It's not a legal gotcha. "An extradition treaty between the United States and the Bahamas, where FTX was based, says a country must consent before defendants c

It's not a legal gotcha. "An extradition treaty between the United States and the Bahamas, where FTX was based, says a country must consent before defendants can be tried on charges brought after their extradition. Prosecutors said they asked the Bahamas to agree to those charges, which include conspiracy to bribe Chinese officials and commit bank fraud, but did not know when the Caribbean country would grant its consent." via https://www.reuters.com/legal/bankman-fried-loses-bid-toss-criminal-charges-over-ftxs-collapse-2023-06-27/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/bankman-fried-loses-bid-toss-c... If he had contested the extradition, then the Bahamas would be deciding to extradite him on the old and the new charges. He decided to come back for the original charges and now the Bahamas decides whether they will allow the US to bring the new charges - basically whether they would have extradited him for those new charges. The legal gotcha would be if he returned and then the Bahamas couldn't consent to them bringing additional charges - that they couldn't extradite him for the new charges. If I commit fraud and have a traffic violation, I can't voluntarily come back to the US for the traffic violation and then say "the Bahamas can't extradite me for the fraud charge because I voluntarily came back for traffic violation!" No, the Bahamas would then need to decide if they want to extradite me on the fraud charge. If they don't give consent for that charge, I'm only facing the traffic violation and then I can leave back for the Bahamas. If the Bahamas says "yea, we would have extradited him for the fraud charge so go for it," then they can charge me with the fraud as well.