United States Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure
Extradition cases involving United States — Requested and Requesting State
Connected jurisdictions
🇮🇹Italy32 cases🇬🇧United Kingdom4 cases🇩🇪Germany4 cases🇸🇬Singapore3 cases🇹🇷Turkey3 cases🇳🇿New Zealand3 cases🇯🇲Jamaica2 cases🇧🇿Belize2 cases🇨🇷Costa Rica2 cases🇦🇺Australia2 cases🇨🇾Cyprus1 case🇮🇶Iraq1 case🇨🇴Colombia1 case🇨🇱Chile1 case🇷🇸Serbia1 case🇹🇭Thailand1 case🇵🇪Peru1 case🇮🇱Israel1 case🇦🇷Argentina1 case🇿🇦South Africa1 case🇬🇭Ghana1 case🇲🇽Mexico1 case🇵🇱Poland1 case
Key Resources
Case Law
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 remandExtraditionExtradition 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 remandExtraditionThe 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
DeniedExtraditionExtradition 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
DeniedExtraditionCompeting EAW and extradition request require consultation of the member state of nationality and the Minister of Justice
✕
Summary
The United States requested the extradition of a Russian-German national from Italy for offences connected with the operation of a cryptocurrency exchange platform and money laundering. Germany subsequently issued a European Arrest Warrant concerning conduct allegedly overlapping with the facts underlying the extradition request. The Supreme Court quashed the decision authorising extradition because the Court of Appeal had relied on a decision issued in the separate EAW proceedings without formally introducing it into the extradition case or allowing the parties to comment on it, thereby breaching the adversarial principle. The Court further held that the requested judicial authority must activate the Petruhhin notification mechanism by informing the member state of nationality and allowing it a reasonable period to take appropriate action. In addition, where an EAW and a third-country extradition request coexist, the judicial authority must seek the prior opinion of the Minister of Justice under the EU-US Extradition Agreement before deciding which request should take precedence. The case was remitted for a new decision.
01/10/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 38544/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtraditionExtradition to the United States and sentencing disparity: scope of judicial review of surrender decisions
✕
Summary
The High Court of New Zealand reviewed the lawfulness of a ministerial decision ordering surrender to the United States, focusing on whether all relevant factors had been properly considered. In particular, the Court examined the significance of the disparity between the potential sentence in the requesting State and the sentence likely applicable under domestic law. While reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review in extradition matters, the Court held that surrender decisions must adequately address proportionality concerns and may be set aside where relevant considerations — including sentencing consequences — have not been properly evaluated.
10/09/2025 · Wellington High Court · 2634/2025
🇳🇿New Zealand → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtraditionDouble criminality not satisfied: alleged insider dealing occurred outside the United States
✕
Summary
The United States sought the extradition of a dual British and Lebanese national to face charges arising from an alleged insider-dealing scheme involving confidential information about companies listed on US stock exchanges. The Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003, the location of the conduct must be determined by identifying where the requested person’s relevant physical acts occurred, rather than where their effects were felt. As the substance of the alleged conduct occurred in the United Kingdom and not in the United States, the stricter test applicable to extraterritorial conduct under section 137(4) applied. Equivalent conduct in corresponding circumstances would not fall within the territorial scope of the relevant UK insider-dealing or money-laundering offences; the Court therefore allowed the appeal, discharged the requested person and quashed the extradition order.
12/02/2025 · Supreme Court of the United Kingdom · [2025] UKSC 3
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionCitizenship: the requested Member State must inform the State of nationality of the person sought (Petruhhin)
✕
Summary
In matters of extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State, the requested Member State, in application of the notification mechanism outlined in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, 6 September 2016, C-182/15), is required to inform the State of nationality also where that State’s domestic law alone provides nationality as a ground for refusing surrender. This is in order to enable that State to issue, in turn, a European Arrest Warrant and request surrender for the purpose of prosecuting the same acts.
16/05/2024 · Italian Supreme Court · 21955/2024
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtraditionBreach of the speciality principle by the requesting state does not entail liability of the requested state
✕
Summary
The requested person was extradited from Jamaica to the United States pursuant to a request concerning murder, attempted murder and drug-related offences, but was initially tried and convicted in a different case for an offence not covered by the surrender order. In subsequent civil proceedings, he sought additional constitutional, vindicatory and compensatory damages from the Jamaican authorities, arguing that his extradition had been unlawful and that the principle of speciality had been breached. The Court of Appeal held that the extradition order and the detention preceding surrender were lawful, that no appeal to the Privy Council was pending at the time of surrender and that the Jamaican Government was not responsible for the United States’ subsequent conduct. Although the court expressly found that Article 7 of the applicable extradition treaty had been breached, it held that the breach had been committed by the requesting State and did not entail liability of the requested State; the appeal concerning damages was therefore dismissed.
22/03/2024 · Court of Appeal of Jamaica · [2024] JMCA Civ 16; Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. COA2021CV00018
🇯🇲Jamaica → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionExtradition, double criminality, tax offences and “punishability thresholds”
✕
Summary
Traditional extradition treaties refer to institutions of the criminal law of individual States — such as double criminality — for the specific purpose of allowing the requested State to assess the 'recognisability' and therefore the acceptability of the punitive claim of the requesting State, thereby ensuring the requirement of reciprocity. As regards criminal thresholds, the bilateral treaty with the United States contains no specific provisions on this point, which means that the double criminality requirement must be assessed according to the ordinary rules — that is, by way of a concrete, in concreto verification.
27/10/2022 · Italian Supreme Court · 346/2023
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtraditionOn the assessment of health conditions’ risk as a ground for refusing extradition
✕
Summary
The Court of Appeal must refuse extradition “where reasons of health or age entail a risk of consequences of exceptional gravity for the requested person.” Such a ground for refusal may apply not only where adequate medical treatment cannot be ensured in the requesting State, but also where the extradition procedure itself is liable to prejudice the person’s health. In particular, such prejudice does not arise from any negative impact on the individual’s health, but only where extradition may result in consequences of exceptional gravity, namely serious and objectively verifiable pathological effects. Accordingly, the Court cannot confine its assessment to verifying whether the healthcare facilities in the requesting State are adequate to meet the person’s therapeutic needs, but must also take into account the concrete impact—and thus the potential adverse effects—of the surrender procedure on the requested person’s health. This includes, for example, the difficulties and possible complications arising from the transfer abroad or the need to avoid interruption of ongoing medical treatment.
25/06/2021 · Italian Supreme Court · 33781/2021
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionExtradition to USA and risk of a life sentence
✕
Summary
Under the framework governed by the bilateral treaty of 13 october 1983, the possibility that a life sentence may be imposed does not constitute a bar to the issuance of a favourable extradition decision. this is due to the existence, within the united states legal system, of various mechanisms which, in relation to individuals sentenced to life imprisonment, may allow for early release—albeit on the basis of discretionary assessments by different public authorities—or, in any event, for commutation where humanitarian grounds or progress in the rehabilitative process are established. this is without prejudice to the situation where the requested person specifically alleges the existence of a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
09/11/2018 · Italian Supreme Court · 58239/2018
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtraditionPolanski case: refusal of extradition where the sentence has already been effectively served and surrender would be disproportionate
✕
Summary
Extradition may be refused where surrender would give rise to a real risk of violations of fundamental rights under the ECHR, including where the requested person may have already effectively served the sentence underlying the request or where surrender would entail a disproportionate interference with personal liberty; issues may also arise under Article 7 ECHR where extradition relies on the retroactive application of subsequent treaty frameworks to offences arguably time-barred under the previous legal regime. Furthermore, a cassation appeal is admissible only in the presence of a manifest and serious violation of law and does not extend to a reassessment of facts or evidence.
06/12/2016 · Poland Supreme Court · 192/2016
🇵🇱Poland → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionExtradition to the United States partly blocked: double criminality lacking for Iran sanctions charges
✕
Summary
The case concerned a United States request for the extradition of four persons from Singapore in connection with alleged schemes involving the export of goods from the United States through Singapore. Wong and Nam were sought in relation to an alleged conspiracy to export radio frequency modules to Iran in breach of US trade sanctions. Seng and Hia were sought in relation to an alleged conspiracy to export antennae classified as defence articles under US law without the required licence. The High Court of Singapore reviewed the applicants’ detention after they had been committed to custody pending extradition. The Court held that a person may be a “fugitive” for the purposes of Singapore extradition law even if physically never present in the requesting State, provided the alleged offence falls within that State’s jurisdiction. It also adopted a conduct-based approach to double criminality, asking whether the alleged conduct, properly transposed to Singapore, would constitute an offence under Singapore law. Applying that test, the Court allowed Wong’s and Nam’s applications. Their alleged conduct essentially concerned breach of US trade sanctions against Iran, but Singapore had not adopted equivalent absolute prohibitions at the relevant time; treating their conduct as criminal would amount to enforcing a foreign trade policy not incorporated into Singapore law. By contrast, the Court dismissed Seng’s and Hia’s applications, finding that their alleged involvement in exporting controlled military-use goods without a licence would be punishable in Singapore and fell within the extraditable categories under the Singapore–US treaty. Wong and Nam were ordered to be released, while Seng and Hia remained liable to extradition proceedings.
07/08/2012 · High Court of Singapore · [2012] SGHC 161
🇸🇬Singapore → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionCountry 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.