Sam Bankman-Fried Has Standing to Assert Extradition Treaty Violations Under International Law

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED Court Filing Lewis A. Kaplan, December 9, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 20 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here ARGUMENT II. Mr. Bankman-Fried Has Standing to Invoke the Rule of Specialty. D. Six Circuits Have Also Held that Individual Defendants Have Standing to Assert the Rule of Specialty. The above reading of Barinas is consistent with the approach taken by other circuits. Indeed, six other circuits have expressly interpreted Rauscher to confer individual rights on extradited defendants and accordingly held that individual defendants have standing to assert extradition treaty violations. See, e.g., United States v. Fontana, 869 F.3d 464, 468 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n extradited criminal defendant may not be tried for crimes not the basis for extradition, absent waiver by the treaty partner, when such is the intent of the treaty, and relief under such a treaty obligation can be obtained at the behest of counsel for the defendant in the criminal proceeding.”); United States v. Thirion, 813 F.2d 146, 151 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding that defendant “may raise whatever objections to his prosecution that [the requested state] might have.”); United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir. 1986) (regarding the doctrine of specialty, “the person extradited may raise whatever objections the rendering country might have.”); United States v. Levy, 905 F.2d 326, 328 n.1 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Rauscher gave extradited defendants a right to claim the [rule of specialty’s] protection.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Puentes, 50 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995) (extradited individual “has standing under the doctrine of specialty to raise any objections which the requested nation might have asserted.”); United States v. Thomas, 322 F. App’x 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[W]e believe, as do the majority of other Circuits to rule on this issue, that a defendant . . . has standing to” raise the rule of specialty). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case S5 22 Cr. 673 (LAK) retrieved on September 1, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Storage.Courtlistener

Sam Bankman-Fried Has Standing to Assert Extradition Treaty Violations Under International Law

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Additional Charges Against SBF Involving Fraud and Others Violate Bahamas' Rule of Specialty

At No Point During SBF's Extradition the Government Suggest It Was Waiving the Rule of Specialty

If SBF's Charges Post-Extradition Are Allowed to Stand, It Will Create a Loophole — Counsel Argues

Sam Bankman-Fried Was Never Meant to be Extradited on Charges of Defrauding the U.S.

Sam Bankman-Fried's Objections to US Charges Post Extradition Have Precedent in the Supreme Court

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Additional Charges Against SBF Involving Fraud and Others Violate Bahamas' Rule of Specialty

At No Point During SBF's Extradition the Government Suggest It Was Waiving the Rule of Specialty

If SBF's Charges Post-Extradition Are Allowed to Stand, It Will Create a Loophole — Counsel Argues

Sam Bankman-Fried Was Never Meant to be Extradited on Charges of Defrauding the U.S.

Sam Bankman-Fried's Objections to US Charges Post Extradition Have Precedent in the Supreme Court

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps