United States Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving United States — Requested and Requesting State

🇺🇸

United States

United States Extradition Law & Case Law — 70 cases

9
As requested
state
61
As requesting
state
Case Law
Political offence exception rejected: murders attributed to international terrorism not incidental to domestic uprising
✕
Summary
A naturalized U.S. citizen challenged the certification of his extradition to Iraq to stand trial for the 2006 murders of two Iraqi police officers, allegedly committed while he was a local leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that competent evidence supported probable cause and reiterating that habeas review of an extradition certification is severely limited and does not permit courts to weigh conflicting evidence or consider evidence that merely contradicts, rather than explains away or completely obliterates, probable cause. The Court also rejected the political offense exception under Article III of the U.S.–Iraq Extradition Treaty: although a violent Sunni insurgency existed in Iraq in 2006, the requested person failed to establish the required nexus between the murders and that domestic uprising, as the offenses were attributed to AQI, which the Court regarded as a transnational terrorist organization pursuing objectives beyond the indigenous insurgency. The Court further held that concerns regarding the Iraqi judicial system and humanitarian conditions were barred by the rule of non-inquiry and were for the Secretary of State to assess, while any future violation of the rule of specialty was speculative and likewise more appropriately addressed to the State Department.
12/08/2026 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · No. 24-6341; 2026 WL 2331486
🇺🇸United States → 🇮🇶Iraq
GrantedExtradition
Foreign pre-extradition detention not credited absent proof that custody resulted from U.S. extradition request
✕
Summary
Following his surrender to the United States through Colombia, the petitioner sought credit against his U.S. drug-trafficking sentence for approximately six years spent in detention in Venezuela, claiming that he had been held there at the behest of the United States pending extradition pursuant to an INTERPOL Red Notice issued in 2014. The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico examined the Venezuelan and Colombian documentary record and found that the Venezuelan detention had not been shown to result from the U.S. Red Notice: Venezuelan authorities did not confirm that the petitioner was the person sought through INTERPOL until May 9, 2019, and only thereafter notified the United States of the deadline for submitting a formal extradition request. The Court therefore rejected the claim for credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), emphasizing that lengthy foreign detention does not qualify as extradition-related custody merely because the requested person characterizes it as such; the connection with the U.S. request must be established by the record. The Court also noted that authority to calculate credit for prior custody rests with the Bureau of Prisons rather than the sentencing court.
11/08/2026 · United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · Civ. No. 25-1530 (JAG); 2026 WL 2322656
🇨🇴Colombia → 🇺🇸United States
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Seizure in Extradition proceedings: requesting State information may establish reasonable Suspicion
✕
Summary
The appellant was arrested in Singapore pursuant to a United States extradition request concerning alleged computer fraud, wire fraud and money laundering offences, and electronic devices, storage media and bank cards were seized during the arrest. The appellant challenged the seizure and later sought judicial review of the magistrate’s refusal to declare the items unlawfully seized. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the magistrate lacked supervisory jurisdiction to determine the legality of the police seizure, that criminal revision should have been exhausted before judicial review was pursued, and that no arguable case for quashing the magistrate’s decision had been established. The Court further held that, under the Extradition Act, authorised officers may ordinarily rely on credible information supplied by the requesting State without conducting an independent investigation, unless that information is patently wrong or the property plainly has no connection with the alleged offences.
04/08/2026 · Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore · [2026] SGCA 36 (Court of Appeal / Civil Appeal No 48 of 2025)
🇸🇬Singapore → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderExtradition
Mandatory treaty detention forecloses bail despite special circumstances
✕
Summary
Following certification of the requested person’s extradition from the United States to Türkiye, the requested person renewed her application for release, relying on the existence of special circumstances and the court’s general authority to consider bail before and after certification. The District Court held that an extradition court has no discretion to grant bail where the governing treaty expressly requires the requested person to remain detained until the extradition request is determined and, if granted, until surrender. It found that Article 9 of the United States–Türkiye Extradition Treaty was a self-executing provision binding on the court as the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause. The court rejected the special-circumstances argument and distinguished earlier authority granting bail because that authority had not considered the treaty’s mandatory-detention clause.
