🇦🇪

United Arab Emirates

Extradition Law & Case Law

Connected jurisdictions
Case Law
India – UAE: principle of speciality and “connected offences” under the Extradition Treaty
Summary
The Delhi High Court held that Article 17 of the India–UAE Extradition Treaty allows the prosecution of an extradited person not only for the offences for which extradition was granted, but also for “offences connected therewith” arising from the same factual background. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that his prosecution for additional offences violated the principle of speciality and Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, finding that the requested State’s consent to prosecute connected offences is effectively incorporated into the treaty itself.
08/04/2026 · High Court of Delhi · W.P.(CRL) 3868/2025
🇦🇪United Arab Emirates → 🇮🇳India
Procedural orderExtradition
Flight risk in extradition proceedings: requirement of concrete and specific elements
Summary
Flight risk which justifies the application of a measure restricting personal liberty, may be understood as the risk that the requested person may leave the territory of the requested State, thereby jeopardizing compliance with the international obligation to secure their surrender to the requesting State. However, the existence of such a risk must be duly reasoned and grounded on concrete, specific, and indicative elements demonstrating a genuine propensity and a real possibility of clandestine departure by the requested person. Such elements must have a close connection to the factual circumstances and must not be based on presumptions, preconceived general assessments, or merely possible and hypothetical scenarios according to abstract human contingencies.
11/02/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 9952/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇦🇪United Arab Emirates
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition and double criminality: differences between issuing bounced cheques and fraud
Summary
The issuance of bounced cheques does not, in itself, constitute fraud under Italian law, as it is no longer a criminal offence, unless it forms part of a broader scheme aimed—through deceit or misrepresentation—at obtaining an undue financial advantage. Accordingly, for violation of the principle of double criminality, the order of the Court of Appeal must be quashed with remittal where it validates an arrest for extradition purposes and orders pre-trial detention in relation to a request for provisional arrest concerning the purchase of goods paid for with uncovered cheques, if such conduct is classified as fraud without establishing the existence of deceitful acts or misrepresentations.
30/03/2016 · Italian Supreme Court · 17172/2016
🇮🇹Italy → 🇦🇪United Arab Emirates
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving United Arab Emirates

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →