Thai Appeal Court Verdict On The Extradition Of Viktor Bout

[webfact]

Appeal Court verdict on the extradition of Bout

By The Nation

Source: Excerpt from a Court of Appeals ruling ordering extradition of Viktor Bout to the US, under the Extradition Act and the Extradition Act between the Kingdom of Thailand the United States.

The public prosecutors heard a request for extradition of Viktor Bout, or Boris, or Viktor Bulakin, or Vadim Macovich Aminov, a Defendant under the Extradition Act and the Extradition Act between the Kingdom of Thailand the United States to face a US indictment on US soil, at the request of the US ambassador to Thailand, through the Foreign Ministry and the Thai government, and agrees to proceed further as requested,

The facts have it that, the Defendant had conspired with the "FuerZas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia Ejercito del Pueblo" (FARC), who are left-wing militants based in Colombia, and regarded by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation, in order to escort transport of illegal narcotics using violence, bomb attacks, massacres, kidnappings and murder of US citizens or carrying out any acts against the interests of the US, in order to interrupt US operations that suppress production and dealing of heroin.

Charged with following offences:

1 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders, provision and supplying of weapons and terrorist training with intent to kill US citizens;

2 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders of US government employees and officials;

3 Criminal conspiracy in providing and supplying anti-aircraft weapons, and

4 Criminal conspiracy in providing strategic support to international terrorist groups in their crimes committed in the Netherlands, Denmark, the Russian Federation, Romania, and Colombia, all of which are crimes not relating to political or military issues under US laws.

The Defendant has objected to the request for extradition, saying those crimes are politically motivated or military-related, thus preventing him from being extradited. In addition, the indictments themselves that the Defendant countered are obscure.

The lower court (Criminal Court) heard the public prosecutors' request and dropped it, and ordered the release of the Defendant within 72 hours.

The public prosecutors' appeal was accepted, on November 10, 2009.

The Court of Appeals had agreed that under the 1990 Extradition Act between the Kingdom of Thailand and the United States, which was enacted under No 2 of the Thai-US Extradition Treaty, crimes eligible for extradition must be in violation of laws of both countries, through imprisonment or other forms of detention with term lasting for more than one year. No 3 stipulates that no extradition could be enforced if crimes committed are:

A ) politically-motivated or

B ) extradition are requested apparentlyfor political gains,

C ) crimes are military-related.

On March 5, 2008, the Foreign Ministry informed the Interior Ministry of a request by the US Embassy to Thailand asking for the extradition of the Defendant, to face indictments against him by the Southern District Court of New York, which had issued warrants against him for criminal conspiracy in the murder of US citizens, or US employees and officials, provision and acquisition of anti-aircraft missiles, and supplying weapons to terrorist organisations, all of which are punishable by imprisonment longer than one year.

The case was lodged when the 1929 Extradition Act was in effect, and was proceeded further when the 2008 Extradition Act was later in effect. The new Act's Article 33 stipulates that the case brought up before 2008 must be processed under the old Act, whose Article 17 Paragraph 2 says that the Court of Appeals cannot alter the lower courts' decisions which is based on sufficient evidence, but can only rule whether those decisions are in fact based on evidence supplied during the trial, on the following conditions, which Court of Appeals can inspect further and argue against.

1 Nationalities of defendants

2 Crimes not qualifying for extradition

3 Crimes are based on political motives, or extradition is intended to achieve political gains

4 No witnesses or evidence are present during lower courts' trials

The Court of Appeals' scrutiny comes under No 2 above, to decide whether the four offences filed against the Defendant by the Southern District Court of New York, that carry imprisonment longer than one year, are also punishable under Thai laws.

Comparing the US laws and the [Thai] Criminal Code, all four offences are violation of Articles 135/1, 135/2, and 135/3 all of which are acts of terrorism, although not all of them are committed on US soil, but the Code's Article 7 punishes all crimes regardless of countries where they are committed, all the offences are, therefore, qualified for extradition.

The next scrutiny is whether the crimes are politically motivated. In the lower court's trial, US Drug Enforcement Administration agent Robert Harry Vasevich, the chief investigator, testified that the Defendant was one of the biggest arms dealer in the world, and presented evidence showing that the Defendant had transported goods and weapons to many countries with armed conflicts, supplied weapons to one organisation to fight another, or organisations to fight state authorities to make profits. The testimonies showed that FARC had fought the Colombia authorities for decades to dislodge democratically elected governments while producing and dealing around 75 per cent of heroin in that country, and using drug profits to fight the state authorities. As a result, FARC is regarded a terrorist organisation which committed a series of crimes in large numbers. This organisation has been committing, over a decade, crimes against the US, including murders of US citizens based in Colombia, with the support of the Defendant, who has been charged with the four offences, as a result.

