What authority grants the US to extradite and Charge Non US citizens for violating US sanctions? Context: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54270739 What dominion does the United States have regarding the enforcement of sanctions? Can the US impose extradition of foreign nationals like Ms. Meng for a foreign company's sale of goods (especially non-weapons) to US-sanctioned countries (Iran)? Where, if any are the bright lines? Narco-trafficing seems to be &quot;fair-game&quot;, however, telecommunications is not the same class.
This issue was addressed in United States v. Meng, 2020 BCSC 785. The authority to extradite is via the extraditing state's treaty with the U.S. and its domestic implementing legislation. In Canada, this is the Extradition Act. Extradition requires consent of the extraditing state and for the requesting state to follow the extraditing state's domestic procedure. The question you raise is how sanctions of requesting state affect the interpretation of the domestic offence for the purpose of establishing the double criminality requirement. Critical in this case was that the charged offence was fraud against HSBC (albeit based on alleged concealment of sanctions violations). See para. 23: The double criminality question in the committal hearing is therefore whether Ms. Meng’s alleged conduct, had it occurred in Canada, would have amounted to fraud contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Meng argued: that the conduct cannot amount to fraud because in essence the proposed prosecution is to enforce US sanctions laws against Iran, measures that are not part of Canadian law and which, indeed, Canada has expressly rejected. The Attorney General argued: that the double criminality analysis may properly take the US sanctions into account as part of the foreign legal backdrop against which the essential conduct is to be understood. The court agreed with the Attorney General: The effects of the US sanctions may properly play a role in the double criminality analysis as part of the background or context against which the alleged conduct is examined.
As a general rule, most countries have what's called Bi-Lateral extradition treaties, which means that Country A (Cedricstan) will only extradite to Country B (Bobtopia) for crimes that were committed in Bobtopia AND are crimes in Cedricstan. So, in this scenario, you, a Cedricstan citizen purchase the book "The Big Book of Banned Things in Bobtopia" and send it to Bobtopian Bob by international mail. Bobtopian Ministry of Banned Stuff police (BMBS) find Bob in possession of the book and through creative interrogation (cause all countries that ban books are surprisingly creative in interrogation techniques) figure out that you sent it to him. The would file an extradition petition with the Cedricstan Embassy, who then call up the Cedricstan Ministry of Justice (CMJ) and discuss the charges (if there's no extradition treaty, the process is basically the embassy staffer politely taking the note and giving it to the Ambassador, who tries not to laugh too much as he dumps it to the bin. If there isn't even diplomatic relationships, this is the same process, but now it's the Swiss Ambassador laughing instead of a Cedricstan Ambassador). Anyway, assuming Cedricstan and Bobtopia have an extradition treaty with each other, it's going to be Bi-Lateral, meaning Cedricstan will only extradite you for crimes committed in Bobtopia that are also crimes in Cedricstan. So, first off, you did not possess the book while in Bobtopia, so the crime didn't happen in Bobtopia and they have jurisdiction over the crime. The legal ramifications are that of Cedricstan, not Bobtopia, so they apply here. Given you bought the book in Cedricstan, you're likely to not face any legal ramifications (well... more on this in a moment). Suppose then, we some how get to the point where you are proven to have been in Bobtopia and possessing the book of very naughty knowledge, Bobtopia Ed. In this case, Cedricstan would have to consider if it is a crime here (kinda... more on this as well). Since Cedricstan has Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech and Press, there is no equivalent crime for possessing Forbidden Knowledge II: Bobtopia Boogaloo, which not only is legal to own, but a Cedricstan Times Best Seller for the 104th week running. So in this case, Cedricstan laughs in Free Speech and refuse to extradite you. There are again, no legal ramifications (well... more on this in a moment... which would be next paragraph). So, of course, this assumes you're not going to go to any country ever in the future. Obviously, Bobtopia agents from the BMBS will happily greet you if you ever go to Bobtopia... creatively of course... But you should probably review the diplomatic relationships of other nations with Bobtopia and their laws on banned literature... it could be that their extradition treaties will allow an agent of the third nation to arrest you and extradite you to Bobtopia... if you realize this is about to happen, your best bet is to find a Cedricstan Embassy or Consulate and high tail it there. But otherwise there shoudln't be any issues. The other problem here is that nations may have additional rules. For example, the United States does not allow for libel tourism... which is using another nation to sue an American for defamation that doesn't rise to the Defamation under U.S. Law (which is notoriously stricter than most similar nations. Historically, close relations between United States and UK would mean that defamation of a UK person said in the United States could be tried in the UK and the U.S. speaker would be under their jurisdiction... The ban here prevents that by saying the United States would not enforce decisions unless their own courts found the case in a similar way. On the other end, Canada will not extradite murderers to the United States, if said Murderer is eligible for the Death Penalty... but a Prosecutor promising to not seek the Death Penalty in sentencing if guilt is found is good enough for Canada to extradite the murderer back. TL;DR: As long as you stay in your country, you should not be extradited for crimes that are not mutually recognized... be careful when you leave though.
