Sam Bankman-Fried Only Agreed to a Simplified Extradition Based on 7 of the 8 Charges Against Him

STATEMENT OF FACTS

II. The Bahamas Extradites Mr. Bankman-Fried Pursuant to Simplified Extradition Proceedings.

A. Mr. Bankman-Fried Consents to Simplified Extradition After Considering the Charges in the Diplomatic Note and the Rule of Specialty.

Mr. Bankman-Fried was subsequently extradited to the United States based on the first seven counts stated in the Diplomatic Note (corresponding to Counts 1-7 of the Original Indictment). On December 13, 2022, formal extradition proceedings were commenced in Magistrates’ Court in the Bahamas. See Ex. 1 ¶ 2. On December 20, 2022, Mr. Bankman-Fried consented to extradition pursuant to the simplified procedures set forth in Article 15 of the Extradition Treaty and Section 17 of the Bahamas Extradition Act. See Ex. 1 ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 2 (Warrant of Surrender attaching Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Bah.-U.S., Mar. 9, 1990, S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-17) at SDNY_03_01098076; Ex. 3 (Bahamas Extradition Act) 12 § 17; Declaration of Honourable James Lewis KC, May 8, 2023 (“Lewis Decl.”) ¶¶ 4, 13, 28, 31, 33, 66. [12]

As set forth in his written consent, Mr. Bankman-Fried consented to simplified extradition after considering the description of the charges set out in the Diplomatic Note and the SDNY Arrest Warrant, the rule of specialty as incorporated into the Extradition Treaty, his desire to be released from custody in order to assist in efforts to make FTX customers whole, his right to formal extradition proceedings, and his right to be extradited without formal extradition proceedings. Ex. 1 ¶ 3. The rule of specialty is reflected in Article 14 of the Extradition Treaty, which provides:

A person extradited under this Treaty may only be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State for the offense for which extradition was granted, or – . . . any offense in response of which the executive authority of the Requested State, in accordance with its laws, has consented to the person’s detention, trial, or punishment; and for the purposes of this subparagraph the Requested State shall require compliance with the extradition procedures specified in Article 8 and the submission of the documents specified in that Article.

Ex. 2 at SDNY_03_01098074 to -8075. Article 14’s requirement that the requested state’s consent must be given “in accordance with its law” incorporates the “dual criminality requirement,” which, as discussed below, provides that the requested state may only consent to the prosecution of the defendant for conduct that is considered criminal under its laws. Mr. Bankman-Fried’s written consent did not in any way suggest that Mr. Bankman-Fried waived the protection of the rule of specialty or dual criminality; to the contrary, it indicated that he intended to preserve his rights thereunder.

[12] Courts may consider expert testimony in considering a defendant’s specialty challenge. See United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1994) (district and circuit courts considered testimony of defendant’s expert witness on Mexican law in deciding defendant’s rule of specialty objection). Thus, accompanying this Memorandum of Law is the declaration of James Lewis KC, an U.K.-based barrister who is an expert in international and Bahamian extradition law, having appeared in extradition matters in Bahamian courts at all levels. See Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.