united-states european-union extradition
Has the United States ever agreed to extradite anyone to any of the EU nations for a procedural crime?
<p>Has there ever been a case of an attempt to extradite a US citizen to any of the EU states?
I don't necessarily mean a procedural crime (like lying to the police or lying on some official form).  Tax evasion would probably be just as demonstrative.  Has there ever been a case of the US agreeing to extradite anyone for a non-violent crime after they were accused, or convicted, in any of the countries that comprise the EU?</p>

<p>The U.S. routinely extradites criminal defendants located in the United States to the E.U.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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 number of new
cases, resulting in a pending caseload 2 that has increased over 100
percent since 1990. As of November 2000, OIA had 3,636 extradition
cases pending - approximately 1,100 cases where fugitives wanted by
foreign governments were believed to be in the United States and
approximately 2,500 cases where fugitives wanted by the United States
were believed to be in foreign countries. . . .</p>
<p>According to OIA records, about 25 staff attorneys and 11 paralegals
are assigned to four country teams that are responsible for processing
requests from both U.S. prosecutors and foreign governments. The
country teams process cases that fall within the following geographic
areas:</p>
<p>Team I (United Kingdom/Africa) - responsible for Ireland, Africa, and
the United Kingdom (UK) and its dependencies, and English-speaking
Caribbean nations.</p>
<p>At the time of our review, Team I had 386 open extradition cases, 107
of which involve the UK.</p>
<p>Team II (European) - responsible for Europe (except the UK) and the
Caribbean islands controlled or formerly controlled by European
countries other than the UK.</p>
<p>At the time of our review, Team II had 609 open extradition cases.
Unlike the other country teams, no one country dominates Team II's
extradition cases. The top four countries are: Switzerland with 86
cases, Federal Republic of Germany with 72 cases, the Netherlands with
66 cases, and France with 60 cases.</p>
<p>Team III (Latin American) - responsible for Mexico, Central and South
America, and Spanish-speaking Caribbean nations.</p>
<p>At the time of our review, Team III had 1,693 open extradition cases.
More than half of these cases (849) involved Mexico.</p>
<p>Team IV (Asia/Canada) - responsible for Asia (which includes the
Middle East), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific islands.</p>
<p>At the time of our review, Team IV had 942 open extradition cases.
Slightly less than half of these cases (456) involved Canada.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From a <a href="https://oig.justice.gov/reports/OBD/e0208/intro.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2002 report</a> of the U.S. government.</p>
<p>The process is summarized <a href="https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2017/01/demystifying-international-extradition" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. Each extradition treaty typically contains a list or description of covered cases and a list of categories of excluded cases.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Extraditable offenses. All treaties include provisions defining which
crimes are extraditable. Treaties agreed upon prior to the 1970s
typically include a negotiated list of specific extraditable offenses
(such as specific crimes like &quot;murder,&quot; &quot;manslaughter,&quot; and &quot;larceny&quot;)
and only allow extradition for the crimes that are listed in the
treaty. Modern treaties have largely done away with these lists,
however, and use a &quot;dual criminality&quot; approach instead. This more
flexible approach examines the conduct that serves as the subject of
the request.</p>
<p>Exceptions to Extradition. Every extradition treaty contains
exceptions to the parties' extradition obligations. The most common
exceptions include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Political and Military Offenses. These provisions are aimed at crimes such as treason, sedition, and other offenses that could be
used to target political opponents or otherwise cause the requested
country to become entangled in the domestic politics of the requesting
country. To clarify and limit the contours of the &quot;political offense&quot;
exception, most US bilateral treaties now carve out violent conduct
such as bombings and kidnappings from that exception, even if the
subject alleges that the conduct in question was politically
motivated.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Nationality. Many countries refuse to extradite their own nationals, and extradition treaties may include exceptions for this
policy. The US government has long taken the view that nationality
should not be a bar to extradition, since the requesting country in an
extradition case should have the right to pursue criminal charges
against persons who violate its laws regardless of nationality. The US
government accordingly extradites its nationals and seeks to limit
nationality-based denials in new US extradition treaties.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Prior Prosecution. These &quot;non bis in idem&quot; provisions of most extradition treaties protect subjects from transnational &quot;double
jeopardy.&quot; They bar extradition where the person has already been
convicted or acquitted for the same conduct that is the basis of the
extradition request.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Capital offenses. Although the US tries to limit the application of this exception, many US treaties have provisions permitting the
requested country to demand assurances that the death penalty will not
be sought or imposed. Some countries that do not impose the death
penalty domestically will not agree to extradite to the United States
in a case where the death penalty is a possible punishment, or at
least reserve the right to deny extradition if the crime could carry a
death penalty.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Extraterritoriality. Some extradition treaties limit their scope to crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
requesting country. The United States has pushed to eliminate these
restrictions in recent years.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Basically, dual criminality limits extradition to offenses that would be felonies in both the sending and receiving countries.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-958.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">another source explains</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Extradition is generally limited to crimes identified in the treaty.
