🇸🇬 Singapore → 🇺🇸 United States

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.

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

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.