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 — 93 cases

15
As requested
state
78
As requesting
state
Case Law
INTERPOL Red Notice: GPS monitoring unlawful for breach of ICE procedures under the Accardi doctrine
✕
Summary
A seventy-year-old citizen of San Marino challenged ICE’s reinstatement of GPS ankle monitoring and a seventy-five-mile travel restriction, based partly on an Italian INTERPOL Red Notice concerning financial crimes. Applying the Accardi doctrine, the court held that ICE Directive 15006.1 imposes binding procedural safeguards affecting individual rights, notwithstanding its disclaimer of enforceable rights or a private cause of action. ICE had relied on the Red Notice without first requesting the underlying foreign warrant and charging materials, obtaining use authorization, or providing a reasonable opportunity to contest its contents. The court granted habeas relief and ordered removal of the monitor and geographic restriction by 9 October 2026, without deciding whether ICE had relied exclusively on the Red Notice or reaching the petitioner’s constitutional due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims.
07/10/2026 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 26 Civ. 7127 (AT); 2026 WL 3016462
🇺🇸United States → 🇮🇹Italy
Unlawful DetentionExtradition
Extradition committal ordered on prima facie evidence of insider trading and money laundering
✕
Summary
The United States requested the extradition of a person accused of six offences involving securities fraud and the laundering of insider-trading proceeds. The court found that the authenticated arrest warrant and supporting affidavits established a prima facie case on all six counts, with the alleged conduct corresponding to insider-trading and money-laundering offences under Singapore law and satisfying double criminality. It held that the committal hearing did not determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that challenges to the quality and weight of the evidence, including the contention that the trading information was publicly available, were matters for trial in the requesting state. The court also attributed the prolonged proceedings and resulting remand period to repeated applications by the requested person and his counsel, and rejected an application for supervised Internet access because judicial review of the prison authorities’ decision fell within the High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Finding no applicable statutory bar to surrender, it ordered committal to prison pending the Minister’s surrender warrant, subject to the statutory opportunity to seek review of detention.
01/10/2026 · State Courts of the Republic of Singapore · [2026] SGMC 114; EXT-900002-2024
🇸🇬Singapore → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Extradition detention: flight risk precludes consideration of special circumstances for bail
✕
Summary
The court ordered the detention of a naturalized United States citizen pending extradition to the Czech Republic to serve a six-year sentence for tax evasion following a conviction in absentia that became final in 2000. Applying the presumption against bail in extradition proceedings, it held that the absence of flight risk is a condition precedent to considering whether special circumstances justify release, rather than one factor to be balanced against such circumstances. The requested person’s departure shortly after receiving notice of criminal charges, subsequent use of a different name, material misrepresentations to immigration authorities and the court, and lack of substantial family or financial ties established a flight risk notwithstanding his longstanding residence and friendships in the United States. The court distinguished Chapman and Bowman, in which the absence of flight risk had been established before special circumstances were considered. Having found a flight risk, it granted the Government’s motion to detain without determining whether special circumstances justified bail, despite the lengthy interval between the conviction, extradition request and arrest.
16/09/2026 · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Case No. 3:26-mj-02820-VET-1; 2026 WL 2731274
🇺🇸United States → 🇨🇿Czech Republic
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Bail granted after extradition certification: delay and availability of release in Turkey constitute special circumstances
✕
Summary
A Turkish citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States sought habeas review of her extradition certification for aggravated embezzlement and release after nearly two and a half years in custody. The court upheld the certification under the limited “any evidence” standard and rejected the discovery challenge, holding that the United States had no obligation or authority to obtain additional evidence on the petitioner’s behalf. It confirmed that the judicial power to grant bail in special circumstances extends to post-certification cases, notwithstanding the treaty’s provisions requiring detention until surrender. The requesting state’s prolonged delay and the availability of release in Turkey, particularly the fact that neither co-defendant had been detained, constituted special circumstances; the duration of custody and compelling family circumstances reinforced that conclusion when assessed together. Finding no danger to the community and that conditions could mitigate flight risk, the court ordered home detention with electronic monitoring at the petitioner’s expense, regular reporting to Pretrial Services, and travel restricted to Charlestown, Massachusetts, while leaving the extradition certification in place.
15/09/2026 · United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island · C.A. No. 26-cv-350-MRD-PAS; 2026 WL 2878925
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇷Turkey
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Prolonged immigration detention based on an Interpol Red Notice requires a burden-shifted bond hearing
✕
Summary
The petitioner, a Jamaican national subject to U.S. removal proceedings, was re-detained after immigration authorities learned through an Interpol Red Notice that he was wanted for murder in Jamaica, although the record did not establish that Jamaica had submitted a formal extradition request. After more than eleven months in custody, the District Court upheld his warrantless immigration arrest but held that continued detention required an individualized bond hearing at which the Government, rather than the petitioner, must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted authority cautioning that Interpol Red Notices are not independently vetted for factual and legal justification and referred to ICE guidance stating that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant and should not be relied upon exclusively in immigration enforcement. The Court therefore granted the habeas petition in part and ordered a burden-shifted bond hearing, rather than the petitioner’s immediate release.
11/09/2026 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 26 Civ. 4142 (JHR); 2026 WL 2676901
🇺🇸United States → 🇯🇲Jamaica
Procedural orderExtradition
Bail denied pending extradition: flight risk and no special circumstances (Tate brothers’ case)
✕
Summary
Two requested persons provisionally arrested in the United States on the basis of criminal charges pending in the United Kingdom sought release on bond while their extradition proceedings were pending. The Court held that foreign extradition proceedings are sui generis and subject to a presumption against bail, requiring the requested person to demonstrate absence of flight risk and danger to the community, as well as special circumstances warranting release. It found that the respondents’ extensive international travel, strong foreign ties and other evidence concerning their capacity and incentives to leave the jurisdiction failed to overcome the risk of flight, while the nature of the alleged offences and conduct during Romanian judicial supervision also supported a finding of danger. The Court further held that the challenges concerning probable cause, prior Romanian surrender orders, alleged lack of urgency and delay, and other circumstances advanced by the respondents did not amount to special circumstances justifying release, and therefore denied the motions.
09/09/2026 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Case Nos. 1:26-MJ-03259-LOUIS and 1:26-MJ-03260-LOUIS, Document 66
🇺🇸United States → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
GrantedExtradition
Lee Gilley extradition: death penalty assurances and life imprisonment. Additional information requested from the United States
✕
Summary
The Court of Appeal of Turin considered a United States extradition request concerning an individual sought in Texas for murder-related charges potentially exposing him to the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole. Although the requesting authorities had provided communications concerning the prosecutor’s intention not to seek the death penalty and information on possible plea agreements, clemency and post-conviction remedies, the Court found that the material supplied did not yet provide sufficiently clear and binding guarantees. In particular, it sought clarification as to whether the prosecutor’s waiver of the death penalty would be legally binding and whether, in the event of a life-without-parole sentence, mechanisms existed allowing a genuine review of the sentence on the basis of subsequent developments or rehabilitation. The Court therefore postponed its decision and requested, through the Italian Ministry of Justice, further information and assurances from the United States.
09/09/2026 · Court of Appeal of Turin · /
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Request for assurancesExtradition
Suspension of extradition on health grounds after a final judgment falls within ministerial competence
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged the refusal to suspend execution of a final judgment authorising extradition from Italy to the United States, alleging that bipolar disorder and a risk of suicide made detention and transfer unsafe. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that, once the judicial phase has concluded, suspension of surrender falls within the competence of the Minister of Justice rather than the Court of Appeal. Serious health conditions arising after the final judgment must therefore be assessed by the Minister, while the judicial authorities retain jurisdiction over the extradition-related precautionary measure. The Court also noted that a psychiatric expert assessment was already underway and that the extradition procedure had been suspended by the administrative court in separate proceedings. It dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the procedural costs.
09/09/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 36023/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Habeas corpus in extradition: detention upheld after independent review of statutory and treaty safeguards
✕
Summary
The Court of Appeal of Belize dismissed an appeal against the refusal of habeas corpus brought by a requested person detained pending extradition to the United States to face intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault charges. The Court held that the absence of a transcript of the habeas corpus hearing did not render the appellate proceedings unfair, since no oral evidence had been received and the documentary record was sufficient for meaningful appellate review. It confirmed that, in habeas corpus proceedings arising from extradition, the reviewing court must independently satisfy itself that the statutory and treaty safeguards governing committal and detention have been complied with, while not rehearing the underlying extradition case. Applying that standard, the Court found sufficient evidence to justify committal, substantial compliance with the requirement to inform the requested person of his right to seek habeas corpus, and no prejudicial irregularity arising from the delay in providing the committal warrant. The Court therefore affirmed the refusal of habeas corpus and held that the requested person’s detention pending extradition remained lawful.
18/08/2026 · Court of Appeal of Belize · Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2025
🇧🇿Belize → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
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
Political offence exception: murders linked to international terrorism not incidental to domestic uprising
✕
Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief against an order certifying the extradition of a naturalized U.S. citizen to Iraq to face two charges of premeditated murder arising from the killing of Iraqi police officers in Fallujah in 2006. The Court held that competent evidence supported probable cause and that contradictory evidence, including an alleged eyewitness recantation, could not be considered unless it explained away or completely obliterated probable cause. It further held that the political offence exception did not apply because the requested person failed to establish that the murders, allegedly committed on behalf of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, were incidental to the domestic Sunni insurgency rather than acts connected with an international terrorist organization. The Court also applied the rule of non-inquiry, holding that humanitarian concerns and the treatment likely to be faced in Iraq were matters for the Secretary of State rather than the courts. A concurring judge agreed that a domestic uprising existed but found the required nexus unproven, while the dissent would have applied the political offence exception by focusing on the requested person’s local conduct and objectives rather than the international character and objectives of AQI.
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
Challenge to pending extradition proceedings dismissed as premature
✕
Summary
An Ugandan national sought revision of interlocutory rulings in pending extradition proceedings initiated at the request of the United States, where he is wanted to stand trial for narcotics, firearms and material-support offences. He challenged, among other matters, the form and authentication of the extradition documents, the procedure used to commence the proceedings, diplomatic immunity, the principle of speciality and the jurisdictional and constitutional basis of the request. The High Court held that the Magistrate had not finally determined most of those objections, but had reserved mixed questions of law and fact until after the evidential hearing. Since revision lies only against final orders, the application was dismissed as premature, the stay was vacated and the case was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for completion.
03/08/2026 · High Court of Uganda at Kampala · [2026] UGHCCRD 51
🇺🇬Uganda → 🇺🇸United States
PendingExtradition
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 to the United States: double criminality assessed at the time of the surrender request
✕
Summary
The appellant challenged a decision finding the conditions satisfied for extradition from Italy to the United States on charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to launder the proceeds of securities fraud. The Supreme Court held that double criminality must be assessed at the time of the surrender request, rather than when the alleged conduct occurred, and requires the underlying facts to be criminal in both jurisdictions without identical statutory definitions. It also confirmed that replacement of the extradition title concerning the same facts is permissible before the Court of Appeal rules, and that family hardship does not constitute a statutory bar to extradition. The possibility of an exceptionally long sentence was insufficient to prevent surrender without a demonstrated real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, while the challenge concerning delay was also inadmissible. The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, leaving the favourable extradition decision in place.
01/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 35303/2026
🇮🇹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
Nicholas B. Johnson
Oberheiden P.C.
Nicholas B. Johnson is Chief Litigation Counsel at Oberheiden P.C., where his practice centers on INTERPOL and extradition matters, cross-border investigations, and federal white-collar defense. He has represented clients in international matters across Europe, Africa, and Asia and has traveled abroad to secure the safe return of Americans held overseas. That work regularly places him at the intersection of foreign criminal process and U.S. federal exposure, coordinating extradition and Red Notice defense alongside parallel investigations by U.S. agencies.
Nick spent more than a decade as a California prosecutor before entering private practice. He tried over 45 jury trials, ranging from gang violence to political corruption, and directed the investigation of what has been described as the largest financial fraud scheme in California history. He brings that trial record to matters that most extradition counsel resolve on paper, and is accustomed to serving as lead counsel and principal strategist from the opening investigation through trial.
His federal practice includes wire and mail fraud, SEC enforcement, False Claims Act litigation, healthcare and Medicaid fraud, IRS criminal tax investigations, DEA and ATF enforcement, FTC proceedings, and ITAR violations. He is frequently engaged where several of these proceed in parallel across multiple agencies and jurisdictions.
Nick earned his Juris Doctor from the University of San Diego School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, summa cum laude, from Syracuse University, where he was awarded The Order of the Barrister for excellence in courtroom advocacy. He is admitted in California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, and before numerous federal courts. Before practicing law he worked in political campaigns and strategic communications, including multiple U.S. Senate and House races and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving United States

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →