Extradition without treaties? I came across some new reports about Japanese scammers being extradited from Thailand. But my research seems to suggest that no extradition treaties exist between the two countries as of now. From both Thai and Japanese sources, these news pieces don't seem to mention anything about treaties or agreements. One of them says Acting bureau chief Pol Lt Gen Sompong Chingduang said the arrests were part of the bureau's crackdown on foreigners working in the country illegally. So is it correct to assume here &quot;extradition&quot; is not used in its most technical sense? It sounds like rather than actual extradition, these cases are about illegal activities in Thailand and the ensuing deportation. How does/can extradition work without extradition treaties?
So is it correct to assume here &quot;extradition&quot; is not used in its most technical sense? It sounds like rather than actual extradition, these cases are about illegal activities in Thailand and the ensuing deportation. There is no technical sense without a law/jurisdiction in context. The plain meaning of extradition is to surrender a person by one state to another state for reasons of alleged or convicted criminal conduct. I would call a deportation an extradition if (a) the other state specifically requested it via official channels and (b) measures (arrests, detention, escorted transport etc.) are taken to ensure the person in question is effectively handed to the other state's authorities (and not just deported anywhere). How does/can extradition work without extradition treaties? As provided by the national law. While the U.S. law may require treaties for most extraditions, other countries may do things differently. Canada, for example, permits a case-by-case agreement in its Extradition Act, which you could probably call a mini &quot;treaty&quot; since unlike in the US the executive authority alone is competent to enter into international agreements: 10 (1) The Minister of Foreign Affairs may, with the agreement of the Minister [of Justice], enter into a specific agreement with a State or entity for the purpose of giving effect to a request for extradition in a particular case. Other countries like China do not require a treaty for an extradition to occur. Article 15 Where there is no extradition treaty to go by, the Requesting State shall make a reciprocity assurance. Extradition Law of the People's Republic of China Apparently, Thailand is also one of such countries. Section 8. The extradition shall commence with an extradition request from the Requesting State. The extradition request from the Requesting State that has an extradition treaty with Thailand shall be transmitted to the Central Authority. Where the Requesting State has no extradition treaty with Thailand, the request shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channels. Extradition Act of Thailand Now there is still the possibility that this is a simple deportation since the news sources or even police officers do not always use the technically correct terminology. But lack of treaties alone is not a basis to assume that it is not an extradition (and the existence of treaty is not enough to assume that it was an official extradition).
There's not any well-defined notion of what a person with a Red Notice is "allowed" to do. The notice doesn't have any legal force of its own. You can read more about Red Notices on Interpol's web site: INTERPOL cannot compel any member country to arrest an individual who is the subject of a Red Notice. Each member country decides for itself what legal value to give a Red Notice within their borders. So it would be up to the US authorities to decide what, if anything, to do about the Red Notice, in compliance with US law. We can only speculate as to why they declined to flag his passport and/or detain him. Without knowing anything about the specific case in question, here are some possibilities: They may have felt there wasn't sufficient evidence against him to justify detaining him. The conduct of which he was accused may not have been a crime under US law. They may have believed the Brazilian arrest warrant was primarily politically motivated. They may have wanted to annoy the Brazilian government, or make a political statement against its actions, by failing to cooperate. They may have decided that it simply wasn't a good use of their funds to pursue the case. They may have been lazy or incompetent or oblivious and simply not known where he was or what he was planning to do. The fact that he was intending to travel to Brazil voluntarily may or may not have been a factor in their inaction.
On the first page of https://www.gov.uk/duty-free-goods/overview you find: "You can bring some goods from abroad without having to pay UK tax or ‘duty’ (customs charges), as long as they’re for your own use." And on the next page "... will use them yourself or give them away as a gift". This clearly doesn't cover anything that you bring into the UK to sell it. And a bit further on the site it says "You must tell customs (known as ‘declaring’) on arrival in the UK if you have goods: ... that you plan to sell". Since you are asking here, it is quite obvious that you intend to sell :-) You said "e.g. say this guys comes every month from Russia to France for unrelated business, each time he fills up his luggage with the maximum allowed amount of goods that comply with custom laws". If this guy sells the stuff to you, then the maximum allowed amount of goods to import without paying taxes is zero. Once he is willing to pay taxes, there is no limit. Obviously regularly importing things from Russia or France and selling in the UK at a profit means that he is running a business in the UK, which means he would have to register a business, pay corporation taxes etc. It's all a matter of degree; for small amounts nobody cares (up to some limit you don't need to register a business or pay taxes; I don't know the details).
It depends on the law in country B Some countries allow extradition of their citizens and some don’t.
What you're asking about is extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it will depend on the country and crime(s) involved. As an example, under Australian law, it is a crime to engage in sexual activities with minors barring specific exemptions, which are not relevant to this example. There are countries where the age of majority is less than that in Australia. If you were to travel to this country, you are not necessarily committing a crime there. However, Australia's sex tourism laws make it a crime to do this anywhere in the world. This is enacted (I believe) under the foreign affairs power of the Commonwealth Government. It will largely depend on the legal system of your country, as to whether laws have extraterritorial effect. In general, however, laws do not have extraterritorial effect unless explicitly stated.
I assume the goal here is for nation A to prevent citizen A1 from travelling/emigrating to nation B. It can be done, but not in the way you're suggesting. It can be achieved by instituting exit visas. Wikipedia reference: Nepal requires citizens emigrating to the United States on an H-1B visa to present an exit permit issued by the Ministry of Labour. This document is called a work permit and needs to be presented to immigration to leave the country. Which is essentially what you're after, if I understand your question correctly. In short, nation A cannot tell nation B to not grant a particular visa. But nation A can require citizen A1 to get nation A's explicit permission to travel to nation B. However, as you can see in the list of examples on the Wikipedia page, exit visas are not all that common and are often linked to fascist or authoritarian regimes (which means that imposing an exit visa is liably going to raise a few eyebrows in western society, to say the least). I was genuinely surprised that Nepal still has an exit visa; I initially wrote my answer under the assumption that I would only find historical occurrences.
Yes, and this is very common - Cuba, North Korea and Iran are often excluded. Mind you, this is from a US perspective. The banned country may have other ideas about the legality of the ban under its laws. But if you weren't planning to do business with that country anyway, that's not exactly going to hurt you.
These are some thoughts about the state of affairs in the US, I do not know how it works in the UK. In the US it seems to be a legal gray area. Gray enough that I do not think any lawyer could say for certain that the use of the data is legal. The data is stolen. If possessing stolen property is illegal then possessing this data is also likely illegal. Of course experts disagree, Stuart Karle, an adjunct media professor at Columbia University and former general counsel for the Wall Street Journal says: ...the documents have been published by the hackers, they are now public by virtue of being put on the Internet. But Barrett Brown was charged with trafficking in stolen authentication when he forwarded a link to some stolen emails. He signed a plea for acting as an accessory after the fact. He spent more than a year in jail while they sorted it out. In the US there is no law banning the download of hacked documents. In fact Bartnicki v. Vopper 532 US 514 (2001) stands for the rule that journalists can report on illegally obtained information. But contrast that with the Barret Brown prosecution! And decide where a data scientist fits. Also there is the question of whether an illegally recorded conversation is of the same "illegal" nature as hacked personal information.