ChatterBank13 mins ago
Extradition To The Usa
This story is of interest to me, with the guy likely to be extradited to the US on fraud charges.
https:/
His defence team have stated ‘He is a British citizen who ran a British company in Britain subject to British laws and rules and that is where the matter should be resolved. This is not the end of the battle - far from it’
I’m assuming that the claimed misrepresentation of his company’s worth was made in the UK and if so, that is where the case should be heard IMHO. Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK (unless the US court applies UK laws to the case).
If I murder an American citizen in London, I can see no reason why I should be tried in the USA for such a crime – but the arrangement Tony Blair’s government made with the US, whereby they can request extradition of British citizens and we will roll-over and put them on a plane may override that.
https:/
His defence team have stated ‘He is a British citizen who ran a British company in Britain subject to British laws and rules and that is where the matter should be resolved. This is not the end of the battle - far from it’
I’m assuming that the claimed misrepresentation of his company’s worth was made in the UK and if so, that is where the case should be heard IMHO. Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK (unless the US court applies UK laws to the case).
If I murder an American citizen in London, I can see no reason why I should be tried in the USA for such a crime – but the arrangement Tony Blair’s government made with the US, whereby they can request extradition of British citizens and we will roll-over and put them on a plane may override that.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
US company Hewlett-Packard were the victim of a fraud by a UK based conman. Of course he should be extradited and tried in court for his crime.
I must add that HP’s due diligence was abysmal. They had access to Autonomy’s accounts and did not spot the huge black hole where the money should have been. But the victim being gullible is not a defence for a conman.
Why has Lynch never been prosecuted in the UK for conning investors and HMRC. For years their ‘profits’ were inflated and bogus. Their accounts were a work of fiction. He used a well connected City of London company of accounts who enabled the con, but nothing was done about them.
I must add that HP’s due diligence was abysmal. They had access to Autonomy’s accounts and did not spot the huge black hole where the money should have been. But the victim being gullible is not a defence for a conman.
Why has Lynch never been prosecuted in the UK for conning investors and HMRC. For years their ‘profits’ were inflated and bogus. Their accounts were a work of fiction. He used a well connected City of London company of accounts who enabled the con, but nothing was done about them.
//US company Hewlett-Packard were the victim of a fraud by a UK based conman. Of course he should be extradited and tried in court for his crime//
Why? Does Hymie's analogy with a murder victim not hold some water?
HP have exercised their remedy through the UK civil courts. They are very unlikely to get their $8bn back but that's business. That jurisdiction is proper because the alleged fraud was committed by a company based here. The fact that no criminal prosecution has taken place here is hardly a basis for the US to launch one.
Why? Does Hymie's analogy with a murder victim not hold some water?
HP have exercised their remedy through the UK civil courts. They are very unlikely to get their $8bn back but that's business. That jurisdiction is proper because the alleged fraud was committed by a company based here. The fact that no criminal prosecution has taken place here is hardly a basis for the US to launch one.
Hymie
// he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK //
Fraud is a crime in the UK just as it is in the US.
The legislation may be different, but the definition is the same.
HP brought a civil case (not criminal) in the UK and won.
Lynch is guilty under British law. Now the company want to prosecute a criminal case under US law.
All a bit embarrassing for Deloitte (who audited the false accounts), The Serious Fraud Office (who decided it could not bring a successful prosecution) and the regulatory authorities in the UK, under whose watchful eye, Autonomy inflated its worth for years.
// he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK //
Fraud is a crime in the UK just as it is in the US.
The legislation may be different, but the definition is the same.
HP brought a civil case (not criminal) in the UK and won.
Lynch is guilty under British law. Now the company want to prosecute a criminal case under US law.
All a bit embarrassing for Deloitte (who audited the false accounts), The Serious Fraud Office (who decided it could not bring a successful prosecution) and the regulatory authorities in the UK, under whose watchful eye, Autonomy inflated its worth for years.
The SFO abandoned its investigation because it did not think a successful prosecution for fraud would result.
HP brought a civil case and proved in the High Court that Lynch is guilty of fraud.
Ideally a criminal prosecution for fraud should happen in the UK. But the SFO, and City regulatory authorities are not interested, hence HP wants to bring its own prosecution in the territory it is based, the US.
HP are not going to get its £8 Billion back, but if they had been conned, they would like to see the culprits brought to book.
HP brought a civil case and proved in the High Court that Lynch is guilty of fraud.
Ideally a criminal prosecution for fraud should happen in the UK. But the SFO, and City regulatory authorities are not interested, hence HP wants to bring its own prosecution in the territory it is based, the US.
HP are not going to get its £8 Billion back, but if they had been conned, they would like to see the culprits brought to book.
My comment //Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK// is based on subtle (and not so subtle) differences between laws in the UK and US – even between States; that could result in an acquittal or the case being thrown out, say because in the UK it is expected they will exercise due diligence (buyer beware).
Hymie
That is victim blaming. As I stated, being easy to con does not mitigate that a crime has been committed.
Saying a rape victim invited an assault because of the way she was dressed, or a murder victim had strayed into a bad district does not mean the criminals should get away with it.
A UK High Court judge has said that Lynch is probably guilty. Surely he should now be tested in a criminal court. But the UK authorities are unwilling to do that. So HP are trying to extradite him to a place where criminal proceedings can be brought.
That is victim blaming. As I stated, being easy to con does not mitigate that a crime has been committed.
Saying a rape victim invited an assault because of the way she was dressed, or a murder victim had strayed into a bad district does not mean the criminals should get away with it.
A UK High Court judge has said that Lynch is probably guilty. Surely he should now be tested in a criminal court. But the UK authorities are unwilling to do that. So HP are trying to extradite him to a place where criminal proceedings can be brought.
No it’s not – there are differences in the two country’s laws that can be significant.
e.g. in the UK, any stolen property is ultimately returned to the original owners, but in the USA if the buyer of the stolen goods can show that they have paid ‘fair value’ for the property (and not knowing it was stolen) – then they get to keep the property despite it having been stolen.
e.g. in the UK, any stolen property is ultimately returned to the original owners, but in the USA if the buyer of the stolen goods can show that they have paid ‘fair value’ for the property (and not knowing it was stolen) – then they get to keep the property despite it having been stolen.
//HP brought a civil case and proved in the High Court that Lynch is guilty of fraud.//
They did no such thing. Their civil action is no different to a person who had been run over by a car making a successful claim in court for damages. That does not prove the driver guilty of dangerous driving.
By this principle, even if Mr Lynch had been convicted in a UK criminal court, HP would still be able to seek his extradition for trial in the US. And if there were victims of his alleged fraud in other countries, presumably they would be able to do the same.
Whatever differences exist between UK and US criminal law is irrelevant. A citizen of the UK, operating in the UK should only be expected to comply with UK law and be answerable to the UK authorities in the event of any alleged transgressions. It is clear that HP do not like the idea that Mr Lynch has not faced a criminal prosecution. That’s tough (at least it ought to be).
Let's say I was knocked over by a car in the US. I successfully sued the driver for damages but the US authorities decided there was no prospect of convicting the driver of dangerous or careless driving. Do you think, because I don't like that decision, the driver should then face a criminal prosecution in the UK courts for that offence?
They did no such thing. Their civil action is no different to a person who had been run over by a car making a successful claim in court for damages. That does not prove the driver guilty of dangerous driving.
By this principle, even if Mr Lynch had been convicted in a UK criminal court, HP would still be able to seek his extradition for trial in the US. And if there were victims of his alleged fraud in other countries, presumably they would be able to do the same.
Whatever differences exist between UK and US criminal law is irrelevant. A citizen of the UK, operating in the UK should only be expected to comply with UK law and be answerable to the UK authorities in the event of any alleged transgressions. It is clear that HP do not like the idea that Mr Lynch has not faced a criminal prosecution. That’s tough (at least it ought to be).
Let's say I was knocked over by a car in the US. I successfully sued the driver for damages but the US authorities decided there was no prospect of convicting the driver of dangerous or careless driving. Do you think, because I don't like that decision, the driver should then face a criminal prosecution in the UK courts for that offence?
//So what should happen next ?//
Nothing. HP has succeeded in its civil action and the UK prosecuting authorities have decided not to prosecute (presumably on the basis that there is not a reasonable chance of a conviction). In any case, a fair criminal trial is not now likely as the outcome of the civil case has been widely published.
Nothing. HP has succeeded in its civil action and the UK prosecuting authorities have decided not to prosecute (presumably on the basis that there is not a reasonable chance of a conviction). In any case, a fair criminal trial is not now likely as the outcome of the civil case has been widely published.
Think about this a bit more.....
The company I work for has dealings with clients from around the world; within the standard terms and conditions of business (which the client is required to agree to) is the statement that the laws of (the) UK jurisdiction govern the terms of the contract.
If the sale of the business to HP did not contain some such similar wording (stating which country’s laws govern the contract) – that would be very remiss of whoever drew up the contract.
If such wording was included, and the terms listed the laws of the UK governing the contract (which I would insist on if I were selling something of value to someone in another country) – then if I were the Home Secretary I would refuse any extradition request, based on it being a breach of the contract.
The company I work for has dealings with clients from around the world; within the standard terms and conditions of business (which the client is required to agree to) is the statement that the laws of (the) UK jurisdiction govern the terms of the contract.
If the sale of the business to HP did not contain some such similar wording (stating which country’s laws govern the contract) – that would be very remiss of whoever drew up the contract.
If such wording was included, and the terms listed the laws of the UK governing the contract (which I would insist on if I were selling something of value to someone in another country) – then if I were the Home Secretary I would refuse any extradition request, based on it being a breach of the contract.
Hi - me!
I understand that you are at work and at a company so that this has some relevance to you (rather than us lot who are mostly retired)
My comment //Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK// is based on subtle (and not so subtle) differences between laws in the UK and US – even between States;
is a basis for appealing extradition - it has to be a crime four square in bofe countries ( oops essex accent leaking out there). BUT we have done that- the court approved extradition.
I refute all analogies of - "well if me auld mam murdered the cat and ven frew der ashes at the iranian embassy is that lese majestie of the old shah of iran?" as irrelevant to the issue
Why has Lynch never been prosecuted in the UK for conning investors and HMRC.
the SFO has a truly AWFUL reputation at securing 'obvious' convictions - there are repeated white papers on the lines of "why dont we start again?" The SFO are that bad.
I imagine the civil fraud ( it is called that but there is no such tort, the cause of action is something else innit - nb v. technical question) ? unjust enrichment? - action was brought BECAUSE the SFO wouldnt act
// because in the UK it is expected they will exercise due diligence (buyer beware).// - is a element of contract - not at issue here. Due diligence has no place in fraud has it?
Lynch issued a document with an intention to misrepresent and secure money. The idea that the receiver is a durrrr has no place in law - - I will have to read the judgement
// No it’s not – there are differences in the two country’s laws that can be significant.//
yeah but no but - this is a defence against extradition and it is decided on the facts ( A,B,C,D) - Is Ato D a crime in bofe countries ( oops) - answer yes - then you can extradite - - answer no - you cant extradite
It matters not ( PP putting on a poncey judgey voice) that AtoD is called Fraud in one country and "judges' kissy kissy" in the other country
// I would refuse any extradition request, based on it being a breach of the contract.//
even a breach of contract can be the subject of fraud - ergo
I think we have covered most points arising innit ?
I understand that you are at work and at a company so that this has some relevance to you (rather than us lot who are mostly retired)
My comment //Otherwise he could be convicted of a crime, that is not a crime in the UK// is based on subtle (and not so subtle) differences between laws in the UK and US – even between States;
is a basis for appealing extradition - it has to be a crime four square in bofe countries ( oops essex accent leaking out there). BUT we have done that- the court approved extradition.
I refute all analogies of - "well if me auld mam murdered the cat and ven frew der ashes at the iranian embassy is that lese majestie of the old shah of iran?" as irrelevant to the issue
Why has Lynch never been prosecuted in the UK for conning investors and HMRC.
the SFO has a truly AWFUL reputation at securing 'obvious' convictions - there are repeated white papers on the lines of "why dont we start again?" The SFO are that bad.
I imagine the civil fraud ( it is called that but there is no such tort, the cause of action is something else innit - nb v. technical question) ? unjust enrichment? - action was brought BECAUSE the SFO wouldnt act
// because in the UK it is expected they will exercise due diligence (buyer beware).// - is a element of contract - not at issue here. Due diligence has no place in fraud has it?
Lynch issued a document with an intention to misrepresent and secure money. The idea that the receiver is a durrrr has no place in law - - I will have to read the judgement
// No it’s not – there are differences in the two country’s laws that can be significant.//
yeah but no but - this is a defence against extradition and it is decided on the facts ( A,B,C,D) - Is Ato D a crime in bofe countries ( oops) - answer yes - then you can extradite - - answer no - you cant extradite
It matters not ( PP putting on a poncey judgey voice) that AtoD is called Fraud in one country and "judges' kissy kissy" in the other country
// I would refuse any extradition request, based on it being a breach of the contract.//
even a breach of contract can be the subject of fraud - ergo
I think we have covered most points arising innit ?
// His defence team have stated ‘He is a British citizen who ran a British company in Britain subject to British laws and rules and that is where the matter should be resolved. //
is a defence to extradition - it cant be a defence to the tort of civil fraud
the two really are separate
and the defence: "we think the criminal case should be heard in a country which has an abysmal record in securing convictions in these cases" - - - is a good one
is a defence to extradition - it cant be a defence to the tort of civil fraud
the two really are separate
and the defence: "we think the criminal case should be heard in a country which has an abysmal record in securing convictions in these cases" - - - is a good one
