Sulaiman v Tribunal De Grande Instance, Paris

An extradition request will amount to a Zakrzewski abuse of process only where the warrant contains particulars that are wrong or misleading, the true position is clear and beyond legitimate dispute, and the error is material to the extradition scheme. A domestic court must respect binding authority on the territorial reach of money-laundering offences. Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has extraterritorial effect, and jurisdiction may also arise where a substantial measure of the criminal activity occurred in England and Wales. Where several concurrent offences have resulted in one indivisible sentence, specialty does not necessarily bar extradition for one offence if the criminality underlying the sentence is materially the same.

The appellant appealed against an order of District Judge Devas at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to France under a conviction European arrest warrant. He had been convicted in Paris of organised fraud and aggravated money laundering and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, including one year suspended.

The appeal concerned whether the money-laundering description in the warrant constituted a Zakrzewski abuse of process because the relevant conduct allegedly occurred outside England and Wales. A further issue was whether, if extradition for money laundering were barred, the principle of specialty under section 17 of the Extradition Act 2003 would prevent extradition for organised fraud.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant did not disclose a Zakrzewski abuse of process. The test requires particulars that are wrong or misleading, facts which are clear and beyond legitimate dispute, and an error material to the operation of the extradition scheme. Although the warrant stated that the offences occurred in Paris and London, it was not clear that this description was materially wrong. The appellant could have participated in laundering by providing, in France, details of a London bank account into which fraudulent proceeds were transferred.
2. R v Rogers and others [2014] EWCA Crim 1680 was binding authority that section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has extraterritorial effect. Its reasoning on that issue was not obiter. The Court of Appeal had also held that the courts of England and Wales may have jurisdiction where a substantial measure of the criminal activity occurred here. Both bases applied. The fraud involved substantial activity in France, and the laundering through the London account formed part of that criminality.
3. The specialty issue did not arise because extradition was permitted for both offences. In any event, the evidence suggested that the French sentence was a single, indivisible punishment for the two concurrent offences. The aggravated money laundering was the means by which the proceeds of the organised fraud were dissipated and was part and parcel of the same criminality. Extradition for organised fraud alone would therefore not have been barred by specialty.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Devas ordered extradition to France on 14 June 2016.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.