Extradition from Ireland. Specifically to the US.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

This seems like an interesting case to me.

Judgement reserved on extradition of Wicklow man linked to Silk Road website.

It involves the extradition of an Irish person to face charges in the US, even though he has never actually committed a crime on US soil.

Ireland signed its extradition treaty with the US in the 1980's when the internet wasn't really a thing.


If this guy had committed any of the crimes mentioned (seems to be mainly to do with drugs and selling hacking software) in a US jurisdiction I think a fair case could be made for him to face the US justice system. But these alleged crimes he committed were done in a bedroom of his parents house in Wicklow so he should only really face the Irish justice system in my opinion.
I think another point to add here is that the courts and prison systems of the US are much harsher and cruel in comparison to any European country (and I think that is fair to note when it comes to extradition, as I'm sure prison is hard enough in a country you have lived in all your life, but to serve time in a prison thousands of miles away in a country you know very little about most certainly adds an extra considerable level of punishment to any sentence).


Should Irish citizens face other countries justice systems when they might never have ever stepped foot in that country? I think it goes against the spirit of extradition treaties as they were first envisioned.

Manic Moran

Bear in mind that the rules for contracts, unless otherwise agreed, take effect in the location that the contract is finalised, regardless of whether the other party to the contract has ever gotten closer to that country than seeing the stamp on the front of the envelope. It would be reasonable to conclude that the rules regarding criminal activity can be interpreted in a consistent manner, especially when they are items for sale.

The argument over extradition due to the man's mental health is an acceptable one (though I suspect it may also be accounted for in sentencing afterwards), but the argument over the extradition itself, I don't have a problem with. It was an American-run website, selling to customers in the US.

SteveS

I would note that when articles say things like, “he could be sentenced to...”, this is very unlikely. Sentencing guidelines are often much less. Regardless, the question of whether he should face these charges isn’t an easy one. Was this set up to commit crimes in the US? Did he know about the activity?

hatrickpatrick

The US has for several years displayed a highly disturbing attitude to online sovereignty (AKA, "if it happens on the internet, we have jurisdiction") and unfortunately other countries' courts seem to be willing to acquiesce to this. Eric Eoin Marques is alleged to have administered a hosting company which didn't censor anything and was therefore used for child porn (he didn't even host any himself personally, he merely took a hands off approach to his hosting service), which operated through several European countries while he was living in Ireland, and somehow the US has claimed jurisdiction which has been granted by the Irish courts in extradition hearings and repeatedly confirmed during ongoing appeals. So far, nobody has been able to explain how the US has any legal standing to prosecute him, and our DPP is refusing to explain why they aren't prosecuting him in Ireland instead.

With the paradigm and precedent these cases establish, a gay person using a dating website hosted in Ireland to meet other Irish gay people could in principle be extradited to Sudan or Saudi Arabia to face a potential death sentence for homosexuality. It's completely mad. Telecommunications technicalities should be recognised as a special case, sovereignty wise - crimes committed online should be prosecuted in either the perpetrator's, or the victim's jurisdiction. Not just in any country which decides it has a right to police the entire internet according to its own beliefs and values.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Moving to Legal Discussion, where the mods there will unlock it if suitable. Please read their charter before posting.

hullaballoo

Moderator: Thread reopened. Please bear in mind this thread is now subject to the Legal Discussion charter and all that goes with it.

lifeandtimes

What I find hilarious is the US demand extradition of other citizens to their country or their own citizens back to them but not once( and I can't find a record of it incase anyone can enlighten me) have they ever extradited one of their own to another country for trial.

The case of the silk road is really interesting, the documentary on Netflix is a real eye opener, it's like charging the government for the crimes of citizens using their roads to commit them on.

osarusan

lifeandtimes wrote: »

What I find hilarious is the US demand extradition of other citizens to their country or their own citizens back to them but not once( and I can't find a record of it incase anyone can enlighten me) have they ever extradited one of their own to another country for trial.

It does happen.

Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were extradited from the US to the UK (a) in 2011 and (b) in 2012 to date; and how many of these people were US nationals. [112243]

Damian Green [holding answer 18 June 2012]: In 2011, five people were extradited from the US to the UK (excluding Scotland), of which two were US nationals. So far in 2012, one person has been extradited from the US to the UK (excluding Scotland). This person was not a US national. Scotland deals with its own US cases.

seamus

I expect a big part of his appeal will be based on Justice Donnelly's refusal to extradite a suspected terrorist because the U.S. prison system is inhumane: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84172928/

Ulbricht has been kept in high security facilities, so his appeal may have legs.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The US has for several years displayed a highly disturbing attitude to online sovereignty (AKA, "if it happens on the internet, we have jurisdiction") and unfortunately other countries' courts seem to be willing to acquiesce to this. Eric Eoin Marques is alleged to have administered a hosting company which didn't censor anything and was therefore used for child porn (he didn't even host any himself personally, he merely took a hands off approach to his hosting service), which operated through several European countries while he was living in Ireland, and somehow the US has claimed jurisdiction which has been granted by the Irish courts in extradition hearings and repeatedly confirmed during ongoing appeals. So far, nobody has been able to explain how the US has any legal standing to prosecute him, and our DPP is refusing to explain why they aren't prosecuting him in Ireland instead.

With the paradigm and precedent these cases establish, a gay person using a dating website hosted in Ireland to meet other Irish gay people could in principle be extradited to Sudan or Saudi Arabia to face a potential death sentence for homosexuality. It's completely mad. Telecommunications technicalities should be recognised as a special case, sovereignty wise - crimes committed online should be prosecuted in either the perpetrator's, or the victim's jurisdiction. Not just in any country which decides it has a right to police the entire internet according to its own beliefs and values.

Is his the first case involving someone being extradited from Ireland to the US for an online crime, having never even been to the US?
The headline for the case is going to bring little sympathy from anyone, the biggest host of online images of children in the world is not going to garner any positive feelings ever from the public. But it sets a fairly far reaching precedent (if it is the first case of this nature).

The International Court of Justice has the legitimacy of the United Nations behind it, and having its establishment from the fall of the Nazis, it can be argued to have a substantial and meaningful purpose. Although 'the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis'.

Where online crimes can be prosecuted anywhere (namely the US). This situation appears to be a de facto parallel international court/legal system operating on the world stage. Google, YouTube and Facebook make up the majority of internet traffic, which are all US based companies. (Using the Chinese part of the internet will draw its own problems presumably, but has no material effect on any Irish person living in Ireland)
It seems like the entire Wests internet has some connection with the US, which could mean we are all under the jurisdiction of US laws, regulations, courts and prison system now when it comes to online behaviour. And seeing how the overwhelming majority of people access the internet in some form on a daily basis, it does put a strange new paradigm into legal play.

seamus wrote: »

I expect a big part of his appeal will be based on Justice Donnelly's refusal to extradite a suspected terrorist because the U.S. prison system is inhumane: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84172928/

Ulbricht has been kept in high security facilities, so his appeal may have legs.

Having watched enough documentaries, and read enough court cases down through the years about how the US justice and prison system operates. There seems to me to be an entirely acceptable model of what constitutes justice in Ireland (and the whole of Europe for that matter) in comparison to the US.
The main red line issues so far for Ireland/Europe seems to be about the death penalty being imposed, and in that case above, the treatment of someone in a SuperMax prison.
But I think it can be legitimately argued that no prisoner in the US is treated as humanely as here. (Yes there was still slopping out here until recently but that was more of a legacy/financial issue and not part of the imposed punishment handed out here by judges).
The US to me has a prison system that is more cruel and harsh than nearly any other developed nation currently.

hatrickpatrick

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Is his the first case involving someone being extradited from Ireland to the US for an online crime, having never even been to the US?
The headline for the case is going to bring little sympathy from anyone, the biggest host of online images of children in the world is not going to garner any positive feelings ever from the public. But it sets a fairly far reaching precedent (if it is the first case of this nature).

That the problem IMO. They're quite sneakily using cases which most people would look at and say "sure f*ck that guy, let him rot" in order to establish terrifying jurisdictional precedents without too much public outcry. I for one am appalled by our DPP's failure to recognise this and explain how exactly this guy's alleged crimes don't count as having been committed on Irish soil.

The International Court of Justice has the legitimacy of the United Nations behind it, and having its establishment from the fall of the Nazis, it can be argued to have a substantial and meaningful purpose. Although 'the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis'.

Where online crimes can be prosecuted anywhere (namely the US). This situation appears to be a de facto parallel international court/legal system operating on the world stage. Google, YouTube and Facebook make up the majority of internet traffic, which are all US based companies. (Using the Chinese part of the internet will draw its own problems presumably, but has no material effect on any Irish person living in Ireland)
It seems like the entire Wests internet has some connection with the US, which could mean we are all under the jurisdiction of US laws, regulations, courts and prison system now when it comes to online behaviour. And seeing how the overwhelming majority of people access the internet in some form on a daily basis, it does put a strange new paradigm into legal play.

It's something national governments urgently need to legislate for IMO - firmly declaring jurisdiction over their own citizens actions using the internet in their own country and therefore outlawing extradition to other countries for crimes allegedly committed in this jurisdiction.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

WellThen?

SteveS wrote: »

I would note that when articles say things like, “he could be sentenced to...”, this is very unlikely. Sentencing guidelines are often much less. Regardless, the question of whether he should face these charges isn’t an easy one. Was this set up to commit crimes in the US? Did he know about the activity?

The website was actually based in Iceland, not the US at all

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GerardKeating

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also, they claim juristriction for any crime if US currency was used in any part of the crime.

lifeandtimes

GerardKeating wrote: »

Also, they claim juristriction for any crime if US currency was used in any part of the crime.

Which is why and how they raided fifa there 2 years ago.

Althoght none of it happened on American soil,money was allegedly laundered through US currency which is why they acted on it.

The US consider themselves a bunch of cowboys who can ride in and take over nearly every situation that may vaugely or thinly effect them in some way

WellThen?

None of that applies to this case, there was no US dollars on the silk road only bitcoin, and any exchange of dollars for that took place on other sites (which were not attacked by the USA far as i know