The decision will be made by whichever country arrests him first (although a minority of countries allow for the trial of people who break their criminal laws in absentia). Needless to say, if nobody manages to arrest him ever, he will not face any criminal consequences except the issuance of an arrest warrant possibly accompanied by a pre-existing conviction in absentia if arrested in countries that allow for such a proceeding. Normally, in these circumstances, either country would have jurisdiction under its own laws to prosecute and punish the criminal, and many extradition treaties would not require the extradition of someone who committed a crime punished domestically in the state in whose custody the criminal is as part of the same course of events. Many countries will not extradite someone if they could face the death penalty in the receiving country. But, sometimes law enforcement in a country with a less serious penalty will intentionally defer to law enforcement in a country with a more serious penalty that is simultaneously trying to arrest him. Ordinarily, law enforcement is not authorized to use deadly force to arrest someone who is simultaneously being arrested by law enforcement from another country against either the arrestee or the law enforcement from the other country. Indeed, using deadly force against another country's law enforcement officers who are carrying out a lawful arrest in their own country would ordinarily be considered an act of war. U.S. double jeopardy provisions of the constitution do not prohibit a second prosecution of an offender in these circumstances because of a first prosecution by another sovereign, but many prosecutors in many countries would decline to prosecute someone a second time for the offense that they have already been convicted of in exercise of their discretion, and many judges would consider time served in another country for the same offense as a factor in setting their own sentence.
If I attempt to carry such a product into the country, but then honestly declare it at the border (I would like to declare 10 kg of marijuana, sir), can I be prosecuted for attempted smuggling? This depends on the jurisdiction and its definition of "smuggling." In the US, as an example, smuggling implies fraud or "clandestine" action. Openly bringing a forbidden item and declaring it would not meet the definition of this crime. Or will I simply be faced with the choice of turning around or forfeiting my goods and continue without trouble? Depending on the product in question, probably not. In the marijuana example, even if you are not guilty of smuggling, you are guilty of possessing and transporting a controlled substance (see 21 USC subchapter I). You could also be charged with intent to distribute, which would likely be a more serious crime. You could also be charged under the laws of the state in which the port of entry is located. With regard to the methyl alcohol example, I do not know whether bringing it to the customs desk at a port of entry would constitute a crime.
If Tratatoria has anti-discrimination laws, or provisions in its constitution forbidding discrimination, the Minister's actions might be illegal under them. But if it does not, or if it does not enforce whatever laws it may have, there is no international authority that can enforce any rule against discrimination. People and groups in other countries could denounce such actions as biased and discriminatory, if they chose. There is no legal standard for such announcements. This might bring pressure on Tratatoria. But that would be a diplomatic and political matter, not a legal one. There really is no effective international law on discrimination unless it amounts to genocide, and even then it is essentially a matter of diplomatic pressure or potentially war to enforce regime change, not a true legal process.
Insofar as those treaties don't bind the US, the notion of "violating" such laws is moot. Hoda Muthana is, under Yemeni law, a Yemeni citizen (it is immaterial whether she has ever "accepted" or exploited it), and as such stripping her of US citizenship would not leave her stateless. In the case of Hoda Muthana, the action is based on the legal argument that she was not ever a citizen, based on the premise that her father was a foreign diplomat. Under US law, children born to foreign diplomats in the US are not birthright citizens, following US v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship cannot be revoked. However, a person can renounce their citizenship, via certain acts, including taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;or (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer The defense argument would presumably be that ISIS is not a foreign state (despite their own claims to the contrary) so her affiliation with ISIS does not qualify. There are grounds for denaturalization, including falsifying or concealing relevant facts pertaining to naturalization, refusing to testify before Congress, or joining a subversive organization including Al Qaeda within 5 years of naturalization.
It really depends on what "services" you are providing, but generally speaking you would be in violation of the Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). These regulations are spelled out in 31 CFR §560.205 and 560.420 and apply to US citizens and residents wherever located. Specifically, the action that is prohibited is the "exportation, reexportation, sale or supply of goods, technology, or services to Iran. Here "Services" is broadly construed to mean anything of value even if no money is exchanged, including providing technical assistance to an Iranian national or Iranian institution. See See § 560.204; §560.410. The civil penalty for violation of these sanctions would be $250,000 or an amount "equal to twice the amount that is the basis of the violation". Criminal penalties may include fines up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. Now there are some exempt transactions outlined by § 560.210 (c) which may be applicable here, however it would be up to you to prove that these are "information or informational materials" as defined by § 560.315. For more information, 31 CFR Part 560, Subpart B refers to the prohibited transactions with Iran. Since you are not specifically spelling out what services you intend to provide, it is difficult to say for sure you would be in violation of them. It should be noted though that the US Government uses publicly funded money to run a proxy server through which Iranians can access otherwise blocked websites such as social media in Iran.
Scenario 1. It doesn’t matter what it says. If it was not legally ratified, it is not legally in force. There is no absolutely no paradox at all. It is essentially just a draft amendment and would be thrown out if any attempt was made to enforce it and challenged.