Craciun v Ministry of Justice Cyprus

For dual criminality, the conduct described in an accusation European Arrest Warrant must sufficiently link the requested person with the alleged criminal behaviour. Repeated receipt and handling of substantial fraud proceeds, together with requests for further payments and confirmation of receipt, may support an inevitable inference of direct involvement.

For the prosecution-decision requirement, the court must read the warrant fairly as a whole. A warrant may show that decisions to charge and try have been made without formal steps or express formulae. The existence of a default position does not reverse the burden onto the requested person where the warrant itself demonstrates that the relevant decisions were taken.

Mr Ion Craciun appealed, with permission, against an order made by District Judge Coleman on 23 March 2016 for his extradition to Cyprus. The European Arrest Warrant concerned allegations of advance-fee fraud involving payments into bank accounts connected with the appellant.

The appeal was limited to whether the alleged conduct constituted an extradition offence and whether extradition was barred because no decision to prosecute had been made. The central questions were whether the warrant sufficiently linked the appellant to the alleged fraud and whether it showed that the Cypriot authorities had decided to charge and try him.

1. Dual criminality. The conduct occurred in Cyprus, where the victims lived and suffered their financial loss. It would amount under English law to fraud by false representation contrary to Fraud Act 2006, section 2.
2. The decisive question was whether the warrant sufficiently exposed conduct necessarily linking the appellant with the criminal behaviour. The repeated payment of substantial fraud proceeds into his account, requests for further deposits shortly after earlier payments, and confirmation of receipt on at least one occasion compelled the inference that he was directly and intimately involved in the fraud. The first ground was therefore rejected.
3. Prosecution decision. The court applied the guidance in Puceviciene v Lithuania [2016] EWHC 1862. In many cases the warrant itself will show that decisions to charge and try have been made. No particular formality is required, and a decision may be conditional or subject to later procedural steps.
4. A fair reading of this warrant, including its statement that it sought the appellant for criminal prosecution and its repeated description of him as a suspect, irresistibly demonstrated that a decision had been made to charge him. The District Judge correctly identified and applied the test under section 12A. Her reference to the default position did not improperly place a burden of rebuttal on the appellant.
5. The appeal was rejected.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Garnham rejected the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Coleman on 23 March 2016.