3 ms·

> That is really not how extradition works. > The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality) https://www.go

> That is really not how extradition works. > The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#extradition-from-the-uk-category-2-territories https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review... That is from the section discussing extradition to the US. Clearly you are wrong. That said, out of your example only “illegally sourcing” the information is potentially illegal. The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. I personally would never have supported the extradition on the evidence I saw were I on a grand jury tasked with it. That said, the UK of course needs to decide that it is extraditable on their end as well. You have argued this isn’t the case for a few posts now. Clearly you’re incorrect. That is the point I intended to make.

ac29 5y ago
> The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. Your link says the United States (and many other countries) "are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their requests for extradition".
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  This is true. If I were the UK and I saw what the US considered as evidence in this case, I would strongly consider requiring the US to provide prima facie evidence going forward. That said, I was more replying to the claims that dual criminality were not required. The UK still needs to find the acts themselves as illegal under UK law. I don't remember it being clearly so. Frankly, the released information I read coming from grand jury didn't even seem illegal to me according to US law.