F.2d 255, 22 259-261 (7th Cir. 1993) (Swedish investigators statement sufficient to establish probable 23 cause); Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624, 626-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (reports 24 summarizing witness interviews held to be competent and reliable evidence on which to 25 establish probable cause). The finding may also be based upon written statements by the 26 foreign prosecutor or judge summarizing the evidence. Rice v. Ames, 180 U.S. 371, 37527 376 (1901); accord Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 513-514 (1911). 28
The federal statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3190, and the applicable
2 treaty govern both the nature of and the admissibility of the evidence at an extradition 3 hearing. The treaty applicable in this case lists at Article 8 the required submissions by 4 the Government of Romania specifically: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(2) (a) (b)
Requests for extradition shall be supported by: Documents, statements, or other types of information that describe the identity and probable location of the person sought; Information describing the facts of the offense and a brief procedural history of the case;
(c) The relevant text of the law(s) describing the essential elements of the offense for which extradition is requested; (d) (e) The relevant text of the law(s) prescribing punishment for the offense for which extradition is requested; The relevant text of the law(s) describing any time limit on the prosecution or enforcement of the penalty and information describing the application of the law(s) to the offense for which extradition is sought; and The documents, statements, or other types of information specified in paragraphs 3 or 4 of this Article, as applicable; In addition to the requirements in paragraph (2) of this Article, a request for the extradition of a person who is charged with an offense shall also be supported by: a copy of the warrant or order of arrest or detention issued by a judge, court, or other competent authority; a copy of the charging document; and such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is sought.
(f) (3)
(a) (b) (c)
1 Section 3190 provides that properly and legally authenticated documentary evidence 2 including depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof . . . shall be received 3 and admitted as evidence . . . . See 18 U.S.C. 3190 (emphasis added); 3 see also 4 Barapind, 360 F.3d at 1069 (en banc); Zanazanian, 729 F.2d at 627; Collins v. Loisel, 5 259 U.S. 309, 313 (1922). Proof that the authentication is proper and legal exists if the 6 documents bear the certificate or seal of the Ministry or Department of Justice, or the 7 Ministry or Department responsible for foreign affairs, of the Requesting State. See 8 Article 10 - Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Romania and 9 the Protocol to the Treaty Between the United States of America and Romania on Mutual 10 Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, U.S. - Rom., September 10, 2007, S. TREATY 11 DOC. NO. 110-11 (2008). The documents filed in this case are properly certified by the 12 Romanian Ministry of Justice and therefore are admissible at the extradition hearing. 13 Extradition treaties do not require or even anticipate the testimony of live 14 witnesses 4 at the hearing because to do so would defeat the whole object of the treaty. 15 Yordi v. Nolte, 215 U.S. 227, 231 (1909); see also Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 517 16 (1916); Afanasjev v. Hurlburt, 418 F.3d 1159, 1163-1165 (11th Cir. 2005); Artukovic v. 17 Rison, 784 F.2d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir. 1986); Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 902 18 (2d Cir. 1973). Hearsay evidence is admissible at extradition hearings and fully 19 supports the courts findings leading to a certification under Section 3184. Collins, 259 20 U.S. at 317; Emami v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Cal., 834 F.2d 1444, 1450-53 (9th Cir. 21 1987); Zanazanian, 729 F.2d at 626-27. In Bingham, the Supreme Court rejected the 22 A finding of extradition can be based entirely on documentary evidence. United States v. Lui Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103, 119 (1st Cir. 1997) (admissible evidence included 24 affidavits and statements); In re Chan Kam-Shu, 477 F.2d 333, 339 n.14 (5th Cir. 1973), 25 (the government could have proceeded immediately with a complaint based upon the official extradition documents, which apparently would be sufficient for another arrest 26 warrant under 18 U.S.C.A. ' 3184, and a prompt extradition hearing.) 4 27 No United States extradition treaty, even those most recently negotiated, specifically addresses 23
live witnesses. The Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Romania
3
28 refers only to the submission of documents.

1 respondents claim that ex parte witness affidavits submitted in support of his extradition 2 to Canada should not be considered because he had not had the opportunity to cross3 examine those witnesses. The Court referred to the applicable treaty language, which 4 obligated the United States to extradite upon such evidence of criminality as, according 5 to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would 6 justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the crime or offense had there been 7 committed. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 517 (1916). As Section 3190 does 8 today, its predecessor, applicable in Bingham, provided for the admissibility at the 9 extradition hearing of depositions, warrants and similar documents upon proper 10 certification. The Court in Bingham said: 11 12 13 14 It is one of the objects of 5170 [today, 3190] to obviate the necessity of confronting the accused with the witnesses against him; and a construction of this section, or of the treaty, that would require the demanding government to send its citizens to another country to institute legal proceedings, would defeat the whole object of the treaty.
15 Id. That principle of extradition law is as firmly-rooted today as it was in 1916 when the 16 Supreme Court decided Bingham. See Zanazanian, 729 F.2d at 626-627 (applying 17 Bingham to extradition to Sweden); Shapiro, 478 F.2d at 902 (obviating necessity of 18 confronting accused with witnesses against him is one of the prime objects of bi-lateral 19 extradition agreements). 20 21 C. The Fugitives Evidence Is Very Limited, As In a Preliminary Hearing Due to the nature and limited purpose of an extradition hearing under 3184 and
22 the importance of the international obligations of the United States under an extradition 23 treaty, a fugitives opportunity to challenge the evidence introduced against him is very 24 circumscribed. See, e.g., Hooker v. Klein, 573 F.2d 1360, 1368 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person 25 fighting extradition is not permitted to introduce evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence). 26 A fugitive may not introduce evidence that contradicts the evidence submitted on behalf 27 of the requesting country, but may introduce evidence explaining the submitted evidence. 28 Generally, evidence that explains away or completely obliterates probable cause is the
1 only evidence admissible at an extradition hearing, whereas evidence that merely 2 controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible. 3 Barapind, 400 F.3d at 749 (quoting Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1207, n.7 (9th Cir. 4 1999)); see also Ordinola v. Hackman, 478 F.3d 588, 608-09 (4th Cir. 2007); Hoxha v. 5 Levi, 465 F.3d 554, 561 (3d Cir. 2006). Because the purpose of an extradition hearing is 6 to establish probable cause, rather than determine guilt or innocence, or weigh conflicting 7 versions of the facts, an extradition magistrate judge must accept as true evidence that is 8 properly authenticated pursuant to the treaty and statute. See, e.g., In re Solis, 402 F. 9 Supp. 2d 1128, 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Extradition of Cheung, 968 F. Supp. 791, 794 n.6 10 (D. Conn. 1997); Extradition of Marzook, 924 F. Supp. 565, 592 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); 11 Desautels v. United States, 782 F. Supp. 942, 944 n.2 (D. Vt. 1991); Extradition of Atta, 12 706 F. Supp. 1032, 1050-52 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 13 The Supreme Court in Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1922), quoted with 14 approval the district courts reasoning in In re Wadge, 15 F. 864, 866 (S.D.N.Y. 1883), 15 elucidating why the scope of an extradition hearing is very limited. In Wadge, the district 16 court rejected the argument that a fugitive should be given an extensive hearing in the 17 extradition proceedings: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
If this [i.e., allowing the fugitive an indefinite postponement of the proceedings so he can gather testimony from foreign countries] were recognized as the legal right of the accused in extradition proceedings, it would give him the option of insisting upon a full hearing and trial of his case here; and that might compel the demanding government to produce all its evidence here, both direct and rebutting, in order to meet the defense thus gathered from every quarter. The result would be that the foreign government though entitled by the terms of the treaty to the extradition of the accused for the purpose of a trial where the crime was committed, would be compelled to go into a full trial on the merits in a foreign country, under all the disadvantages of such a situation, and could not obtain extradition until after it had procured a conviction of the accused upon a full and substantial trial here. This would be in plain contravention of the intent and meaning of the extradition treaties.
1 In re Wadge, 15 F. at 866; (quoted in Collins, 259 U.S. at 316); accord Charlton, 229 2 U.S. at 461. 3 The extent to which the fugitive may offer explanatory proof is largely within the 4 discretion of the committing judicial officer. Koskotas, 931 F.2d at 175; Hooker, 573 at 5 1369; United States ex rel Petrushansky v. Marasco, 325 F.2d 562, 567 (2d Cir. 1963) 6 (and cases cited therein). The category of explanatory evidence is not large in light of the 7 limited purpose of the hearing, i.e., to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain 8 the charge, and the overarching goal of the proceeding, which is to effectuate the 9 purposes of the treaty. The extradition hearing excludes evidence that requires the court 10 to make determinations outside of the scope of the hearing or within the province of the 11 ultimate trier of fact, particularly when those determinations rest on foreign law. Such 12 evidence exceeds the limits of explanatory or obliterating evidence and is not 13 properly before the court. In re Solis, 402 F. Supp.2d 1128, 1132 (C.D. CA 2005). 