Early treaties often recite a list of the specific extraditable
crimes. Jay's Treaty mentions only murder and forgery; the inventory
in the 1852 treaty with Prussia included eight others;27 and the 1974
treaty between the United States and Denmark identified several dozen
extradition offenses:</p>
<ol>
<li>Murder; voluntary manslaughter; assault with intent to commit murder. 2. Aggravated injury or assault; injuring with intent to cause
grievous bodily harm. 3. Unlawful throwing or application of any
corrosive or injurious substances upon the person of another. 4. Rape;
indecent assault; sodomy accompanied by use of force or threat; sexual
intercourse and other unlawful sexual relations with or upon children
under the age specified by the laws of both the requesting and the
requested States. 5. Unlawful abortion. 6. Procuration; inciting or
assisting a person under 21 years of age or at the time ignorant of
the purpose in order that such person shall carry on sexual immorality
as a profession abroad or shall be used for such immoral purpose;
promoting of sexual immorality by acting as an intermediary repeatedly
or for the purpose of gain; profiting from the activities of any
person carrying on sexual immorality as a profession. 7. Kidnapping;
child stealing; abduction; false imprisonment. 8. Robbery; assault
with intent to rob. 9. Burglary. 10. Larceny. 11. Embezzlement. 12.
Obtaining property, money or valuable securities: by false pretenses
or by threat or force, by defrauding any governmental body, the public
or any person by deceit, falsehood, use of the mails or other means of
communication in connection with schemes intended to deceive or
defraud, or by any other fraudulent means. 13. Bribery, including
soliciting, offering and accepting. 14. Extortion. 15. Receiving or
transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing
the same to have been unlawfully obtained. 16. Fraud by a bailee,
banker, agent, factor, trustee, executor, administrator or by a
director or officer of any company. 17. An offense against the laws
relating to counterfeiting or forgery. 18. False statements made
before a court or to a government agency or official, including under
United States law perjury and subornation of perjury. 19. Arson. 20.
An offense against any law relating to the protection of the life or
health of persons from: a shortage of drinking water; poisoned,
contaminated, unsafe or unwholesome drinking water, substance or
products. 21. Any act done with intent to endanger the safety of any
person traveling upon a railway, or in any aircraft or vessel or bus
or other means of transportation, or any act which impairs the safe
operation of such means of transportation. 22. Piracy; mutiny or
revolt on board an aircraft against the authority of the commander of
such aircraft; any seizure or exercise of control, by force or
violence or threat of force or violence, of an aircraft. 23. An
offense against the laws relating to damage to property. 24. a.
Offenses against the laws relating to importation, exportation or
transit of goods, articles, or merchandise. b. Offenses relating to
willful evasion of taxes and duties. c. Offenses against the laws
relating to international transfers of funds. 25. An offense relating
to the: a. spreading of false intelligence likely to affect the price
of commodities, valuable securities or any other similar interests; or
b. making of incorrect or misleading statements concerning the
economic conditions of such commercial undertakings as joint-stock
companies, corporations, co-operative societies or similar
undertakings through channels of public communications, in reports, in
statements of accounts or in declarations to the general meeting or
any proper official of a company, in notifications to, or registration
with, any commission, agency or officer having supervisory or
regulatory authority over corporations, joint-stock companies, other
forms of commercial undertakings or in any invitation to the
establishment of those commercial undertakings or to the subscription
of shares. 28. Unlawful abuse of official authority which results in
grievous bodily injury or deprivation of the life, liberty or property
of any person, [or] attempts to commit, conspiracy to commit, or
participation in, any of the offenses mentioned in this Article, Art.
3, 25 U.S.T. 1293 (1974).28</li>
</ol>
<p>While many existing U.S. extradition treaties continue to list
specific extraditable offenses, the <strong>more recent ones feature a dual
criminality approach, and simply make all felonies extraditable
(subject to other limitations found elsewhere in their various
provisions)</strong>. . . .</p>
<p>Want of Dual Criminality</p>
<p><strong>Dual criminality addresses the reluctance to extradite a fugitive for
conduct that the host nation considers innocent. Dual criminality
exists when the parties to an extradition treaty each recognize a
particular form of misconduct as a punishable offense.</strong> Historically,
extradition treaties have handled dual criminality in one of three
ways: (1) they list extraditable offenses and do not otherwise speak
to the issue; (2) they list extraditable offenses and contain a
separate provision requiring dual criminality; or (3) they identify as
extraditable offenses those offenses condemned by the laws of both
nations. Today, &quot;[u]nder most international agreements ... [a] person
sought for prosecution or for enforcement of a sentence will not be
extradited ... (c) if the offense with which he is charged or of which
he has been convicted is not punishable as a serious crime in both the
requesting and requested state.... &quot;45</p>
<p>Although there is a split of authority over whether dual criminality
resides in all extradition treaties that do not deny its
application,46 the point is largely academic since it is a common
feature of all American extradition treaties.47 Subject to varying
interpretations, the United States favors the view that treaties
should be construed to honor an extradition request if possible. Thus,
dual criminality does not &quot;require that the name by which the crime is
described in the two countries shall be same; nor that the scope of
the liability shall be coextensive, or, in other respects, the same in
the two countries. It is enough if the particular act charged is
criminal in both jurisdictions.&quot;48 When a foreign country seeks to
extradite a fugitive from the United States, dual criminality may be
satisfied by reference to either federal or state law.49</p>
<p>U.S. treaty partners do not always construe dual criminality
requirements as broadly. In the past, some have been unable to find
equivalents for attempt, conspiracy, and crimes with prominent federal
jurisdictional elements (e.g., offenses under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations [RICO] and Continuing Criminal Enterprise
[CCE] statutes).50 Many modern extradition treaties contain provisions
addressing the problem of jurisdictional elements51 and/or making
extraditable an attempt or conspiracy to commit an extraditable
offense.52 Some include special provisions for tax and customs
offenses as well.53</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Extradition requests are routinely granted for non-violent felony
cases as required by the applicable extradition treaties. Statistics
on the precise nature of the offenses processes is harder to find.
Eventually, pretty much every commonly committed offense identified in
an extradition treaty as eligible for extradition will be used as a
basis for an extradition.</p>
<p>Procedural crimes like perjury, and felony tax fraud, would usually satisfy the dual criminality requirement.</p>
<p>Another doctrine may be creating confusion. Almost no country conducts trials arising from procedural and tax offenses arising in another country's legal or tax system in its own courts, or punishes violations of those offenses in its own criminal justice system.</p>
<p>But this isn't a barrier to extraditing a defendant in such an offense to the country whose legal process or tax system was abused to face trial in the courts of the harmed country for the harmed country to punish, if the procedural or tax offense would have been a serious crime if committed against the sending country.</p>
