The autism bit aside, it looks like why they got him in the first place was that a technique he used (spoofing) was illegal in the US.
Given he lives in England why was he extradited to the US? Is the summary that US has enough political power to have anyone who breaks US law wherever they are situated extradited and tried here?
He was extradited to the US because there is an extradition treaty that gives the US the power to extradite people from the UK for meeting a reasonable suspicion test that they committed a crime in the US that is a crime in both countries and carries a sentence of at least a year.
The treaty is reciprocal. The UK has an equivalent right with respect to people in the US who committed a crime in the UK who meet a probable cause test. An independent review concluded that the two tests used in the two countries are worded differently but effectively equivalent.
As far as I know, this is the first UK extradition request to be denied by the USA, while the UK has denied at least 10 extradition requests to the USA.
The UK won't extradite for any crime that carries the death penalty, because they believe the death penalty is inhumane. I believe that accounts for all of their denials.
That is such a shameful abuse of diplomatic immunity. We give out diplomatic immunity because we recognize that diplomats have to live in a country they aren't loyal to and so want make them feel safe that they wont be charged with Treason or Espionage crimes. It's not for when you kill someone while driving recklessly...
He was not just minding his own business in the UK doing something legal there but not legal in the US; He was interacting with US Markets, hence the US Jurisdiction.
Is the definition of US markets based on where the exchange is headquartered?
The internet has made global crimes interesting, that's for sure. I would have thought the crime would have to be prosecuted in the criminal's home country given that's where he was doing the work from.
Yes. The law cares about where you have a "presence". Since the exchange is headquartered in the US and you send your orders there, you are doing business in the US, making you subject to US laws.
The law wants, amongst other things, justice for victims. So when your victims are in some country, expect to be tried there.
With many exceptions, don't most developed countries respect each other's laws? Certainly, if someone commits a traditional crime (burglary, assault, etc.) and flees to another country, they are usually extradited. In the modern world where you can commit electronic crimes without being physically present, it's harder to compile enough evidence against the accursed remotely to justify extradition, but it certainly happens regularly.
Yes, exactly. This guy never left the uk, yet he committed a us crime? If China had this power they could extradite almost every single American who watches porn. The real fallacy is believing that laws have reason and logic behind them, that they are fair. Once you go down that path, you're done for. Once you realize that laws have no logic and their enforcement even less, you realize most criminals, like the one convicted in this story, just happen to be unlucky. Whether they actually harmed society is irrelevant and usually unknown. This is a perfect example of that. The machine that goes by the name "justice" is anything but and will chew out and spit anyone who gets in its way, regardless of facts, what happened, or even laws. The only sane thing is to stay out of its way, but once caught within, nothing matters.
Clearly, this sets an expectation that if you live in a country with extradition treaties with the US, you better be rich enough to afford a US lawyer or smart enough to understand all of its countless number of laws on every level. In other words, you just need to do something impossible. Surely that shouldn't be a problem should it?
>This guy never left the uk, yet he committed a us crime? If China had this power they could extradite almost every single American who watches porn.
Extradition usually requires it to be a crime in both countries. Ironically, due to obscenity laws, it might actually be possible to do it over porn in some edge cases.
>Clearly, this sets an expectation that if you live in a country with extradition treaties with the US, you better be rich enough to afford a US lawyer or smart enough to understand all of its countless number of laws on every level.
Unfortunately, this isn't even new. The case of Kim Dotcom shows just how ridiculously far US "law enforcement" can go at the behest of organizations such as MPAA/RIAA.
That's not because the victim was a person. That's because the perpetrator was an elite -- a member (via marriage) of the regime that is protecting her.
Also, Britain also seems to give investors and banks undue influence over their judicial system. So it isn't so far fetched for them to throw a citizen to the wolves when it comes to committing crimes that impact the financial institutions of other nations, particularly the USA.
That's a good way of putting it, because in a recent manslaughter case the US citizen (driving on the wrong side of the road) flew home on diplomatic immunity (a familial extension, not even the diplomat herself) and the US has refused extradition.
I think the immunity was eventually deemed not to apply (or at least to be questionable) but even if not there was precedent of a Briton's immunity being waived for extradition to America; a favour not repaid in this case.
Essentially yes. The SDNY especially has a long arm and uses it aggressively. The US is the world police, although other countries are responding now. I actually think this is a major reason why blockchain and stablecoins will succeed longterm in becoming global financial rails - the US has weaponized the dollar and the dollarized banking system, which is pushing alternatives to develop out of genuine need.
I AM totally confused by this as well. We can't have it both ways. Let's think about this in a COMPLETELY different perspective.
Take elections as an example. Our 2016 elections were apparently never hacked, but there's a lot of conversation going on right now about "Russian Interference" but we're not specifically arresting Russians are we?
So what makes it OK for someone in a country we don't have extradition treaties with to just let them off the hook vs a country we do?
We actually do nab people who break the law in countries we can’t extradite from. People identified working in APT (advanced persistent threat) groups get labeled and watched, then grabbed when they travel to a country where the USA or affiliated can extradite.
It normally happens when they go somewhere warm for a vacation.
> then grabbed when they travel to a country where the USA or affiliated can extradite.
And some countries, Israel for example, have actually sent assets to other countries to flat out kidnap and smuggle them out. The (probably) most high profile example of this being the abduction, confinement, and smuggling of Adolf Eichmann by Shin Bet and Mossad personnel. There are films about this, one being Operation Finale.
Given he lives in England why was he extradited to the US? Is the summary that US has enough political power to have anyone who breaks US law wherever they are situated extradited and tried here?