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
Double criminality assessed at the time of the extradition request, not at the time of the alleged conduct
✕
Summary
The case concerned an application for judicial review challenging the surrender of the requested person from Australia to the United States in relation to offences connected with the alleged training of Chinese military pilots in South Africa between 2009 and 2012. The requested person argued that extradition was unlawful because the conduct relied upon by the United States did not constitute offences under Australian law at the time the alleged conduct occurred, the relevant Australian national security offences having entered into force only in 2018. The Federal Court of Australia rejected the application, holding that the U.S.–Australia Extradition Treaty does not impose a requirement of contemporaneous dual criminality. The Court found that the applicable dual criminality test is the one established by section 19(2)(c) of the Australian Extradition Act, which requires assessment by reference to the law in force at the time the extradition request was received rather than at the time of the alleged conduct. The judgment also contains a detailed analysis of the interaction between extradition treaties and domestic legislation, the incorporation of treaty provisions into Australian law through section 11 of the Extradition Act, and the limits of judicial review in extradition proceedings. The application was dismissed and the surrender decision upheld.
16/04/2026 · Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 445
🇦🇺Australia → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition: translation of General Prosecutor’s speech is not required (especially if the sought person is already aware of the charges)
✕
Summary
General Prosecutor's speech - by which the Office starts the extradition proceedings - does not fall either among the acts for which a written translation is mandatorily required, nor among those — to be considered essential for the accused to understand the charges against him — for which the judge may order a translation ex officio or upon request of a party. The case concerns a sought person who, at the time the application was filed, was fully aware of the allegations against him, having already been served with a pre-trial detention order, duly translated for him.
15/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 14575/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Ghana certified: foreign conviction established probable cause for public funds and money laundering offences
✕
Summary
The case concerned Ghana’s request for the extradition of a former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre, who had been convicted in Ghana and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for multiple offences involving stealing, conspiracy, willfully causing financial loss to the State, causing loss to public property and money laundering. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada certified extradition, holding that the extradition treaty between the United States and Ghana, together with the United Nations Convention against Corruption, was valid and in force and covered the relevant offences. The Court rejected the argument that dual criminality was lacking because the Ghanaian offences had a lower mens rea threshold than their United States analogues, emphasizing that dual criminality does not require identity of statutory elements, but only that the underlying conduct be criminal in both countries. On the facts alleged, the conduct would be prosecutable in the United States as theft or receipt of stolen government property and money laundering. The Court also held that Ghana’s judgment of conviction, together with the authenticated affidavits, was sufficient to establish probable cause, even though the conviction had been entered after the requested person failed to return to Ghana during trial. The Court therefore certified extradition and committed the requested person to the custody of the United States Marshal pending the Secretary of State’s final surrender decision. According to the subsequent Department of Justice press release, the Secretary of State authorized surrender and the requested person was extradited to Ghana on 8 June 2026.
09/04/2026 · United States District Court, District of Nevada · 2:25-mj-00861-DJA-1
🇺🇸United States → 🇬🇭Ghana
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to the United States upheld: double criminality under the USA–South Africa treaty requires a conduct-based approach
✕
Summary
The case concerned requests by the United States for the extradition of several Nigerian nationals residing in South Africa, accused of participating in an international cybercrime enterprise involving wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering. The central issue was how the principle of double criminality should be applied under the USA–South Africa Extradition Treaty and the South African Extradition Act 67 of 1962. The High Court held that double criminality may be implemented either by reference to the conduct of the requested person or by reference to the offences for which extradition is sought, and that the applicable approach must be determined by interpreting the relevant extradition legislation and treaty. Interpreting the USA–South Africa treaty in light of international and comparative law, as well as South Africa’s extradition treaty practice between 2001 and 2021, the Court held that the treaty adopts a conduct-based approach. Accordingly, the correct question is whether the totality of the acts and omissions alleged by the requesting State would constitute an offence in the requested State if committed there, not whether the offences have the same name or substantially identical constituent elements. Applying that test, the Court found that the alleged conduct — including identity misuse, false online personas, fraudulent inducement of victims and laundering of proceeds — would constitute offences under South African law, including fraud, cyber fraud, cyber forgery and uttering, and money laundering. The Court also set out the method to be followed by magistrates in extradition enquiries under section 10 of the Extradition Act where the applicable treaty adopts a conduct-based approach. The appeal was dismissed and the appellants remained liable to be extradited, pending the Minister’s final surrender decision.
07/04/2026 · High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town · 153/2024
🇿🇦South Africa → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
The Minister’s request for revocation of the measure leaves the Court with no discretion
✕
Summary
The request by the Minister of Justice for the revocation of the custodial measure leaves no room for discretion, as the law provides that “revocation shall always be ordered if the Minister of Justice so requests.” In such cases, where the proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation, that Court has jurisdiction to decide on the revocation of the measure, and the immediate release of the person sought for extradition must be ordered.
27/03/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 12897/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtradition
Revocation of precautionary measure for failure to transmit the documents within 45 days from the arrest
✕
Summary
The failure or delay in transmitting the documents, expressly required by the Treaty, to the Ministry of Justice and/or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs entails the immediate loss of effectiveness of the precautionary measure. Indeed, since the matter concerns restrictions on personal liberty, the mandatory time limits laid down by the treaty provisions and by the corresponding rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be regarded as essential and applied with the utmost strictness (as affirmed by the Constitutional Court).
20/03/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 10777/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition to the United States refused: Costa Rican constitutional reform allowing nationals’ extradition not applied retroactively
✕
Summary
The case concerned a United States request for the extradition of a Costa Rican national wanted for prosecution in the Southern District of New York for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy offences. The Tribunal Penal found that the formal requirements of the Costa Rica–United States extradition treaty were satisfied, including double criminality, legal basis, validity of the prosecution, and the absence of political or military offences. It also noted that any surrender would require formal assurances on speciality and on the non-imposition of prohibited penalties, including death penalty, life imprisonment or a prison sentence exceeding fifty years. However, the Court refused extradition on the ground that the alleged conduct pre-dated the 2025 constitutional reform of Article 32 of the Costa Rican Constitution, which allowed the extradition of nationals in cases of international drug trafficking and terrorism. Relying on the principle of non-retroactivity and on a previous appellate decision, the Court held that the reform could not apply to facts occurring before its entry into force. Since the requested person was a Costa Rican national and the alleged conduct occurred before the reform, extradition was denied, although the Court held that Costa Rica should prosecute the facts domestically under Costa Rican law.
09/03/2026 · Tribunal Penal, First Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, Limón · 2026-000195
🇨🇷Costa Rica → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to the United States granted: mortgage fraud scheme satisfied double criminality
✕
Summary
The case concerned a United States request for extradition from Argentina for prosecution on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The first instance court had refused extradition, finding that double criminality was not satisfied because the alleged conduct did not amount to fraud under Argentine law. The Supreme Court of Argentina reversed that decision. It held that the lower court had exceeded the proper scope of extradition proceedings by assessing the effectiveness of the alleged deception, which was a matter for the foreign trial court. The facts described a broader mortgage fraud scheme involving inflated property prices, false loan applications and “cash back” payments channelled to members of the alleged conspiracy. For extradition purposes, those facts could be classified under Argentine law as fraud, criminal association and money laundering. The Court also rejected objections based on the alleged insufficiency of the factual description and on a translation error concerning the requested person’s role in the scheme. It therefore declared extradition admissible for all charges.
03/03/2026 · Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación · FCB 18256/2013/CS1
🇦🇷Argentina → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Flight risk in extradition proceedings assessed in light of the surrender purpose
✕
Summary
The requested person sought the revocation of detention pending extradition to the United States, or its replacement with house arrest subject to electronic monitoring, relying on his family ties, employment and residence in Italy. The Supreme Court held that flight risk in extradition proceedings must be assessed by reference to the purpose of securing surrender rather than solely according to the ordinary criteria applicable in domestic criminal proceedings. The Court found that the requested person’s recent presence in Italy, uncertain employment and housing situation, international mobility, access to financial resources and foreign connections supported a concrete and current risk of absconding. It also held that house arrest with electronic monitoring would not adequately prevent flight and that the effects of lawful and proportionate detention on family life did not, in themselves, amount to a breach of Article 8 ECHR.
03/03/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 12638/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition of an EU citizen to the United States does not require an assurance of return for sentence enforcement
✕
Summary
The requested person, a Danish national, sought reconsideration of the decision declaring his extradition to the United States admissible for specified fraud and money-laundering charges. The Court held that the assurances provided by the United States sufficiently guaranteed compliance with the principle of speciality, including a directly enforceable right before US courts and the exclusion of any sentence enhancement based on charges for which extradition had been refused. It also found that double criminality was satisfied, that the promised detention conditions met the applicable human-rights standards, and that neither fair-trial concerns nor family-life considerations barred extradition. Applying the principles established in Pisciotti, the Court further held that EU law did not require a return-transfer assurance, since Denmark had declined to issue a European Arrest Warrant and the requested person had no relevant ties to Germany. The applications for reconsideration were therefore rejected and continued extradition detention was ordered.
19/02/2026 · Higher Regional Court of Munich · 1 OAus 167/25, BeckRS 2026, 12519
🇩🇪Germany → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition decision (including procedural rulings) must be rendered by the Court of Appeal and not by a single delegated judge
✕
Summary
The decision on an extradition request—even where it takes the form of a ruling of no need to proceed due to the person’s absence from the national territory—falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal sitting in its collegiate composition, and not of a delegated judge. Accordingly, where, as in the present case, the delegated judge has exercised a power that the legal system reserves to the Court of Appeal, the impugned decision must be deemed affected by absolute nullity for lack of judicial capacity, as it entails a violation of the constitutional principle of the natural judge pre-established by law.
12/02/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 12518/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Extradition to USA for bomb attacks linked to animal testing: articles 3 and 6 ECHR challenges rejected
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request by the United States for the extradition of the requested person to stand trial for several bombing offences allegedly committed in California in 2003 against companies linked to animal testing activities. The defence argued that extradition should be barred because of the risk of prejudice connected to the requested person’s political beliefs, alleged defects in the superseding indictment, and potential violations of Articles 3 and 6 ECHR arising from detention conditions and possible political interference by the current U.S. administration. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court rejected those arguments, holding that the proceedings concerned ordinary violent criminal offences and that there was no concrete evidence of political motivation or improper executive interference. The Court further held that the requested person would benefit from the procedural guarantees of the U.S. federal justice system, including legal representation, independent judicial oversight, and appellate remedies. Extradition was therefore ordered, the Court finding no violation of Articles 3 or 6 ECHR.
06/02/2026 · Westminster Magistrates’ Court · The Government of the United States of America -v- Daniel Andreas San Diego
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extension of pre-trial detention due to the “particular complexity” of the case
✕
Summary
The particular complexity of the case, including procedural and substantive issues raised by the Defence, may justify—where analyses and further inquiries are required—the extension of the custodial measure. Such activities also include engaging in communications with foreign authorities within the framework of the so-called Petruhhin mechanism.
04/02/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 8409/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Substitution of the extradition arrest warrant for the same offences does not prevent surrender
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged his extradition from Italy to the United States on several grounds, including allegedly inadequate detention conditions, the failure to transmit the original arrest warrant underlying the provisional arrest, lack of double criminality and the risk of a subsequent reclassification of the charges into an offence punishable by death. The Supreme Court held that the official information supplied by the United States was sufficiently specific to exclude a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. It further ruled that the failure to transmit the original warrant was cured by the subsequent production, together with the extradition request, of a new warrant issued for the same offences following indictment, since the extradition title may be formally replaced before the Court of Appeal decides the case. The complaints concerning double criminality and the death penalty were also rejected, and extradition was upheld.
28/01/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 4535/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to USA and loss of effectiveness of precautionary measure in case of failure to deliver extradition request (and supporting documents) within 45 days
✕
Summary
Extradition to the United States and loss of effectiveness of pre-trial detention in the absence of a timely extradition request (and supporting documents) within 45 days The extradition treaty between Italy and the United States provides that, within 45 days of the arrest, the United States must transmit to Italy the formal extradition request together with the documentation required under Article X. The purpose is to prevent provisional arrest from turning into prolonged detention without the formal legal basis constituted by a proper extradition request. In the present case, the arrest was carried out on 10/10/2025, from which date the above-mentioned peremptory time limit began to run. Since the Court of Appeal rendered its decision at a time when, within the mandatory time limits set by the Treaty, neither the extradition request nor the required documentation had yet been received — as was instead necessary — the challenged order must be quashed without remand and the custodial measure currently in force must be revoked.
19/01/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 14484/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Final discontinuance in another EU Member State bars extradition to a third country for the same acts under ne bis in idem
✕
Summary
The United States sought the extradition of a Danish national for fraud, money laundering and related offences concerning the alleged misuse of research funds. The Court held that extradition was inadmissible for counts 2–4 and 6–13 because the same acts had already been the subject of a final and binding discontinuance of criminal proceedings in Denmark; the transnational ne bis in idem principle under Article 50 of the Charter and Article 54 CISA also applies to final non-judicial prosecutorial decisions. Extradition remained admissible for counts 1, 5 and 14–22 because double criminality was satisfied, prosecution was not time-barred under US law, and the United States had provided reliable assurances that the principle of speciality would be respected. The Court also rejected objections based on alleged political motivation, fair-trial risks, sentence severity, detention conditions and the absence of a return-transfer assurance. Continued extradition detention was ordered on the basis of flight risk.
13/01/2026 · Higher Regional Court of Munich · 1 OAus 167/25, BeckRS 2026, 12515
🇩🇪Germany → 🇺🇸United States
Granted with conditionsExtradition
Information provided by the requesting state may support the assessment of flight risk without constituting formal intervention in the proceedings
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged the refusal to replace detention pending extradition to the United States with house arrest. He argued that a note transmitted by the United States Department of Justice could not be used because the requesting State may participate in domestic extradition proceedings only under the conditions laid down by Article 702 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that the note formed part of the documentation supporting the extradition request and did not amount to the requesting State’s formal intervention or participation in the proceedings. In any event, the information contained in the note had merely reinforced a flight-risk assessment already based on other factors, including the inadequacy of the proposed residence, the absence of stable ties with Italy, substantial financial resources and the possibility of obtaining accommodation abroad. The appeal was dismissed and detention was maintained.
30/12/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 3264/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition and replacement of the extradition title for the same facts
✕
Summary
The replacement by the requesting State of the extradition title for the same facts, prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal, does not constitute a ground precluding a finding of extraditability. It has been held that “there is nothing to prevent, provided that the cause of action remains unchanged, the legal basis of the extradition request from being subsequently and formally replaced by the requesting State before the Court of Appeal renders its decision. Such a novatio integrates the extradition request, thereby becoming part of it, and does not infringe any defence rights, since the person concerned is made aware of it prior to the decision.”
20/11/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 41697/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition Mexico–United States: amparo dismissed due to withdrawal of the extradition request and cessation of effects
✕
Summary
Where the requesting State withdraws the extradition request and the competent authority declares the extradition procedure moot, setting aside the extradition decision, the effects of the challenged act cease. As a result, the amparo proceedings must be dismissed, including any constitutional challenge to the treaty provision whose application depended on that extradition decision.
05/11/2025 · Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación · 223/2024
🇲🇽Mexico → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderExtradition
Official assurances and bilateral trust exclude a real risk of inhuman detention conditions
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged his extradition from Italy to the United States for conspiracy, computer fraud and money laundering, principally alleging a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment at the Essex County Correctional Facility. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had adequately investigated the individual risk through three requests for supplementary information and could rely on the official assurances supplied by the requesting State. The existence of organisational deficiencies or isolated incidents of violence did not establish a concrete risk of systemic violations of fundamental rights. The Court also found that converting criminal proceeds into bitcoin could satisfy double criminality by corresponding to the Italian offence of self-laundering. The further complaints concerning speciality, proportionality of punishment, credit for time spent under house arrest and the right to a fair trial were rejected as hypothetical or unfounded. Extradition was therefore upheld.
04/11/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 41495/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
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 →