23/07/2026 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 24-mj-01198-DLC; 2026 WL 2123048
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇷Turkey
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Lee Gilley extradition: death penalty assurances and life imprisonment. Further information requested from the United States
✕
Summary
The United States sought the extradition from Italy of Lee Gilley, charged in Texas with capital murder, an offence punishable by death or, alternatively, mandatory life imprisonment without parole. Although the U.S. Embassy had assured the Italian Government that the death penalty would not be imposed, the Court considered that an email from the competent prosecuting authority raised uncertainty as to whether the prosecution had definitively waived capital punishment and therefore found that the absolute level of protection required under Italian constitutional principles had not yet been established. The Court also applied the two-stage approach developed by the ECtHR in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom and held that, since a real risk of life imprisonment without parole had been established, further information was required on mechanisms capable of providing a genuine prospect of release or sentence review. It therefore requested supplementary information from the U.S. Department of Justice under Article XI of the Italy–U.S. Extradition Treaty, while rejecting the requested person’s application for release because of flight risk.
17/07/2026 · Court of Appeal of Turin · /
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Request for assurancesExtradition
Contesting extradition may trigger “fugitive disentitlement” in proceedings before the requesting State
✕
Summary
The requested person, a United States citizen detained in Serbia and contesting extradition to the United States, sought to join a co-defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury. The District Court held that a person who is indicted while abroad may be treated as a constructive or functional fugitive where at least one reason for remaining abroad is to avoid prosecution, even if the original departure was for legitimate reasons. His continued opposition to extradition and refusal to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction were sufficient to establish fugitive status and justified application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The Court therefore denied, without prejudice, both the request to join the motion to dismiss and access to sealed grand jury materials, while allowing those requests to be renewed after the requested person submits to jurisdiction and is arraigned.
16/07/2026 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · Case No. 1:25-cr-00321-1 2026 WL 2056861
🇷🇸Serbia → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderOther
Habeas corpus denied: extradition to the United States upheld on sufficient evidence of alleged cyber offences
✕
Summary
The Supreme Court of Cyprus dismissed a habeas corpus application challenging the detention of a requested person whose extradition to the United States had been ordered for prosecution for cyber offences, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The Court held that, under the applicable Cyprus–United States extradition framework, the requesting State was required to provide a statement of facts and evidence showing reasonable grounds to believe that the offences had been committed and that the requested person had committed them, but the extradition court was not required to weigh conflicting evidence or determine guilt. It found that the evidence linking the requested person to the relevant email accounts, command-and-control infrastructure and internet activity was objectively sufficient to meet that threshold, while challenges to the weight of individual items of evidence were matters for the U.S. trial court. The Court also rejected allegations of abuse of process and breach of the duty of candour, including arguments based on a subsequent confession by another person, finding no evidence of bad faith by the requesting State.
16/07/2026 · Supreme Court of Cyprus · Application No. 124/2026
🇨🇾Cyprus → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to the United States upheld: Court of Appeal rejects Kim Dotcom’s challenge to surrender decision
✕
Summary
The case concerned the United States’ long-running request for the extradition of Kim Dotcom from New Zealand to stand trial on charges of criminal copyright infringement, racketeering and wire fraud. After earlier proceedings had established his eligibility for surrender, the Minister of Justice ordered surrender to the United States. Mr Dotcom sought judicial review of that decision and of the Police Commissioner’s refusal to prosecute him in New Zealand for equivalent domestic offences. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the decision not to prosecute Mr Dotcom in New Zealand was lawful and rational. His position differed from that of two alleged co-conspirators who had pleaded guilty in New Zealand: he was alleged to be the primary offender, he had not offered to plead guilty, and, most importantly, the United States had not withdrawn its extradition request. The Court also held that New Zealand law contains no general forum bar requiring domestic prosecution instead of extradition where prosecution in New Zealand might be possible. As to the Minister’s surrender decision, the Court accepted that, if convicted in the United States, Mr Dotcom could face a sentence substantially longer than any sentence likely to be imposed in New Zealand, potentially amounting in practice to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. However, the Court held that the Minister had not erred in law or fact in concluding that surrender would not expose him to disproportionately severe punishment contrary to section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Nor was the likely sentence irreducible, since United States law provided mechanisms such as compassionate release and executive clemency. The appeal was dismissed and the surrender decision upheld.
01/07/2026 · Court of Appeal of New Zealand · [2026] NZCA 284
🇳🇿New Zealand → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition habeas review is limited to jurisdiction, treaty coverage and probable cause
✕
Summary
The petitioner challenged the certification of his extraditability to Israel, where he was sought for prosecution for attempted murder and related offences arising from an alleged organized-crime plot. He argued that the extradition court lacked jurisdiction because United States authorities had secured his transfer from Malaysia through deception and unlawful conduct, and further claimed that the evidence submitted by Israel did not establish probable cause. The District Court held that, under the Ker–Frisbie doctrine, even an irregular or unlawful rendition does not ordinarily deprive a court of jurisdiction, absent conduct comparable to the extreme torture or brutality contemplated by the narrow Toscanino exception. It also found that the United States–Malaysia extradition treaty did not apply because the petitioner had not been transferred pursuant to that treaty and concluded that the evidentiary record was sufficient to support probable cause. The habeas petition and the request for a stay pending appeal were therefore denied, subject to a one-week administrative stay allowing an application to the Court of Appeals.
29/06/2026 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 25-CV-05712 (JAV), 2026 WL 1864974
🇺🇸United States → 🇮🇱Israel
GrantedExtradition
Foreign conviction and detailed judicial findings are sufficient to establish probable cause for extradition
✕
Summary
The court certified extradition to Peru, emphasizing the limited role of the extradition court under 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The court held that a foreign conviction—particularly one obtained after the defendant participated in trial proceedings—is ordinarily sufficient to establish probable cause. Even assuming the conviction was treated like an in absentia conviction, the detailed findings of the Peruvian courts independently established probable cause. The decision also reaffirmed that U.S. courts do not second-guess foreign criminal proceedings or procedural rulings so long as treaty requirements are satisfied.
23/06/2026 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:26-cv-00400-MEMF-MBK, 2026 WL 1811832
🇺🇸United States → 🇵🇪Peru
GrantedExtradition
Authenticated foreign investigative materials and hearsay may establish probable cause for extradition
✕
Summary
The court certified extradition to Thailand after finding that a detailed affidavit from a Thai prosecutor, supported by hearsay summaries of witness statements and financial evidence, was sufficient to establish probable cause. The court emphasized that extradition proceedings are not trials, that hearsay is admissible, and that probable cause may rest on authenticated foreign investigative materials. The opinion also held that, once a court certifies extraditability, 18 U.S.C. § 3184 requires detention pending surrender, rejecting the view that courts retain discretion to continue bail after certification
22/06/2026 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division · 3:26-MJ-215-BW, 2026 WL 1786771
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇭Thailand
GrantedExtradition
Extradition detention order set aside: medical incompatibility claim required formal expert assessment (Roman Khlynovskiy case)
✕
Summary
The case concerned a person held in custody in Italy pending extradition proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Bologna. The defence sought revocation or substitution of the custodial measure, arguing that the requested person’s health conditions were incompatible with prison detention. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, relying on the continuing risk of flight and on a prison medical report which considered detention compatible with the person’s health, without ordering an independent expert assessment. The Italian Supreme Court annulled that decision. It held that, where an application for revocation or replacement of custody is based on alleged incompatibility between the person’s health conditions and prison detention, the court must order medical assessments in expert form unless the alleged incompatibility is unsupported by adequate justification or the situation is clearly compatible with detention. That was not the case here. The prison medical report did not provide a stable and conclusive clinical picture, referred to the need for constant monitoring, and did not clarify whether the necessary diagnostic and therapeutic measures could be adequately and promptly provided within the prison system or in a prison medical facility. Only after such assessment could the court properly evaluate the continuing need for custody, the concreteness of the risk of flight, and the possible adequacy of less restrictive alternative measures. The order was therefore annulled with remand for a fresh assessment.
03/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22770/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition to the United States granted: constitutional reform allowing extradition of Costa Rican nationals applied to pending requests
✕
Summary
The case concerned appeals by the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney General’s Office against a first-instance decision refusing the extradition of a Costa Rican national requested by the United States for prosecution for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy offences. The first-instance court had held that the 2025 reform of Article 32 of the Costa Rican Constitution, which permits the extradition of nationals in cases of international drug trafficking and terrorism, could not apply to facts occurring before the reform entered into force. The Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion. Relying on binding Constitutional Chamber case law, it held that extradition is a procedural mechanism of international cooperation and that the constitutional reform was immediately applicable to pending extradition proceedings. The Court further reasoned that the Costa Rica–United States extradition treaty had already allowed, since 1991, the extradition of nationals where domestic constitutional law did not prohibit it; the 2025 reform therefore removed the internal constitutional obstacle rather than creating a new substantive offence or punishment. Since the first-instance court had already found that the treaty requirements were met, including double criminality, legality and non-prescription, the Court of Appeal granted extradition in deferred form, subject to the prior resolution of pending Costa Rican criminal proceedings and to formal assurances from the United States on speciality, non-imposition of death penalty or life imprisonment, and a maximum prison term not exceeding fifty years.
02/06/2026 · Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal, Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José · 2026-0960
🇨🇷Costa Rica → 🇺🇸United States
Granted with conditionsExtradition
Bail pending extradition refused: medical conditions manageable in custody and flight risk in US Extradition proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Singaporean requested person arrested in Singapore pursuant to a request by the United States in relation to alleged securities fraud and money laundering offences. Pending the extradition proceedings, the requested person sought release on bail on the ground that he was “sick or infirm”, relying on a serious eye condition and a history of bipolar disorder, and arguing that prison medical facilities were inadequate. The High Court held that the relevant threshold was not satisfied, as the medical evidence showed that the conditions either required no ongoing specialist management or could reasonably be managed by the Singapore Prison Service. The Court also considered, for completeness, that there was a real risk of flight given the seriousness of the charges and the prospect of extradition, and therefore dismissed the application for bail
26/05/2026 · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore · [2026] SGHC 114 / Criminal Motion No 46 of 2025
🇸🇬Singapore → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Digital evidence (WhatsApp messages) in extradition proceedings: interception law not in force and remittal ordered (Andrew Bennett extradition case)
✕
Summary
The case concerned extradition proceedings initiated by the United States against a Belizean attorney accused of participating in money laundering activities connected to drug trafficking. The extradition request relied in part on WhatsApp communications exchanged with an undercover DEA agent, which the lower courts had previously considered unlawfully obtained under Belize’s Interception of Communications Act and therefore unconstitutional. Before the Caribbean Court of Justice, it emerged that the statute relied upon by the lower courts had not yet entered into force at the relevant time, rendering the prior findings per incuriam. The Court held that the constitutional issues concerning the use of WhatsApp communications without judicial authorisation had not been properly argued and should not be resolved hypothetically on appeal. The decisions of the lower courts were therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of the constitutional questions.
15/05/2026 · Caribbean Court of Justice · [2026] CCJ 7 (AJ) BZ
🇧🇿Belize → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition to the United States: Court of Appeal failed to obtain individualized information on detention conditions
✕
Summary
The case concerned a United States request for extradition from Italy for prosecution on a charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The Court of Appeal had declared the conditions for extradition satisfied, subject to the condition that any extradition detention served in Italy be credited against a sentence eventually imposed in the United States. The requested person appealed, raising several objections, including alleged defects in the extradition request, the subsequent substitution of the extradition title following a Grand Jury indictment, lack of United States jurisdiction, insufficient evidentiary basis, breach of speciality, disproportionate punishment and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions. The Italian Supreme Court rejected all grounds except the complaint concerning detention conditions. It held that the replacement or formal development of the extradition title during the proceedings did not bar extradition where the factual basis remained the same and the new title was submitted before the Court of Appeal’s decision. It also held that Italian courts are not required, in extradition to the United States, to review the existence of United States jurisdiction as a ground for refusal, and that the “reasonable basis” requirement under the Italy–US extradition treaty does not require an autonomous assessment of serious evidence of guilt. The Court further rejected the argument that the maximum penalty of twenty years for money laundering conspiracy was, in itself, manifestly disproportionate. However, it found that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly address the defence submissions on detention conditions. The defence had relied not only on NGO material but also on official United States prison standards suggesting that personal space could ordinarily fall below three square metres per detainee. This was a qualified source capable of raising a potential Article 3 ECHR issue. The Court therefore held that the Court of Appeal should have sought complete, current and individualized information from the United States on the specific detention conditions that would apply in case of surrender. The judgment was annulled with remand for a new assessment limited to that issue.
13/05/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 24061/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtradition
Renewed review of extradition admissibility refused: diplomatic assurances excluded concrete speciality risk
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request to reopen the assessment of the admissibility of extradition to the United States after extradition had already been declared admissible and subsequently authorised. The requested person argued that new doubts had arisen as to whether the United States would comply with the principle of speciality, in particular in relation to sentencing, and also sought postponement of surrender pending proceedings in Denmark concerning the Danish authorities’ refusal to issue a European Arrest Warrant. The Higher Regional Court of Munich rejected the applications. It held that a renewed decision under section 33(1) of the German Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters requires new circumstances capable of affecting the admissibility decision, and that mere doubts about the requesting State’s future compliance with speciality are insufficient, especially where the United States had provided binding diplomatic assurances that the person would be prosecuted only for the offences for which extradition had been granted. The Court also held that Germany was not required to postpone surrender until the conclusion of proceedings in the requested person’s home Member State, since Denmark had already been informed and had stated that it would not seek surrender by issuing a European Arrest Warrant. No preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union was required.
06/05/2026 · Munich Higher Regional Court · 1 OAus 167/25
🇩🇪Germany → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderExtradition
Extradition and double criminality: transit of drugs through the requesting State may satisfy importation offences
✕
Summary
For the purposes of extradition and the assessment of double criminality, drug trafficking offences may be considered “importation offences” even where the narcotics merely transit through the requesting State, provided that the Record of the Case supports a reasonable inference that the drugs entered, or were intended to enter, that jurisdiction in the context of the alleged conspiracy. Leave to appeal was further denied on the ground that the Record supported an inference that the requested person, as a member of the smuggling operation responsible for customs paperwork in the requested State, knew both the method and the route through the requesting State that the drugs would take.
05/05/2026 · Supreme Court of New Zealand · NZSC 46/2026
🇳🇿New Zealand → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderExtradition
Extradition and sought person’s right to family contacts (telephone conversations and video calls)
✕
Summary
In extradition matters, decisions concerning family contacts issued by the Court of Appeal are subject to appeal pursuant to Article 111(7) of the Italian Constitution, both when the Court acts as the judicial authority conducting the proceedings and, after the extradition judgment has become final, as the execution judge. The Court of Appeal may not reject a request for telephone conversations (including video calls) with the wife and minor child of the requested person merely by referring to obstructive reasons “for security purposes” or to communications received from the U.S. authorities. In the present case, there was no independent assessment showing that, having regard to the specific arrangements for the telephone communications and to the special protection afforded to contacts with minor children, there actually existed security concerns or a risk of interference with evidence.
05/05/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 16620/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition detention maintained: no special circumstances justifying bail pending surrender
✕
Summary
The case concerned extradition proceedings under the U.S.–Germany extradition treaty, in which the defendant sought revocation of a detention order entered pending extradition. He argued that special circumstances justified release, relying on his medical condition, alleged delays in the extradition proceedings, and family responsibilities, and further maintained that he was not a flight risk. On de novo review, the District Court held that none of those factors amounted to special circumstances capable of overcoming the presumption against bail in extradition cases. Because no special circumstances were established, the Court denied the motion to revoke the detention order without reaching a final determination on flight risk or danger to the community.
29/04/2026 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:26-cv-02074-SB-MAA; 2026 WL 1455318
🇺🇸United States → 🇩🇪Germany
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Country Contributor
Bruce Zagaris
Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe LLP - Washington, DC
Bruce Zagaris is a partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe LLP.
His practice focuses on international white collar crime, including tax controversy, money movement, international evidence gathering, extradition and INTERPOL, prisoner transfer matters, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Bruce has successfully challenged INTERPOL Red and Yellow notices. He has also authored a chapter about INTERPOL in his book International White Collar Crime (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Since 1985, he has served as editor-in-chief of the International Enforcement Law Reporter, a weekly and monthly journal on international enforcement law.
Bruce has been teaching law throughout his entire career. He has served as an adjunct professor, and since 2016, he has been teaching at Texas A&M Masters Program, the school’s Wealth Management and Risk Management course.
Bruce regularly appears as an expert witness in extradition, evidence gathering, international tax, financial regulatory, and money laundering cases. He has authored and edited six books and many law review and other articles. He has worked as a consultant for international organizations on a variety of international enforcement matters.