14 In applying the prohibition on considering contradictory evidence and the 15 allowance of explanatory evidence several courts have followed the explanation of 16 these concepts elucidated by the court in the Matter of Sindona: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Matter of Sindona, 450 F.Supp. 672, 685 (S.D. N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 619 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1980). D. The Extradition Hearing Excludes Technical and Affirmative Defenses The distinction between contradictory evidence and explanatory evidence is difficult to articulate. However, the purpose behind the rule is reasonably clear. In admitting explanatory evidence, the intention is to afford an accused person the opportunity to present reasonably clear-cut proof which would be of limited scope and having some reasonable chance of negating a showing of probable cause. The scope of this evidence is restricted to what is appropriate to an extradition hearing. The decisions are emphatic that the extraditee cannot be allowed to turn the extradition hearing into a full trial on the merits.
A court should reject defenses against extradition that savor of technicality, as they are peculiarly inappropriate in dealings with a foreign nation. For example, a
1 variance between the charges pending in the foreign state and the complaint filed on 2 behalf of that state in our federal courts is not a defense to surrender. Glucksman v. 3 Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 513-514 (1910); accord Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 517 4 (1916); United States ex rel. Bloomfield v. Gengler, 507 F.2d 925, 927-1024 (2d Cir. 5 1974); Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 904 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. dismissed, 414 6 U.S. 884 (1973). 7 It is also well settled that affirmative defenses to the merits of the charge are not to 8 be entertained in extradition hearings. Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 462 (1913); 9 Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 316-317 (1922); Hooker v. Klein, 573 F.2d 1360, 1368 10 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 932 (1978); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 125 F.3d 11 1110, 1112 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 810 (1998). A fugitive may not 12 introduce evidence that (1) merely conflicts with the evidence submitted on behalf of the 13 demanding state, Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 315-317 (1922); (2) attempts to 14 establish an alibi, Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 901 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. 15 dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 (1973); (3) suggests an insanity defense, Charlton v. Kelly, 229 16 U.S. 447, 462 (1913); or (4) seeks to impeach the credibility of the demanding countrys 17 witnesses, Bovio v. United States, 989 F.2d 255, 259 (7th Cir. 1993). These issues, 18 which require factual and credibility determinations, are for the court in the requesting 19 country to resolve at a trial of the charges. 20 21 22 E. The Executive Considers Matters Other Than Sufficiency; Rule of Non-Inquiry
Other than the sufficiency of the evidence, all matters that may be raised by the
23 fugitive as defenses to extradition are to be considered by the Secretary of State, not by 24 this Court. See 18 U.S.C. 3184, 3186. In making extradition determinations, "[t]he 25 Secretary exercises broad discretion and may properly consider factors affecting both the 26 individual defendant as well as foreign relations factors that may be beyond the scope of 27 the magistrate judge's review." Sidali v. I.N.S., 107 F.3d 191, 195 n.7 (3d Cir. 1997), 28 cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1089 (1998). The Secretary takes into account humanitarian
1 claims and applicable statutes, treaties, or policies regarding appropriate treatment in the 2 receiving country. See, Ntakirutimana v. Reno, 184 F.3d 419, 430 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. 3 denied, 528 U.S. 1135 (2000). This is consistent with the long held understanding that 4 surrender of a fugitive to a foreign government is "purely a national act . . . performed 5 through the Secretary of State," within the Executive's "powers to conduct foreign 6 affairs." See In re Kaine, 55 U.S. 103, 110 (1852). 7 Therefore, under this constitutionally-based rule of judicial non-inquiry, a 8 fugitives contention that the extradition request is politically motivated or that the justice 9 system of the requesting state is unfair should be addressed by the Secretary of State. It 10 is not the role of the court to look behind the extradition request to the motives of the 11 requesting country. Ordinola v. Hackman, 478 F.3d 588, 604 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. 12 denied, 128 S.Ct. 373 (2007) (the motives of the requesting government are irrelevant to 13 our decision and must be addressed to the Secretary of State); Eain v. Wilkes, 641 14 F.2d 504, 513 (7th Cir. 1981) (sole discretion of Secretary of State to determine whether 15 foreign countrys request for extradition is a subterfuge), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 894 16 (1981). Likewise, the court should not investigate the fairness of the requesting 17 countrys criminal justice system. United States v. Lui Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103, 110 (1st 18 Cir. 1997) (It is not that questions about what awaits the relator in the requesting country 19 are irrelevant to extradition; it is that there is another branch of government, which has 20 both final say and greater discretion in these proceedings, to whom these questions are 21 more properly addressed). See also Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 22 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1171 (2006); Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director, 323 23 F.3d 1198, 1208 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Similarly, the Secretary of State has sole discretion under 18 U.S.C. 3186 and 25 the relevant treaty to determine whether a request for extradition should be denied on 26 humanitarian grounds because of procedures or treatment awaiting the surrendered 27 fugitive. See Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 790-791 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 28 479 U.S. 882 (1986); Ahmad v. Wigen, 910 F.2d 1063, 1066 (2d Cir. 1990)(the degree
1 of risk to [the accuseds] life from extradition is an issue that properly falls within the 2 exclusive purview of the executive branch.)(emphasis in original). Respect for and 3 confidence in the Executives exercise of discretion is well placed, as stated in Ahmad: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 the district court proceeded to take testimony from both expert and fact witnesses and received extensive reports, affidavits, and other documentation concerning Israel's law enforcement procedures and its treatment of prisoners. This, we think, was improper. The interests of international comity are ill served by requiring a foreign nation . . . to satisfy a United States district judge concerning the fairness of its laws and the manner in which they are enforced. It is the function of the Secretary of State to determine whether extradition should be denied on humanitarian grounds. So far as we know, the Secretary never has directed extradition in the face of proof that the extraditee would be subjected to procedures or punishment antipathetic to a federal court's sense of decency. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a Secretary of State would do so.
13 Ahmad, 910 F.2d at 1067; accord, Martin v. Warden, Atalanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 14 824, 830 (11th Cir. 1993) (humanitarian consideration are matters properly reviewed by 15 the Department of State). 16 Further, a fugitives contention that he or she will be tried in the extraditing 17 country for crimes other than those for which extradition will be granted must be rejected 18 as baseless or, if not baseless, as beyond the responsibility of the court, for the United 19 States government does not presume that the demanding government will seek a trial in 20 violation of a treaty. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 514 (1916). As the district 21 court noted in Gallina v. Fraser, 177 F. Supp. 857, 867 (D. Conn. 1959), affd, 278 F.2d 22 77 (2d Cir. 1960), the Secretary of State of the United States would not authorize the 23 surrender of a fugitiveto be punished for non-extraditable crimes, andany extradition 24 would be so conditioned as to negate this possibility. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28
1 2
IV.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the United States requests that the court conduct a hearing,
3 pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3184, to determine that the submission 4 on behalf of Romania is sufficient to sustain each of the charges under the provisions of 5 the applicable treaty and to certify the extradition of the fugitive for each of those charges 6 to the Secretary of State for possible surrender to Romania. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DATED this 18th day of March, 2014. Respectfully submitted, JENNY A. DURKAN United States Attorney /s/ NORMAN M. BARBOSA NORMAN M. BARBOSA Assistant United States Attorney 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-4937; Fax (206) 553-2502 E-Mail: Norman.Barbosa@usdoj.gov /s/ RICHARD A. COHEN RICHARD A. COHEN Assistant United States Attorney 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-4665; Fax (206) 553-2502 E-Mail: Richard.Cohen@usdoj.gov

Memorandum of Law in Support of Extradition

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Memorandum of Law in Support of Extradition

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 21

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom

NO. MJ14-5067 KLS

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 4 of 21

Extradition is primarily an executive responsibility with a specially defined role

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 5 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 6 of 21

An extradition certification is in order where: (1) the judicial officer is authorized

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 7 of 21

The extradition statute authorizes proceedings to be conducted by any justice or

Section 3184 provides for extradition in instances in which a treaty or convention

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 8 of 21

The Supreme Court

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 9 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 10 of 21

Probable Cause that the Fugitives have Committed the Offenses

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 11 of 21

The extradition hearing prescribed by 18 U.S.C. 3184 is unique in nature. See,

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 12 of 21

A certification of extradition may be and typically is based entirely on the

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 13 of 21

(2) (a) (b)

(a) (b) (c)

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 14 of 21

28 refers only to the submission of documents.

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 15 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 16 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 17 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 18 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 19 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 20 of 21

Case 3:14-mj-05067-KLS Document 5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 21 of 21

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi