13 ms·

The judge's reasoning brings up an interesting fact about extradition. 1. SBF agreed (voluntarily!) to be extradited from the Bahamas to face ~X charges in the

by vkou 3y ago

The judge's reasoning brings up an interesting fact about extradition. 1. SBF agreed (voluntarily!) to be extradited from the Bahamas to face ~X charges in the US. 2. After being extradited, he was charged with X + Y charges. 3. He claims that international extradition agreements make this illegal. 4. The judge ruled that, <citing precedent>, international extradition agreements allow the Bahamas to raise a complaint about this - but does not allow SBF to do so [1]. 5. US prosecutors have expressed that they are willing to drop the Y charges if the Bahamas raises a complaint in a timely fashion. 6. The Bahamas are incredibly unlikely to raise a complaint on this point. tl;dr - Expensive lawyers can force government prosecutors to dot all their is and cross their ts, but if they have you dead to rights, you're still screwed. SBF seems really, really screwed. [1] These parts of extradition treaties are generally very explicitly about the rights of countries, not the rights of individuals.

babyshake 3y ago
> 1. SBF agreed to be extradited from the Bahamas to face ~X charges in the US. Would it be more accurate to say that the Bahamas agreed to extradite SBF? If not, then it doesn't make sense why the Bahamas would need to complain about the additional charges instead of SBF if they weren't involved in the agreement. Although FWIW SBF is the last person who should be complaining about having the rug pulled from under them.
- danielfoster 3y ago
  SBF agreed to waive his right to fight extradition from the Bahamas in Bahamian court. This let the Bahamas make an agreement to extradite him.
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    His team are just arguing everything that they can. It's likely that SBF was treated more poorly in a Bahamas prison than in a US prison. I recall that he waived extradition fairly quickly after being incarcerated there.
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      Is time in a foreign prison awaiting extradition counted for the purposes of “time spent”? Because if not, if you know you are going to be extradited in the end, it might be in your interests to agree to extradition.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Even so, he still seemed to have received "royal treatment" while there compared to less high-profile (or Bahamian) defendants. They even let him have his Adderall, allegedly...
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  Not op but... He agreed to be extradited voluntarily. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/business/sbf-extradition-bahamas/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/business/sbf-extradition-baha...
dreamcompiler 3y ago
> SBF seems really, really screwed. It still astonishes me how deluded he was by his own reality distortion field. He continued to incriminate himself repeatedly after it was clear to everybody else that he needed to stop digging the hole he was in. Just breathtaking levels of PR and legal naivete.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Of course. Those with good levels of PR, legal advice, and friends in power, can do worse and get a slap on the wrist.
  - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
    Who do you have in mind, specifically?
    - coldtea 3y ago
      On a second thought, nobody. All is well in this best of possible worlds and justice prevails over the rich and powerful. After all they got SBF, and that Holmes lady, didn't they? Maddoff too! Oh, they got Epstein too AND his girlfriend. Well, the guy did organize sex parties on a private island with underage girls, coke, and prostitution, and had elites, politicians, academics, even some royalty and a president or two as frequent guests, but who's counting? Why even drag them to testify? And, of course, since justice prevails you can't and shouldn't point at anyone who got through it and only got a slap on the wrist for some minor stuff, or was summarily found innocent, or had the charges thrown, or was never even charged with anything! What could they be other than innocent? Since that's the case, who would want to anger people with good PR, great legal advice, and friends in power, by making such baseless accusations? In a public forum of all places!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- golergka 3y ago
  Yet one another person with 130 IQ who thinks he's 150 IQ.
AceJohnny2 3y ago
Not being sympathetic to SBF here, but that's quite the legal gotcha. No wonder people don't trust the law/lawyers.
- RandomBK 3y ago
  Why is it a gotcha? These kinds of treaties in general only care about the 'feelings' of nation-states, not individuals. The rule exists because countries often have some say in whether to extradite, and they make that decision based on known facts. In this case, it's a statement from the US to the Bahamas about what they intend to do to SBF once he's in custody. If the US then goes on and punishes SBF even harder than what they originally told the Bahamas, the Bahamas might feel lied to. Think of it as a "we wouldn't have extradited if we knew he was facing the death penalty" kind of scenario. This rule thus exists to give the Bahamas a chance to remedy that.
  - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
    I fully agree with the person you're responding to, and it is a gotcha. I also understand your point that the offended party is the Bahamas, but if the US said it would pursue some charges, why is it then trying more? Why is it that the mechanism is "one parry can do what it wants unless the other party complains" instead of "one party can only do what it agreed to"? Also, I BET YOU that behind the scenes the us is telling the Bahamas "you better not complain about this or else we'll get you on that other thing". Because.... you think US prosecutors would leave this possibility to chance? Why would the Bahamas not complain? That's right, this is why people view lawyers as dishonest.
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      "Why is it that the mechanism is "one parry can do what it wants unless the other party complains" instead of "one party can only do what it agreed to"? Because that concept is consistent with all of US law - See third party standing, third party beneficiaries, etc. In the US, you usually can't raise claims on behalf of others, whether they are constitutional, contractual, etc. This was not a surprise to anyone involved - the US, SBF, the bahamas, the lawyers, etc. They are all quite aware of this. You can argue this mechanism sucks, or is bad, but the answer to your question is because that's what all of US law says everywhere - this is not some unique feature of extradition. It's a core concept common across both civil and criminal law.
getmeinrn 3y ago
Makes sense to me, and if SBF was as smart as he thinks he is, he should have thought of this possibility. Why would an individual think they have any authority to enforce an extradition agreement made between two countries? Completely nuts.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Makes sense to me, and if SBF was as smart as he thinks he is, he should have thought of this possibility. Why would an individual think they have any authority to enforce an extradition agreement made between two countries? This is not a crazy as you seem to think, and, in fact, if they cannot, this is a fairly recent (last 30-ish years) change in the state of the law. As the Supreme Court noted in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), at that time, prosecution in violation of extradition agreement was invalid and the defendant absolutely could raise this issue independently. (A protest from the other government party may or may not, depending on the extradition agreement, be a factor in whether the prosecution is in violationof the agreement, but that’s a different and treaty-specific question, apart from whether or not an individual charged has the right to raise the invalidity of the prosecution under the treaty.)
- polynomial 3y ago
  Wait, this wasn't a lawyer misstep, this was some SBF: legal genius type sh*?
  - vkou 3y ago
    1. Extradition was probably inevitable. 2. He probably wanted out of the prison he was in. 3. He's out on bail right now, so he's got that going for him.

by vkou 3y ago

babyshake 3y ago

> 1. SBF agreed to be extradited from the Bahamas to face ~X charges in the US. Would it be more accurate to say that the Bahamas agreed to extradite SBF? If not, then it doesn't make sense why the Bahamas would need to complain about the additional charges instead of SBF if they weren't involved in the agreement. Although FWIW SBF is the last person who should be complaining about having the rug pulled from under them.

danielfoster 3y ago
SBF agreed to waive his right to fight extradition from the Bahamas in Bahamian court. This let the Bahamas make an agreement to extradite him.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  His team are just arguing everything that they can. It's likely that SBF was treated more poorly in a Bahamas prison than in a US prison. I recall that he waived extradition fairly quickly after being incarcerated there.
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    Is time in a foreign prison awaiting extradition counted for the purposes of “time spent”? Because if not, if you know you are going to be extradited in the end, it might be in your interests to agree to extradition.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Even so, he still seemed to have received "royal treatment" while there compared to less high-profile (or Bahamian) defendants. They even let him have his Adderall, allegedly...
LatteLazy 3y ago
Not op but... He agreed to be extradited voluntarily. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/business/sbf-extradition-bahamas/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/business/sbf-extradition-baha...

dreamcompiler 3y ago

> SBF seems really, really screwed. It still astonishes me how deluded he was by his own reality distortion field. He continued to incriminate himself repeatedly after it was clear to everybody else that he needed to stop digging the hole he was in. Just breathtaking levels of PR and legal naivete.

coldtea 3y ago
Of course. Those with good levels of PR, legal advice, and friends in power, can do worse and get a slap on the wrist.
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  Who do you have in mind, specifically?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    On a second thought, nobody. All is well in this best of possible worlds and justice prevails over the rich and powerful. After all they got SBF, and that Holmes lady, didn't they? Maddoff too! Oh, they got Epstein too AND his girlfriend. Well, the guy did organize sex parties on a private island with underage girls, coke, and prostitution, and had elites, politicians, academics, even some royalty and a president or two as frequent guests, but who's counting? Why even drag them to testify? And, of course, since justice prevails you can't and shouldn't point at anyone who got through it and only got a slap on the wrist for some minor stuff, or was summarily found innocent, or had the charges thrown, or was never even charged with anything! What could they be other than innocent? Since that's the case, who would want to anger people with good PR, great legal advice, and friends in power, by making such baseless accusations? In a public forum of all places!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
golergka 3y ago
Yet one another person with 130 IQ who thinks he's 150 IQ.

AceJohnny2 3y ago

Not being sympathetic to SBF here, but that's quite the legal gotcha. No wonder people don't trust the law/lawyers.

RandomBK 3y ago
Why is it a gotcha? These kinds of treaties in general only care about the 'feelings' of nation-states, not individuals. The rule exists because countries often have some say in whether to extradite, and they make that decision based on known facts. In this case, it's a statement from the US to the Bahamas about what they intend to do to SBF once he's in custody. If the US then goes on and punishes SBF even harder than what they originally told the Bahamas, the Bahamas might feel lied to. Think of it as a "we wouldn't have extradited if we knew he was facing the death penalty" kind of scenario. This rule thus exists to give the Bahamas a chance to remedy that.
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  I fully agree with the person you're responding to, and it is a gotcha. I also understand your point that the offended party is the Bahamas, but if the US said it would pursue some charges, why is it then trying more? Why is it that the mechanism is "one parry can do what it wants unless the other party complains" instead of "one party can only do what it agreed to"? Also, I BET YOU that behind the scenes the us is telling the Bahamas "you better not complain about this or else we'll get you on that other thing". Because.... you think US prosecutors would leave this possibility to chance? Why would the Bahamas not complain? That's right, this is why people view lawyers as dishonest.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    "Why is it that the mechanism is "one parry can do what it wants unless the other party complains" instead of "one party can only do what it agreed to"? Because that concept is consistent with all of US law - See third party standing, third party beneficiaries, etc. In the US, you usually can't raise claims on behalf of others, whether they are constitutional, contractual, etc. This was not a surprise to anyone involved - the US, SBF, the bahamas, the lawyers, etc. They are all quite aware of this. You can argue this mechanism sucks, or is bad, but the answer to your question is because that's what all of US law says everywhere - this is not some unique feature of extradition. It's a core concept common across both civil and criminal law.

getmeinrn 3y ago

Makes sense to me, and if SBF was as smart as he thinks he is, he should have thought of this possibility. Why would an individual think they have any authority to enforce an extradition agreement made between two countries? Completely nuts.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Makes sense to me, and if SBF was as smart as he thinks he is, he should have thought of this possibility. Why would an individual think they have any authority to enforce an extradition agreement made between two countries? This is not a crazy as you seem to think, and, in fact, if they cannot, this is a fairly recent (last 30-ish years) change in the state of the law. As the Supreme Court noted in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), at that time, prosecution in violation of extradition agreement was invalid and the defendant absolutely could raise this issue independently. (A protest from the other government party may or may not, depending on the extradition agreement, be a factor in whether the prosecution is in violationof the agreement, but that’s a different and treaty-specific question, apart from whether or not an individual charged has the right to raise the invalidity of the prosecution under the treaty.)
polynomial 3y ago
Wait, this wasn't a lawyer misstep, this was some SBF: legal genius type sh*?
- vkou 3y ago
  1. Extradition was probably inevitable. 2. He probably wanted out of the prison he was in. 3. He's out on bail right now, so he's got that going for him.