DOCSLIB.ORG

The US-UK Extradition Treaty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The US-UK Extradition Treaty House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The US-UK Extradition Treaty Twentieth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 27 March 2012 HC 644 Published on 30 March 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Joanna Dodd (Second Clerk), Ruth Davis (Committee Specialist), Eleanor Scarnell (Inquiry Manager), Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant), Victoria Butt (Committee Assistant), John Graddon (Committee Support Officer) and Alex Paterson (Select Committee Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3276; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. The US-UK Extradition Treaty 1 Contents Report Page Introduction 3 The “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion” tests 5 The prima facie evidence test 7 The issue of forum 9 Conclusion 12 Annex: Statement to the Committee by United States Ambassador Louis B. Sussman 13 Conclusions and recommendations 16 Formal Minutes 18 Witnesses 20 List of previously printed written evidence 21 List of printed written evidence 21 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 22 The US-UK Extradition Treaty 3 Introduction 1. One of the first commitments made by the Coalition Government was to review the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 and the US-UK Extradition Treaty to make sure that they are even-handed.1 This commitment was made in the context of widespread political concern about the operation of the UK’s extradition arrangements with the USA. Representatives of both Coalition Parties had expressed reservations about the operation of the Treaty while in opposition. Opening an emergency debate called in 2006 by the Liberal Democrats shortly before the extradition of the “NatWest Three”,2 Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP said, We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have objected to the extradition arrangements with the USA ever since the text of the new treaty was published in May 2003. [...] the extradition treaty and its enactment through the Extradition Act 2003 is manifestly unfair to British citizens.3 During the same debate, Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP (then the shadow Attorney General), expressed reservations about the new standard of information required by the Treaty— which he described in relation to one case as “very scanty indeed”—and described the lack of forum provisions in the 2003 Act as “a serious flaw”.4 Rt Hon David Blunkett MP, who was Home Secretary when the Treaty was signed, told us that although the 2003 Treaty was in principle an improvement over previous treaties, “the practice has been very different”.5 2. Since the extradition of the “NatWest Three”, there have been several other high-profile cases which have been the focus of public concern. During the course of this inquiry, the Committee took evidence from representatives of several of those involved—Janis Sharp, whose son, Gary McKinnon, has been charged with several counts of damaging computers belonging to the US military;6 Ashfaq Ahmad, the father of Babar Ahmad, who has been in prison in the UK for more than seven years while an extradition request from the USA is dealt with;7 Elaine and Neil Tappin, the wife and son of Christopher Tappin, who has recently been extradited to the US to face charges for his alleged involvement in the sale of restricted weapons-system components to Iran;8 and written evidence from Eileen Clark, who is facing charges for allegedly kidnapping her now-adult children in 1998.9 This evidence has given us an insight into some of the difficulties experienced by those facing extradition, as well as their families. But it is important to bear in mind that there is another side to each of these stories and the Committee has not heard any of the evidence 1 The Coalition: our programme for government (Cabinet Office, May 2010), p. 14 2 For evidence from David Bermingham, one of the “NatWest Three”, see Qq 208–279 3 HC Deb, 12 July 2006, col. 1396. Although Mr Clegg referred to “British citizens”, citizenship is largely irrelevant in extradition cases and it is quite common for people to be extradited to the country of which they are a citizen. 4 Ibid, cols. 1410 & 1420. He was referring to the Morgan Crucible Case 5 Q 3 6 Qq 60–78 7 Qq 79–102 8 Qq 417–430 9 Ev 77 4 The US-UK Extradition Treaty against the accused in these cases. In this Report the Committee is concerned with the policy framework within which extradition decisions are made by the courts. The Committee has reached no conclusions about any specific case, either past or present. 3. The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged the difficulties surrounding the McKinnon case in particular. In July 2009, when Mr McKinnon lost his judicial reviews against the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the then-Leader of the Opposition described himself as being “deeply saddened and disappointed” by the decision and went on to say Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial. If he has questions to answer, there is a clear argument to be made that he should answer them in a British court. This case raises serious questions about the workings of the Extradition Act, which should be reviewed.10 4. In light of these high-profile, problematic cases, and to give effect to the commitment in the Coalition Agreement, the Home Secretary appointed Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker to carry out a review of the UK’s extradition arrangements in October 2010. Sir Scott, a retired High Court judge, was supported in his work by David Perry QC, who has experience of extradition cases as both a prosecutor and defender, and Anand Doobay, a solicitor whose practice focuses on representing the subjects of extradition requests and who is a trustee of Fair Trials International. The Panel’s Report was published in October 2011.11 5. The Review Panel received 209 written submissions, and held oral evidence sessions in London, Edinburgh, Brussels, the Hague and Washington DC over a total of 12 days. The evidence the Panel gathered remains with the Home Secretary, who has so far refused to publish it, despite our requests for her to do so. The Committee can see no legitimate reason for the Home Secretary’s refusal to publish the evidence to the Baker Review. The secrecy surrounding the evidence is as frustrating as it is inexplicable and it is not helping to improve low public confidence in this matter. The Committee recommends that the Home Secretary publish it immediately. 6. The Home Secretary is still considering how to respond to the Baker Report, which makes a number of recommendations for changes to both the US-UK extradition arrangements and the European Arrest Warrant, but does not recommend radical reform of either. The Committee has therefore decided to bring forward this short Report on the US-UK Extradition arrangements as soon as possible. The Committee will return to the issues relating to the European Arrest Warrant, which was also part of our inquiry, in due course. 7. In addition to the evidence published with this Report, the Committee held an informal meeting with Louis B. Sussman, the United States Ambassador, who put the US Government’s position to us a few days before the extradition debate in the House on 5 10 Conservative Party press release dated 31 July 2009, Grayling says McKinnon extradition is “very disappointing”. 11 A Review of the United Kingdom’s Extradition Arrangements (following Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 8 September 2010). Presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011 (hereafter, “the Baker Report”). The US-UK Extradition Treaty 5 December 2011.12 During our recent visit to the United States, the Committee held a conference call with Bill Pearson, a former Federal prosecutor with experience of making extradition requests to the UIK, and the Committee held a video conference with senior officials from the United States Department of Justice. Mr Pearson told us that, in US law, “probable cause” was a stronger test than “reasonable suspicion”, an issue which we consider in more detail below.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Tuesday Volume 542 13 March 2012 No. 278 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 13 March 2012 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 119 13 MARCH 2012 120 Mr Clarke: As I have said, we are building on the House of Commons great work that is already being done, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The purpose of prisons, it Tuesday 13 March 2012 seems to me, is first to punish for crime, and secondly to reform as many criminals as possible. The second aim has been neglected in recent years, but the kind of work The House met at half-past Two o’clock that my hon. Friend describes ought to be replicated as much as possible throughout the system, and that is the PRAYERS end towards which we are working. Richard Graham: I welcome the Secretary of State’s [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] comments. He knows about the existing business in Her Majesty’s prison Gloucester, where prisoners repair bicycles which a charity then sends to Africa. It is a not-for-profit BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS business. How does my right hon. and learned Friend think we could ensure that if the business were profitable TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (SUPPLEMENTAL TOLL it would not undercut businesses outside the prison, PROVISIONS)BILL [LORDS](BY ORDER) bearing in mind that paying the minimum wage might Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday set a precedent in regard to other rights for prisoners? 20 March (Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard
    Tuesday Volume 679 8 September 2020 No. 96 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 8 September 2020 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 477 8 SEPTEMBER 2020 478 James Cleverly: As I say, my right hon. Friends the House of Commons Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have engaged at the highest levels with the Lebanese Government, Tuesday 8 September 2020 and ensuring that there is political and economic stability, as well as security, is key. We support the Lebanese The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock Government in many ways, including through the Lebanese armedforces,whichrecruitcross-faithandcross-community. Our diplomatic efforts go hand in hand with our PRAYERS humanitarian efforts.My right hon. Friend will understand that future designations under our autonomous Magnitsky [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] sanctions regime are not something that we wish to Virtual participation in proceedings commenced speculate about at the Dispatch Box, but we will ensure (Order, 4 June). that our support to the people of Lebanon, and Beirutis in particular, continues. [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] Tim Farron: Migrants are crossing the channel partly because of a lack of safe and legal routes. Refugee Oral Answers to Questions resettlement, including from Lebanon, is a safe and legal route, but the pandemic has understandably seen it suspended. Now is surely the time to reopen those safe FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH AND and legal routes. Will the Minister take steps this week DEVELOPMENT OFFICE to assist the Lebanese Government in restoring safe routes to the UK for refugees? The Secretary of State was asked— James Cleverly: I thank the hon.
    [Show full text]
  • ISSUE 24: 31 March 2021 Welcome to Edition 24 of the Defence
    ISSUE 24: 31 March 2021 NEWS Welcome to edition 24 of the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum newsletter and the first edition of 2021 post- transition period. In this edition we have an article from Edward Grange examining the balance of the UK-US Extradition Treaty with reference to recent high profile cases. We also have a comprehensive update on the new regime under the TCA from Ben Keith, Sophia Kerridge and Edward Grange. Finally, the newsletter also contains our usual updates on recent work, some recent extradition related news and educational events. With many thanks to our contributors. A message from the Chair Welcome to the 24th Edition of the DELF newsletter. It’s our first post Brexit and the (partial) end of the EAW. We have reproduced an article from the New Journal of European Criminal Law on post Trade and Cooperation Agreement extradition with the EU. We have an upcoming roundtable discussion on the TCA on 22 April 2021. In other news we would like to congratulate District Judge Paul Goldspring on his appointment as Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate). We have recently met to discuss collaboration with Westminster (details below). We wish his predecessor Mrs Justice Arbuthnot good fortune on her elevation to the High Court Bench. We intend to continue with remote seminars and meetings for the foreseeable future and hope to be able to organise in person events in the Autumn. Ben Keith 5 St Andrew’s Hill Our Recent Activities We continue to make representations on behalf of our members to the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the LAA, the Administrative Court staff and the Senior District Judge’s office.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Major Us Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage
    ______________________________________________________________________________ MARCH 2014 NSD WWW.JUSTICE.GOV (202) 514-2007 SUMMARY OF MAJOR U.S. EXPORT ENFORCEMENT, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE, TRADE SECRET AND EMBARGO-RELATED CRIMINAL CASES (January 2008 to the present: updated March 26, 2014) Below is a snapshot of some of the major export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions handled by the Justice Department since January 2008. These cases resulted from investigations by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) [formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement , (ICE)], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and other law enforcement agencies. This list of cases is not exhaustive and only represents select cases. DuPont Trade Secrets to China - On March 5, 2014, a federal jury in the Northern District of California found two individuals and one company guilty of economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, bankruptcy fraud, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice for their roles in a long-running effort to obtain U.S. trade secrets for the benefit of companies controlled by the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The jury found that Walter Lian-Heen Liew (aka Liu Yuanxuan), his company, USA Performance Technology, Inc. (USAPTI), and Robert Maegerle conspired to steal trade secrets from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) regarding their chloride-route titanium dioxide production technology and sold those secrets for large sums of money to state-owned companies of the PRC. The purpose of their conspiracy was to help those companies develop large-scale chloride-route titanium dioxide production capability in the PRC, including a planned 100,000-ton titanium dioxide factory in Chongqing.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Book
    PALGRAVE POLITICS OF IDENTITY & CITIZENSHIP SERIES POLITICS OF IDENTITY & CITIZENSHIP SERIES PALGRAVE PALGRAVE TheThe StateState ofof RaceRace EditedEdited byby NishaNisha Kapoor,Kapoor, VirinderVirinder S.S. KalraKalra andand JamesJames RhodesRhodes The State of Race Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series Series Editors: Varun Uberoi , University of Oxford; Nasar Meer , University of Southampton and Tariq Modood , University of Bristol. The politics of identity and citizenship has assumed increasing importance as our polities have become significantly more culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse. Different types of scholars, including philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and historians make contributions to this field and this series showcases a variety of innovative contributions to it. Focusing on a range of different countries, and utilizing the insights of different disciplines, the series helps to illuminate an increasingly controversial area of research and titles in it will be of interest to a number of audiences including scholars, students and other interested individuals. Titles include: Heidi Armbruster and Ulrike Hanna Meinhof ( editors ) NEGOTIATING MULTICULTURAL EUROPE Borders, Networks, Neighbourhoods Fazila Bhimji BRITISH ASIAN MUSLIM WOMEN, MULTIPLE SPATIALITIES AND COSMOPOLITANISM Nisha Kapoor, Virinder S. Kalra and James Rhodes ( editors ) THE STATE OF RACE Dina Kiwan NATURALIZATION POLICIES, EDUCATION AND CITIZENSHIP Multicultural and Multi-Nation Societies in International Perspective
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Major Us Export
    ______________________________________________________________________________ FEBRUARY 2015 NSD WWW.JUSTICE.GOV (202) 514-2007 SUMMARY OF MAJOR U.S. EXPORT ENFORCEMENT, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE, TRADE SECRET AND EMBARGO-RELATED CRIMINAL CASES (January 2009 to the present: updated February 23, 2015) Below is a brief description of some of the major export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions by the Justice Department since January 2008. These cases resulted from investigations by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) [formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement , (ICE)], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and other law enforcement agencies. This list of cases is not exhaustive and only represents select cases. Satellite Communications Equipment to Sudan – On February 18, 2015, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richard John Dagher, a Lebanese national who was a resident of Lebanon, pled guilty to a one count Information charging him with conspiring to defraud the United States by filing false Electronic Export Information (EEI) in his attempt to export goods from the United States to Sudan without first obtaining a license. Dagher was employed by BCom Offshore SAL, a satellite communication service provider based in Lebanon with an office in Switzerland. He was the Director of Operations. Dagher held a visa which allowed him to do business in the United States. Court documents show that from March 14, 2012 through February 26, 2013, Dagher cased the filing of false EEI, which stated that an export from the United States to Sudan of satellite communications equipment was destined for Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Capital
    CRIMINAL CAPITAL CRIMINAL CAPITAL HOW THE FINANCE INDUSTRY FACILITATES CRIME STEPHEN PLATT © Stephen Platt 2015 Foreword © Robert Mazur 2015 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saff ron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. Th e author has asserted his right to be identifi ed as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fift h Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN: 978–1–137–33729–0 Th is book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 November 2013 Nsd (202) 514
    NOVEMBER 2013 NSD WWW.JUSTICE.GOV (202) 514-2007 SUMMARY OF MAJOR U.S. EXPORT ENFORCEMENT, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE, TRADE SECRET AND EMBARGO-RELATED CRIMINAL CASES (January 2008 to the present: updated November 20, 2013) Below is a snapshot of some of the major export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions handled by the Justice Department since January 2008. These cases resulted from investigations by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) [formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement , (ICE)], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and other law enforcement agencies. This list of cases is not exhaustive and only represents select cases. • Military Weapons Parts and Accessories Overseas – On October 10, 2013, Christopher M. Gray was sentenced in the District of Columbia to 36 months imprisonment. Gray was also ordered to pay $6,990 in restitution and a $100,000 fine. On June 17, 2013, Gray pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully exporting and attempting to export ACOG Riflescopes from the United States to Thailand, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. The operator of an online business in Buffalo called “Hidden Treasures,” Gray made his initial appearance on April 15, 2013 pursuant to a federal indictment charging him with 12 counts of illegally exporting defense articles abroad. Gray allegedly exported a variety of combat optical gun sights, tactical sights, scopes and other military items to the following locations -- Hong Kong, Thailand, Ukraine, Turkey, South Korea, Spain, France, New Zealand and Canada -- without the required State Department licenses.
    [Show full text]
  • DELF Activities
    ISSUE 11: 5th April 2018 NEWS Welcome to Issue 11 of the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum newsletter. In this edition Giovanna Fiorentino provides a commentary on changes to the Italian legal system following the Torreggiani judgment; Patrick Ormerod reports on the recent Lauri Love decision; Peter Caldwell comments on the recent Georgiev case; Mark Summers QC and Benjamin Seifert report on the case of Karel Konecny and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on Section 14 of the EA; we update on the recent Administrative Court meeting; and Mary Westcott provides a briefing on the latest DELF education event on 21 March: Ed Fitzgerald in conversation with Sir Andrew Collins. We update you on forthcoming events and our activities over the past month and explain how you could get involved. Our Recent Activities D ELF activities On 20 March 2018 DELF held its regular meeting with the Administrative Court. During the meeting the following issues were discussed: Appeal hearing listing – Currently parties are given two dates to choose from for substantive hearings. DELF asked the court to consider giving three dates to accommodate counsel’s diary. The court will look in to this. Bail appeals from the Magistrates’ Court – If no extradition appeal has been lodged and the RP wishes to apply for bail in the High Court then the application must be made on a form N161 which attracts a fee of £240. If an appeal against extradition has been lodged then the bail application will be made on a form EX244 which attracts a fee of £255.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition Law
    HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on Extradition Law 2nd Report of Session 2014–15 Extradition: UK law and practice Ordered to be printed 25 February 2015 and published 10 March 2015 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 126 Select Committee on Extradition Law The Select Committee on Extradition Law was appointed by the House of Lords on 12 June 2014 “to consider and report on the law and practice relating to extradition, in particular the Extradition Act 2003.” Membership The Members of the Select Committee on Extradition Law were: Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Lord Empey Baroness Hamwee Lord Hart of Chilton Lord Henley Lord Hussain Lord Inglewood (Chairman) Baroness Jay of Paddington Lord Jones Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Rowlands Baroness Wilcox Declaration of interests See Appendix 1 A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-interests Publications All publications of the Committee are available at: http://www.parliament.uk/extradition-law Parliament Live Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv Further information Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Committee staff The staff who worked on this Committee were James Whittle (Clerk), Cathryn Auplish (Policy Analyst) and Morgan Sim (Committee Assistant) Contact details All correspondence should be addressed to the Select Committee on Extradition Law, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY of MAJOR U.S. EXPORT ENFORCEMENT, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE, TRADE SECRET and EMBARGO-RELATED CRIMINAL CASES (January 2007 to the Present: Updated July 2, 2012)
    JULY 2012 NSD WWW.JUSTICE.GOV (202) 514-2007 SUMMARY OF MAJOR U.S. EXPORT ENFORCEMENT, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE, TRADE SECRET AND EMBARGO-RELATED CRIMINAL CASES (January 2007 to the present: updated July 2, 2012) Below is a snapshot of some of the major export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions handled by the Justice Department since January 2007. These cases resulted from investigations by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and other law enforcement agencies. This list of cases is not exhaustive and only represents select cases. x Military Software Used For China’s First Modern Attack Helicopter -- On June 28, 2012, in the District of Connecticut, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (PWC), a Canadian subsidiary of Connecticut-based defense contractor United Technologies Corp. (UTC), pleaded guilty to violating the Arms Export Control Act and making false statements in connection with its illegal export to China of U.S.-origin military software that was used in the development of China’s first modern military attack helicopter, the Z-10. In addition, UTC, its U.S.-based subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (HSC), and PWC all agreed to pay more than $75 million as part of a global settlement with the Justice Department and the State Department in connection with various export violations, including those related to the Z-10, and for making false and belated disclosures to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2003 Extradition Treaty: Should U.S.-U.K.’S Extradition Relationship Be Overhauled? Richard Brant Forrest
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 5-1-2013 The 2003 Extradition Treaty: Should U.S.-U.K.’s Extradition Relationship be Overhauled? Richard Brant Forrest Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Recommended Citation Forrest, Richard Brant, "The 2003 Extradition Treaty: Should U.S.-U.K.’s Extradition Relationship be Overhauled?" (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. 221. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/221 The 2003 Extradition Treaty: Should U.S.-U.K.’s extradition relationship be overhauled? By R. Brant Forrest I. Introduction This paper addresses the current controversy surrounding extradition between the United States (“U.S.”) and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) and how the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the two countries has been criticized but these criticisms lack merit. To begin, on July 2, 1776, the U.S. gained its independence from U.K. and would later adopt the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, making the U.S. an independent country. Relations since the separation between the two countries have evolved into what one may call a mutual friendship. One aspect of this relationship has been the extradition of individuals between the two countries for certain crimes. The extradition relationship has roots back to the Jay Treaty of 1794, but has recently been solidified by the 2003 Extradition Treaty (“2003 Treaty”) between the U.S. and the U.K.. On March 31, 2003, the Attorney General of the U.S. and the U.K. Home Secretary announced the signing of a new extradition treaty between the two countries.
    [Show full text]