38

The US has jurisdiction because the systems that the accused allegedly attacked are in the US. To use an example with older technology, you can't escape criminal liability for defrauding someone in one country simply because you did so through the mail or by telephone from another country. The UK and the US have an extradition treaty. The UK might refuse ...


24

You do not have to reside in the US to be subject to US law (likewise UK law), nor do you even have to ever be physically present. The alleged crimes, 18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C), 1343, 1349, 1956(h), only require involvement of US computers (which is the case) and not the presence of the accused in the US. At the level of international law, this is covered by Art ...


11

Absent exceptional circumstances like war crimes, Canada would not try the suspect for murder. It might incarcerate the suspect, however, while engaging in negotiations with U.S. officials to try the defendant for murder in a state court or federal court with jurisdiction over the case and an agreement not to seek the death penalty.


7

how are judges in the UK appointed to cases in general? The Resident Judge or the Presiding Judge of the relevant court allocates cases to their fellow judges. Residing Judges sit at specific courts (e.g. all Crown courts will have a Resident Judge). Presiding Judges oversee specific circuits (e.g. the Western circuit). [how was the judge appointed] to ...


6

The Star Vancouver has a good article outlining the actual charges. Meng is not charged with "violating an embargo" but with defrauding U.S. financial institutions. It may be easier to report that the "crime" is violating sanctions but it's a little more nuanced. Meng is charged with defrauding U.S. financial institutions in order to avoid sanctions. From ...


4

The default is that countries are not required to repatriate alleged criminals It is one of the cardinal provisions of sovereignty that one country cannot "reach into" another country's territory for any reason. However, countries can voluntarily repatriate an alleged criminal subject to their own legal systems allowing this. This can be ad-hoc or through a ...


4

Typically in extraditions, the treaties will only allow for extraditions if both nations have a similar crime and similar punishment for that crime. In this case, there maybe some pause for Australia to grant an extradition as Australia no longer has the death penalty for any crime, so it could be that while the new crime the defendant is being sought for ...


4

The U.S. routinely extradites criminal defendants located in the United States to the E.U. Each year since 1990, OIA has opened between 670 to 950 extradition cases based on requests from U.S. prosecutors and foreign governments. During the same time period, OIA closed between 380 to 960 cases per year. OIA's case closure rate has not kept pace with the ...


4

There are two reasons for jail: Applying the sentence Denying the accused the opportunity of fleeing, destroying evidence or doing the same felonies again. The last part is always a difficult one, as the accused has still not received a veredict but has his rights severely curtailed. In general it is intended as a last ditch measure, and the circumstances ...


4

Under Canada's Extradition Act, extradition requires an agreement (which exists between Canada and the US), and the alleged act would be a crime in Canada. Canada does not criminally prosecute the defendant, so this is largely procedural, verifying that the request is legally stated and so on. However, they will also have a hearing on the sufficiency of the ...


3

Yes, they just wait until he has served his time in most cases. The United Kingdom and the United States can agree that he can serve the time in the United States though.


3

The most important rule for an extradition from Germany is this: If the role of the countries were reversed, would the person be convicted in Germany according to German law? You say the link claims that he couldn't be convicted now, because he would have been convicted twice for the same crime. So he wouldn't be convicted in Germany if the roles of the ...


3

When a country makes criminal laws, these laws usually apply to anyone present in the country, and acting in the country. But the country is free to declare that some law might apply to its own citizens in a foreign country, or even foreign citizens in a foreign country. Assuming the laws about using marijuana say nothing about the country, that most ...


3

The country where the accused person was arrested would extradite that person to one of the countries where the crimes had been committed. The extradition treaties or the law of the arresting country might have a rule to define how to choose which country took precedence. (Perhaps the earlier crime, or the more serious crime if they were different, or the ...


3

Germany would not extradite to Saudi Arabia. India and Kuwait might, because they and a few other countries have extradition treaties with KSA. To put this squarely in the realm of illegal (it's not clear that accidentally encountering Shiite material online is a crime in KSA), assume that the person deliberately watched porn then fled to India. Generally ...


3

Extradition treaties/agreements The general principle of international law is that all countries are sovereign and have jurisdiction over all people within their borders; in this regard they are not required to render any persons within their borders to another country, not even to be prosecuted for a crime. However, if the country the person is in has an ...


3

It depends on the law in country B Some countries allow extradition of their citizens and some don’t.


3

All countries (and some sub-national jurisdictions) have extraterritorial jurisdiction The U.S. Criminal Code asserts the following items to fall within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, much of which is extraterritorial in nature: The high seas and any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the ...


3

Could the US extradite the Russian Hackers who started the cyber attack against the US private sector and US government agencies and departments? No. The United States and Russia do not have an extradition treaty. See Russian Indictment and Extradition | American Constitution Society. And within Russia, extradition is constitutionally prohibited; see ...


2

Neither local nor state governments in the US have any power to engage in foreign relations. The federal government is the only entity with that power, and so they must be involved in all extradition matters. Countries do not have treaties with the City of New York (for instance), they have treaties with the United States. Formal extradition requests are ...


2

Not immune The process is called rendition and is similar to extradition between sovereign nations. Uniform laws to give effect to this are in place in 48 of 50 states (the only exceptions being South Carolina and Missouri). The process in these states is: A valid arrest warrant issued by the demanding state A request from the Executive Authority of the ...


2

Yes. Kim Dotcom is alleged to have committed a crime against US law. The US requested his arrest by NZ authorities with whom they have an extradition treaty. He has now had his extradition hearing and the NZ court is satisfied that, under NZ law, he should be extradited to face those charges. You do not have to be a citizen of a country to offend its laws. ...


2

The courts in Y would decide if they have jurisdiction to hear the case: they almost certainly do. A would presumably petition the court that the courts of X are a better venue, B would argue "liar, liar, pants on fire". The court would then decide if they or a court in X should hear the case. They would then decide if the contract is subject to the laws of ...


2

The Russian Constitution Article 61(1) prohibits this, stating "The citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state".


2

You’re looking at the wrong part. The relevant section is Article 2, which sets out offenses that are extraditable using the EAW mechanism. Article 2 has a list of offenses which are extraditable regardless of dual criminality if the issuing state punishes them with a maximum of at least 3 years in prison, but for all other offenses the executing state is ...


2

First, there must be an extradition treaty. Second, between most countries, a person who gets extradited can only be convicted for the crimes in the extradition request. That sometimes causes a delay. In your case, Indian police might not be sure that they found all the crimes this person is guilty of. If they got an extradition today, they couldn't charge ...


2

Some laws apply to US Citizens wherever they are located, for example, 31 CFR 560.418: § 560.418 Release of technology or software in the United States or a third country. The release of technology or software in the United States, or by a United States person wherever located, to any person violates the prohibitions of this part if made with ...


2

does US law travel with its citizens wherever they go, or does leaving US soil remove US legal obligations? USA law travel with its citizens as long as USA law says it does, and can be enforced (trivially, if the offender returns to the USA then USA law can be enforced). Even in some cases, USA laws can only be broken abroad (for example, a prohibition to ...


2

Extradition Most European continental countries do not permit their citizens to be extradited, based mostly on Roman law. In Germany this provision was introduced into the constitution in 1919 §12(3) and later defined in 1949 §16(2) Grundgesetz. Before that it was defined in the §9 Strafgesetzbuch 1872 (penal code). §4(3) regulated how a German can be ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible