Extradition to US: Facing 380 years in jail

Nomis21

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37656303

He has never committed any offence in his life, never spent any of the money.

More US Bully-Boy tactics for making a mockery of their greedy systems.

The_Valeyard

Does it work the other way around. Do the US allow extradition of their own citizens?

What happens if you die before the 380 years are up?

myshirt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What happens if you die before the 380 years are up?

Buried on the grounds if the prison, unmarked grave. Well, marked with your prisoner number.

Nomis21

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Does it work the other way around. Do the US allow extradition of their own citizens?

Yes, but rarely happens.

What he did is not a crime in UK. He should never have been extradited.

About timeEurope stopped kissing America's a**e all the time.

But if it's within the remit of the extradition treaty betwen the countries, so be it. They can't retrospectively change the arrangement and argue that he can't be extradited because he is not a US citizen or it's not a crime in the UK.

Iwasfrozen

Nomis21 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37656303

He has never committed any offence in his life, never spent any of the money.

More US Bully-Boy tactics for making a mockery of their greedy systems.

Uhm...

"He is accused of market manipulation by "spoofing" over a five-year period and of contributing to a 1,000 point fall on the Dow Jones index in New York on 6 May 2010."

The_Valeyard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But if it's within the remit of the extradition treaty betwen the countries, so be it. They can't retrospectively change the arrangement and argue that he can't be extradited because he is not a US citizen or it's not a crime in the UK.

Why not?

gctest50

Nomis21 wrote: »

Yes, but rarely happens.

What he did is not a crime in UK. He should never have been extradited.

About timeEurope stopped kissing America's a**e all the time.

Maybe they have tricky T & Cs

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Europe is a London-based ........

http://www.cmegroup.com/europe/

He was operating on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37656303

The_Valeyard

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Why not?

Because once agreement is reached and a Treaty signed off, one part can't unilaterally change it without expecting serious repercussions.

Skatedude

The crime sounds like the market trading version of counting cards?

suicide_circus

bleedin spewfer

Specialun

Market manipulation is an offense..obviously he was not solely responsible or probably played very little part but he cannot be menipilating the core markets

The flying mouse

Nomis21 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37656303

He has never committed any offence in his life, never spent any of the money.

More US Bully-Boy tactics for making a mockery of their greedy systems.

It's not as bad as it reads, he can get out on parole after 150 years ...

Manic Moran

Nomis21 wrote: »

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Does it work the other way around. Do the US allow extradition of their own citizens?

Yes, but rarely happens.

What he did is not a crime in UK. He should never have been extradited.

You sure about that? I'd wager that if you manipulated the FTSE, you'd be up on charges.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because once agreement is reached and a Treaty signed off, one part can't unilaterally change it without expecting serious repercussions.

And Britain would never do anything like that...

It's ludicrous that individuals are allowed be in positions where they can wreak such havoc with nothing more than a computer and a phone. Have we learned nothing from Leeson, Kerviel et al?

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

You sure about that? I'd wager that if you manipulated the FTSE, you'd be up on charges.

People were prosecuted (and convicted, and sentenced) in the UK for manipulating LIBOR.

Both countries are long-established financial centres whose dominance depends, to a signficant extent, on general faith in the integrity of their markets. So they both have laws aimed at fraudulent market-rigging transactions. The details of the laws may not be identical. it's suggested above that what this bloke did contravened US law but not UK law. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it is plausible.

Your Face

Its all a bit - meh.

Donald Trump

pickarooney wrote: »

And Britain would never do anything like that...

It's ludicrous that individuals are allowed be in positions where they can wreak such havoc with nothing more than a computer and a phone. Have we learned nothing from Leeson, Kerviel et al?

He was exploiting a system. If I recall correctly he was doing it from his basement. Submitting orders and cancelling immediately. Other people had automated algorithms that would see the orders coming in, anticipate a rise in the price of those securities and automatically buy them in a fraction of a second.

If you want to read the investigation into it by the US CTFC, have a look here. I see that it was updated. I read the original a few years back but not sure what is in the updated one
http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@economicanalysis/documents/file/oce_flashcrash0314.pdf

Leeson was a completely different case. He was managing two departments of a bank, one of which was supposed of have oversight of the other. I think he had made a few big losses but doubled down and won it back. The same thing happened but when he tried to double down, the Asian crisis hit. His was a failure of controls in the sense that it was a bad set-up which gave him too much power. It was basically the wild west and he was out of control.


Kerviel was slightly different again. He was taking positions much larger than he was authorized to. There were controls in place but the people who were supposed to be watching them didn't do their job. They say it was because he was manipulating the warning systems to avoid detection, he says they turned a blind eye because he was making them billions before it blew up. And that everyone was doing it.


Anyway, nobody put this fella into any position other than he was allowed access to buy and sell. He tried to "exploit" a glitch in the system which, it is claimed, triggered an avalanche of knock on effects which caused the flash crash.
Someone would have an automatic system set up for example so that if the price dropped say 5% that it would be sold immediately. So that is why once it started dropping it cascaded. All the programs were trying to sell which dropped the price even further.
I think that a lot of the trades were cancelled in the wake of it. So people didn't necessarily lose

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

People were prosecuted (and convicted, and sentenced) in the UK for manipulating LIBOR.

Both countries are long-established financial centres whose dominance depends, to a signficant extent, on general faith in the integrity of their markets. So they both have laws aimed at fraudulent market-rigging transactions. The details of the laws may not be identical. it's suggested above that what this bloke did contravened US law but not UK law. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it is plausible.

Libor rigging scandal was different. Libor is a consensus rate. Every day banks would submit what they were seeing in the market as regards interbank lending rates. The outliers from these surveys would be ignored and the average then published as an "official" figure. But some banks colluded to give higher or lower quotes than the reality in order to suit other parts of their businesses. If enough colluded, they would no longer be outliers and the consensus rate was not really the market rate.

There are probably trillions of dollars notional of instruments which made payments referenced against this rate. That was why it was such a big issue.

Harvey Normal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But if it's within the remit of the extradition treaty betwen the countries, so be it. They can't retrospectively change the arrangement and argue that he can't be extradited because he is not a US citizen or it's not a crime in the UK.

They can. The uk parliament is sovereign. Nobody should ever be extradited for a crime that's not a crime in their own country.

Harvey Normal

Manic Moran wrote: »

You sure about that? I'd wager that if you manipulated the FTSE, you'd be up on charges.

If you manipulated the FTSE in the US there's no hope of a charge.

Harvey Normal

Was anybody in an actual position of power arrested by the us with regards to 2008?

This lopsided treaty shows that Brexit doesn't really return much sovereignty to the UK, if it remains a vassal state of the US.

Peregrinus

Harvey Normal wrote: »

They can. The uk parliament is sovereign. Nobody should ever be extradited for a crime that's not a crime in their own country.

You can be extradited from the UK to the US for acts which are not a crime in the UK, because Parliament has decreed (in the Extradition Act 2003) that you can be. And Parliament, as you point out, is sovereign.

Peregrinus

Harvey Normal wrote: »

If you manipulated the FTSE in the US there's no hope of a charge.

The charge against this guy isn't of manipulating any index. It's said that his actions had an effect on the Dow Jones, but that wasn't his intention and he didn't benefit from that. The charge against him, as I understand it, is simply of entering into fraudulent transactions - i.e transactions which he had no intention of completing - and most regulated financial markets will have an offence which more or less corresponds to that.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

This lopsided treaty shows that Brexit doesn't really return much sovereignty to the UK, if it remains a vassal state of the US.

In fairness, much as I dislike Brexit, I don't think anyone has ever pretended that the effect of Brexit would be to recover any sovereignty which may have been ceded under the UK/US extradition treaty.

Harvey Normal

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can be extradited from the UK to the US for acts which are not a crime in the UK, because Parliament has decreed (in the Extradition Act 2003) that you can be. And Parliament, as you point out, is sovereign.

Which is why this guy doesn't have to be extradited. I know the existing law (what in my post indicated otherwise). I'm suggesting the law be changed (responding to someone saying that it couldn't be changed retrospectively).

Harvey Normal

Peregrinus wrote: »

The charge against this guy isn't of manipulating any index. It's said that his actions had an effect on the Dow Jones, but that wasn't his intention and he didn't benefit from that. The charge against him, as I understand it, is simply of entering into fraudulent transactions - i.e transactions which he had no intention of completing - and most regulated financial markets will have an offence which more or less corresponds to that.

He is however clearly not under arrest in Britain for crimes against the British state. He may well be in violation of crimes in Saudi Arabia whilst living in the U.K. but he won't be extradited there.

In fairness, much as I dislike Brexit, I don't think anyone has ever pretended that the effect of Brexit would be to recover any sovereignty which may have been ceded under the UK/US extradition treaty.

Which isn't what I said. I said if you are going to demand sovereignty from the EU, ceding it the the US makes no sense.

This is a lop sided treaty, treating British citizens as subjects of the American empire's judicial whims.

gctest50

Harvey Normal wrote: »

They can. The uk parliament is sovereign. Nobody should ever be extradited for a crime that's not a crime in their own country.

The US only needs to allege reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, rather than prove the crime and they could extradite him

gctest50

pickarooney wrote: »

And Britain would never do anything like that...

It's ludicrous that individuals are allowed be in positions where they can wreak such havoc with nothing more than a computer and a phone. Have we learned nothing from Leeson, Kerviel et al?

wasn't doing too bad "with nothing more than a computer and a phone."


Cash | £20,307,418.00
Net Worth | £20,609,148.00
Total Current Assets | £20,996,456.00
Total Current Liabilities | £387,308.00

.

Harvey Normal

gctest50 wrote: »

wasn't doing too bad "with nothing more than a computer and a phone."


Cash £20,307,418.00
Net Worth £20,609,148.00
Total Current Assets £20,996,456.00
Total Current Liabilities £387,308.00

So what? A list of assets proves nothing.

The question here is the morality of extradition to the US not the legality of it under an existing treaty.

HensVassal

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Does it work the other way around. Do the US allow extradition of their own citizens?

Course not. This is the US, the most hypocritical bunch of two faced **** there is. How many CIA agents have committed crimes overseas and requests for their extradition have been issued only to be ignored. The scumbag who murdered the motorcyclist in Pakistan, the blackwater thugs who slaughtered a bunch of police and civilians in Baghdad and were quickly flown out of the country, the guys who rendered and tortured the Italian civilian or the guys who attempted to kill Giulia Sgrena and murdered her bodyguard Nicola Calipari. The US demands everyone else play by the rules except they themselves.

Peregrinus

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Which is why this guy doesn't have to be extradited. I know the existing law (what in my post indicated otherwise). I'm suggesting the law be changed (responding to someone saying that it couldn't be changed retrospectively).

You're saying that Parliament is sovereign, and therefore it can denounce the treaties that the UK has entered into, and change UK law in a way that doesn't comply with the treaty?

Yes, it can. But the political and diplomatic costs of doing so are high. What is the point, other states may ask, of bothering to make treaties with the UK if the UK does not consider itself bound to act in accordance with the treaties that makes? You burn political and diplomatic capital by unilaterally shredding your own freely-made commitments. Parliament can do this, but it will not do it lightly. (Plus, of course, a consequence of denouncing the treaty is that the US won't extradite anyone to the UK, and the UK presumably wouldn't have entered into this treaty in the first place unless it actually did want to have an effective extradition mechanism in place.)

Harvey Normal wrote: »

He is however clearly not under arrest in Britain for crimes against the British state. He may well be in violation of crimes in Saudi Arabia whilst living in the U.K. but he won't be extradited there.

Because the UK doesn't have an extradition treaty, or any extradition arrangements so far as I know, with Saudi Arabia. But they do have treaties or other arrangements with many countries, and the US is one of them.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Which isn't what I said. I said if you are going to demand sovereignty from the EU, ceding it the the US makes no sense.

Are you regarding any extradition treaty as a cession of sovereignty? Or just the UK/US treaty?

Harvey Normal wrote: »

This is a lop sided treaty, treating British citizens as subjects of the American empire's judicial whims.

It's not lopsided in that regard, since the treaty also provides for the US to extradite US citizens to the UK (and they have done so on a number of occasions). In other words, US citizens are subjects of the British empire's judicial whims. No?

Peregrinus

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Does it work the other way around. Do the US allow extradition of their own citizens?

HensVassal wrote: »

Course not. This is the US, the most hypocritical bunch of two faced **** there is . . .

Not to let facts get in the way of the chips on anyone's shoulder, but the US does extradite its own citizens, and the US standard model extradition treaty provides for this, and the UK/US extradition treaty in particular provides for this, and US citizens have in fact been extradited to the UK under the US/UK extradition treaty.

There may be good reasons for criticising the UK/US extradition treaty, but this isn't one of them.

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

The US only needs to allege reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, rather than prove the crime and they could extradite him

Standard enough, to get people extradited around the EU you only need to procure a European Arrest Warrant. Sure the process of extradition is to place him before a forum where the allegation can be analysed, would be a bit mad if they had to prove the case, bring him over, and prove the case again.

HensVassal

Manic Moran wrote: »

You sure about that? I'd wager that if you manipulated the FTSE, you'd be up on charges.

Oh yeah, so the engineered market crash of 2008 saw how many people go to jail? Hank Paulson? Geithner? Greenspan? Nah. If you are part of the old boy's network and you commit financial fraud it's no problem. But if you're an outsider and do it they throw the book at you.

sbsquarepants

Harvey Normal wrote: »

This lopsided treaty shows that Brexit doesn't really return much sovereignty to the UK, if it remains a vassal state of the US.

Do you mean that Brexit thing that hasn't actually happened yet?
Maybe you were expecting too much of it?

Harvey Normal

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're saying that Parliament is sovereign, and therefore it can denounce the treaties that the UK has entered into, and change UK law in a way that doesn't comply with the treaty?

Yes, it can. But the political and diplomatic costs of doing so are high. What is the point, other states may ask, of bothering to make treaties with the UK if the UK does not consider itself bound to act in accordance with the treaties that makes? You burn political and diplomatic capital by unilaterally shredding your own freely-made commitments. Parliament can do this, but it will not do it lightly. (Plus, of course, a consequence of denouncing the treaty is that the US won't extradite anyone to the UK, and the UK presumably wouldn't have entered into this treaty in the first place unless it actually did want to have an effective extradition mechanism in place.)


Because the UK doesn't have an extradition treaty, or any extradition arrangements so far as I know, with Saudi Arabia. But they do have treaties or other arrangements with many countries, and the US is one of them.


Are you regarding any extradition treaty as a cession of sovereignty? Or just the UK/US treaty?


It's not lopsided in that regard, since the treaty also provides for the US to extradite US citizens to the UK (and they have done so on a number of occasions). In other words, US citizens are subjects of the British empire's judicial whims. No?

Treaties can be voided and have been voided by the British parliament. They are about to tear up a few dozen with regard to the EU. Therefore they can - as you admit - overturn this treaty, in fact you don't seem to be in dispute with me on that point, you just want to spin it as a disasterous precedent when it is no such thing.

The extradition is de facto lop-sided even if not in law. All extraditions to the uk of us citizens (a total of 7) have been for crimes committed in the UK. Basically people fled.

It's been 77 the other way as of 2015. Some, as here, for crimes that are not covered under UK law. Many of people who had never been to the US.

Winterlong

With Parole he would be out in 140 years. Just keep the head down lad.

Harvey Normal

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you mean that Brexit thing that hasn't actually happened yet?
Maybe you were expecting too much of it?

I didn't say it had happened yet. I didn't say anything about what I was expecting.

HellSquirrel

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I didn't say it had happened yet. I didn't say anything about what I was expecting.

"It's going to be so rigged, folks, so rigged."

HensVassal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to let facts get in the way of the chips on anyone's shoulder, but the US does extradite its own citizens, and the US standard model extradition treaty provides for this, and the UK/US extradition treaty in particular provides for this, and US citizens have in fact been extradited to the UK under the US/UK extradition treaty.

There may be good reasons for criticising the UK/US extradition treaty, but this isn't one of them.

And how did that work for Amanda Knox?How about Luis Posada Carriles, the terrorist who blew up a Cuban Airlines plane killing 73 civilians. Carriles lives happily in Miami. So much for being tough on terrorism.

Peregrinus

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Treaties can be voided and have been voided by the British parliament. They are about to tear up a few dozen with regard to the EU. Therefore they can - as you admit - overturn this treaty, in fact you don't seem to be in dispute with me on that point, you just want to spin it as a disasterous precedent when it is no such thing.

The EU Treaty provides an exit mechanism and the UK, in using that mechanism, are not "voiding" or "tearing up" the EU Treaty; they are operating it in accordance with its terms. What you are calling for with respect to the UK/US extradition treaty is something quite different. If the UK is unhappy with the treaty they can invoke the termination provision which the treaty itself contains (which wouldn't excuse them from dealing with cases already in hand in accordance with the treaty) or simply invite the Americans to renegotiate it. Either course of action would be fine. Simply announcing that they won't observe it because they no longer care to would be entirely different, and much more damaging to the UK.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

The extradition is de facto lop-sided even if not in law. All extraditions to the uk of us citizens (a total of 7) have been for crimes committed in the UK. Basically people fled.

It's been 77 the other way as of 2015. Some, as here, for crimes that are not covered under UK law. Many of people who had never been to the US.

You're comparing the number of US citizens extradited to the UK against the number of people of all nationalities extradited from the UK to the US; that's a pretty lopsided comparison.

The treaty is lopsided, but not with respect to nationality. Each party is bound to extradite its own citizens to the other; the obligations there are mutual.

The lopsidedness arises because the UK agrees to extradite people for breaches of US law even if the breaches occurred outside the US, and the people concerned have never been to the US, whereas the US has made no similar agreement. The US hasn't made any corresponding commitment to the UK because (so far as I can gather) the UK didn't ask for it. I don't think the UK should have signed a treaty in those terms but, having signed it, they don't get to walk away from it simply because they now think it was a bad idea. They have the power to do so, certainly, but if they want to continue to be taken seriously as actors in the international sphere they'll do the right thing, which is terminate in an orderly fashion in the manner provided by the Treaty itself.

Harvey Normal

HellSquirrel wrote: »

"It's going to be so rigged, folks, so rigged."

What in gods name are you talking about. If that's a reference to trump then you probably know more about American politics than I do.

This thread is about the us extradition treaty with the uk. Try and keep up.

Harvey Normal

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU Treaty provides an exit mechanism and the UK, in using that mechanism, are not "voiding" or "tearing up" the EU Treaty; they are operating it in accordance with its terms. What you are calling for with respect to the UK/US extradition treaty is something quite different. If the UK is unhappy with the treaty they can invoke the termination provision which the treaty itself contains (which wouldn't excuse them from dealing with cases already in hand in accordance with the treaty) or simply invite the Americans to renegotiate it. Either course of action would be fine. Simply announcing that they won't observe it because they no longer care to would be entirely different, and much more damaging to the UK.

I was replying to a guy who said it wasn't possible to "retrospectively" change the law. However it could be changed now and this guy doesn't have to be extradited.

You haven't actually disagreed with this. You've just engaged in verbal gymnastics. (And regarding Brexit article 50 doesn't matter to British law. The British could leave regardless. Article 50 is merely a notification of intent.)

You're comparing the number of US citizens extradited to the UK against the number of people of all nationalities extradited from the UK to the US; that's a pretty lopsided comparison.

The treaty is lopsided, but not with respect to nationality. Each party is bound to extradite its own citizens to the other; the obligations there are mutual.

The lopsidedness arises because the UK agrees to extradite people for breaches of US law even if the breaches occurred outside the US, and the people concerned have never been to the US, whereas the US has made no similar agreement. The US hasn't made any corresponding commitment to the UK because (so far as I can gather) the UK didn't ask for it. I don't think the UK should have signed a treaty in those terms but, having signed it, they don't get to walk away from it simply because they now think it was a bad idea. They have the power to do so, certainly, but if they want to continue to be taken seriously as actors in the international sphere they'll do the right thing, which is terminate in an orderly fashion in the manner provided by the Treaty itself.

You've done some research and now agree the treaty is lopsided.

That's a lot of verbiage to agree with my initial positions.

Harvey Normal

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I was replying to a guy who said it wasn't possible to "retrospectively" change the law.

I understood he was saying that it was possible, I mean anything is possible, they could for example appoint him an ambassador and confer diplomatic immunity...but given the consequences it's not realistic and presenting it as an option is highly implausible.

Dohnjoe

HensVassal wrote: »

Oh yeah, so the engineered market crash of 2008 saw how many people go to jail? Hank Paulson? Geithner? Greenspan? Nah. If you are part of the old boy's network and you commit financial fraud it's no problem. But if you're an outsider and do it they throw the book at you.

What laws did these people specifically break?

The financial crisis wasn't "engineered", it was the result of many factors

lawlolawl

I love how people on here complained incessantly about "de bankers" during the recession but this guy commits white collar crime on a grand scale and everyone is like: "bloody Yanks throwing their weight around again, what did this guy even do wrong :mad:"

Peregrinus

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I was replying to a guy who said it wasn't possible to "retrospectively" change the law. However it could be changed now and this guy doesn't have to be extradited.

You haven't actually disagreed with this . . .

I have disagreed with it. I've pointed out that terminating the treaty by invoking the termination proviision which it contains wouldn't prevent the extradition of this guy.

The termination provision in the treaty, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read it, requires six months notice. During that six months the treaty would continue to operate.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

(And regarding Brexit article 50 doesn't matter to British law. The British could leave regardless. Article 50 is merely a notification of intent.)

The British could leave without operating the Art 50 process, in the sense that nobody would or could stop them. Just like the schoolyard bully can steal your lunch.

But it would be illegal, under both international law and UK law, which is why the British government has never for an instant contemplating doing it.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

You've done some research and now agree the treaty is lopsided.

That's a lot of verbiage to agree with my initial positions.

I don't agree with your initial position. As you'd know if you'd read my "verbiage" with more attention than you paid when reading the UK/US extradition treaty.