paint-brush
Additional Charges Against SBF Involving Fraud and Others Violate Bahamas' Rule of Specialtyby@legalpdf

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

by Legal PDFSeptember 5th, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The bank fraud, unlicensed money transmitting, and FCPA conspiracy charges (Counts 9, 10 and 13) are offenses separate from the offenses specified in the Warrant of Surrender and thus violate the rule of specialty.
featured image - Additional Charges Against SBF Involving Fraud and Others Violate Bahamas' Rule of Specialty
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED Court Filing Lewis A. Kaplan, December 9, 2022 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is part 21 of 25.

ARGUMENT

III. The Bank Fraud, Unlicensed Money Transmitting, and FCPA Conspiracy Charges (Counts 9, 10, and 13) Violate the Rule of Specialty and Must Be Dismissed.


The bank fraud, unlicensed money transmitting, and FCPA conspiracy charges (Counts 9, 10 and 13) are offenses separate from the offenses specified in the Warrant of Surrender and thus violate the rule of specialty, unless the Bahamas affirmatively consents to the addition of those 21 charges under Article 14 of the Extradition Treaty. In the defense’s understanding, the Bahamas has not provided such consent. Moreover, the Bahamas is likely unable to provide its consent because the Government has failed to provide it with sufficient information for it to determine that Counts 9, 10 and 13 satisfy the dual criminality requirement. Indeed, there is clear authority that the conduct underlying the FCPA conspiracy charge is not considered criminal in the Bahamas and thus cannot satisfy the dual criminality requirement.



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 Storage.Courtlistener 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.