Country Contributor
Joshua Kolsrud
Kolsrud Law Offices - Phoenix
Josh Kolsrud is a former federal prosecutor turned aggressive criminal defense attorney with deep experience in complex international and federal criminal cases.
A native of Phoenix, Arizona, Josh graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College in 2004 and received his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law in 2007.
He began his career at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and later served as Senior Trial Attorney for the Coconino County Attorney’s Office. Josh was then recruited to the United States Attorney’s Office, where he spent more than five and a half years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting cases involving human trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal reentry, gun crimes, white-collar fraud, and other federal offenses with cross-border elements. He successfully authored and won two appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Josh was personally recruited by the Attorney General of the Republic of Palau to lead an anti-human sex trafficking operation in the South Pacific. His efforts helped rescue hundreds of victims from sexual slavery and included prosecuting one of the only jury trials in Palau’s history.
With extensive experience in transnational crime, international investigations, and federal appellate practice, Josh brings unique insight into extradition and cross-border criminal matters.
Country Contributor
Jeffrey Lehtman
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Jeffrey Lehtman's practice focuses on assisting clients with internal and government investigations, global regulatory compliance, and complex cross-border litigation. Client feedback in Chambers Global describes Jeff as "extremely available no matter the issue at hand" and notes he is "business-minded and addresses what needs immediate action first." Clients say "…his advice is outstanding."
Jeff has particular experience counseling clients with regard to civil, criminal, and regulatory issues arising in their international operations, ranging from compliance strategies to mitigate potential risk to internal and government investigations. In addition to counseling clients on issues arising from day-to-day operations, he has represented multinational companies, financial institutions, fintech companies, professional sports teams, international development banks, and their officers and directors in connection with investigations before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and numerous other domestic and foreign regulatory and government bodies.
Jeff’s substantive experience includes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, and economic sanctions laws, as well as allegations relating to accounting and disclosure irregularities, insider trading and workplace misconduct. In addition, Jeff has experience advising clients in connection with international extradition matters and international assistance among regulatory authorities (MLATs).
Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Jeff was a partner at boutique firms in Washington D.C. and an AmLaw 200 firm. In addition, Jeff was previously Senior Regional Counsel at Citibank, overseeing regulatory, litigation and corporate matters involving Latin America. He also served as a Trial Attorney in the Office of International Affairs within the DOJ's Criminal Division.
Country Contributor
Vahdet Talha Bıçak
Bıçak Law Firm - Chicago
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a Turkish attorney focusing on international business law, cross-border disputes, international judicial cooperation, extradition-related matters, investment law, maritime law, and commercial litigation. He is part of the management team of Bıçak Law Firm, an Ankara-based full-service law firm representing domestic and international clients in complex cross-border legal matters.
He currently continues his academic and professional activities in Chicago, United States, where he has further expanded his comparative and international legal expertise. His international exposure and practical experience enable him to work effectively on matters involving multi-jurisdictional disputes, international cooperation mechanisms, and transnational legal risks.
Attorney Bıçak graduated from Bilkent University Faculty of Law in 2018 with advanced English legal training. He also pursued postgraduate studies in international trade and corporate law. During his legal education, he served as President of ELSA (European Law Students’ Association), one of Europe’s largest law student organizations, where he organized and coordinated numerous international legal projects and conferences.
His legal practice includes advising multinational corporations, foreign investors, embassies, and international commercial actors on Turkish and international legal matters. He has experience in international arbitration, cross-border investment disputes, international trade, maritime disputes, compliance, regulatory matters, and international commercial litigation. Attorney Bıçak has also been involved in matters relating to international criminal cooperation, comparative law, and extradition-related legal issues. His growing interest in extradition law, European Arrest Warrant practice, INTERPOL-related matters, and international judicial cooperation has led him to contribute to comparative legal research and case-law analysis in this field.
He is fluent in Turkish and English.
His practice areas include extradition and international judicial cooperation, cross-border litigation and dispute resolution, international commercial law, maritime and transportation law, international investment law, arbitration and mediation, corporate and regulatory compliance, white-collar and financial crime-related matters, and INTERPOL-related international criminal cooperation matters.
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a member of the Ankara Bar Association and previously served as President of ELSA Ankara. He currently continues his professional activities through Bıçak Law Firm while further developing his international legal practice in the United States.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving United States

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →