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

ARGUMENT

I. The Bahamian Warrant of Surrender Does Not Include the Campaign Finance Conspiracy Charge (Count 12) and Thus It Must Be Dismissed.

Extradition was granted solely on the first seven counts referenced in the Diplomatic Note—not the final count for conspiracy to defraud the United States and violate the campaign finance laws (now Count 12). See Ex. 1 at 4-11; Ex. 2 at SDNY_03_01098056; Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 4, 17, 37. Article 14 of the Extradition Treaty incorporates the rule of specialty and provides that a defendant “may only be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State for the offense for which extradition was granted. . . .” Ex. 2 at SDNY_03_01098074. Since the Bahamas did not grant extradition based on the campaign finance conspiracy offense, prosecuting Mr. BankmanFried for it violates the rule of specialty under Article 14 and Count 12 should be dismissed. See United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1374-75 (9th Cir. 1993) (dismissing count for which the United States sought extradition but was not referenced in Pakistani documents granting extradition). And, as noted below in Section II, Mr. Bankman-Fried has standing to assert the rule of specialty with regard to Count 12, as well as Counts 9, 10 and 13.