Weerachai Phalasai, director-general of the Foreign Ministry's protocol department, testified that illegal arms dealing was not a politics-related crime. The Court of Appeals concludes that the Defendant does not belong to FARC, and not wanted by Colombia where FARC is based, and therefore rules against the lower court's decision over this matter. The public prosecutor's appeal on this point has grounds.

The final scrutiny is over whether the evidence is sufficient to order detention of the Defendant pending extradition. Vasevich's testimony showed a conversation between Bout and a US undercover agent in a sting in which the Defendant said that he had hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles ready to be sold to FARC to shoot down US war planes flying Colombian troops to combat FARC militants - an attack intended to demoralise the US government and may result in evaculation of US citizens based in Colombia back to the US. This, along with other pieces of evidence, has prompted the district attorney in New York, and later the Southern District Court, to indict the Defendant.

A Foreign Ministry official, Satawut Kulwanich, had certified authentication of all US documents in the court process. The Court of Appeals regards that all testimonies and evidence supplied by the prosecutors are sufficient to order the detention of the Defendant pending extradition.

As for the Defendant's excuse that he never sold weapons to FARC, it would be discussed and examined during trial in the US court with jurisdiction over the indictments.

The Court of Appeals now rules that the public prosecutor's appeals on all crucial points have grounds and are eligible to order the detention of the Defendant pending extradition, under Articles 12 and 15 of the 1929 Extradition Act. The Defendant shall be released, if not extradited within 90 days since this verdict is read out, under Article 15 of the 1929 Extradition Act.

-- The Nation 2010-09-01

[asiawatcher]

Send him home to the US based on 'ability' to procure deaths of innocent people.

[Jingthing]

Can someone who speaks lawyer summarize this?

[dave_boo]

Can someone who speaks lawyer summarize this?

Four charges filed; he conspired to commit murders by providing material and training support for the murder of US citizens, ditto for murder of US officials, he provided anit-aircraft weapons, and he provided support to international terrorist groups.

His lawyer previously successfully argued that the request extradition was politically motivated and/or militarily motivated . The Thai prosecutor's office appealed the original verdict. It was brought before the Appeals Court. The Appeals Court was forced to base their decision on whether or not to overturn the lower court's ruling only on the evidence supplied during the original request. Having reviewed the information, the found that all four charges did in fact meet the requirements to allow extradition.

The first thing considered was whether the crimes were punishable (or allowed to be punished) under Thai law. Terrorism is a charge on the books. There is a section of the code that states all acts of terrorism, no matter where they are commited are punishable (or allowed to be punished). Furthermore those acts Mr. Bout is charged with are mandated at least one year imprionment (another important factor in the extradition treaty with the US).

The second thing considered was whether the crimes were politically or militarily motivated. The director-general of the Foreign Ministry's protocol department testified that the terrorist charges leveled against Mr. Bout were not politically motivated. The Appeals Court ruled that since Mr. Bout in not actually part of FARC (the terrorist organisation in Coloumbia) and his extradition was requested by the US there was no legitimacy in the denial of the extradition request. Since Mr. Bout has no known connections with any standing military there is no military motivation to deny the extradition request.

The Appeals Court ruled that while all of the US Government's paperwork was in order, the legitimacy of the charges would have to be decided in the requesting Court. They then ruled that Mr. Bout would remain in detention for 90 days during which time the US Government would have to extradite him. Failure by the US Government to extradite him during the time period would result in Mr. Bout being released from confinement.

[Jingthing]

Actually was looking for a more clear explanation than that. Why wouldn't the US be able to extradite him within 90 days? Did they create a barrier that would prevent that? If not, doesn't this mean he will be extradited (except if for some bizarre reason the US doesn't want him anymore)?

Edited September 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[rubl]

Can someone who speaks lawyer summarize this?

Four charges filed; he conspired to commit murders by providing material and training support for the murder of US citizens, ditto for murder of US officials, he provided anit-aircraft weapons, and he provided support to international terrorist groups.

His lawyer previously successfully argued that the request extradition was politically motivated and/or militarily motivated . The Thai prosecutor's office appealed the original verdict. It was brought before the Appeals Court. The Appeals Court was forced to base their decision on whether or not to overturn the lower court's ruling only on the evidence supplied during the original request. Having reviewed the information, the found that all four charges did in fact meet the requirements to allow extradition.

The first thing considered was whether the crimes were punishable (or allowed to be punished) under Thai law. Terrorism is a charge on the books. There is a section of the code that states all acts of terrorism, no matter where they are commited are punishable (or allowed to be punished). Furthermore those acts Mr. Bout is charged with are mandated at least one year imprionment (another important factor in the extradition treaty with the US).

The second thing considered was whether the crimes were politically or militarily motivated. The director-general of the Foreign Ministry's protocol department testified that the terrorist charges leveled against Mr. Bout were not politically motivated. The Appeals Court ruled that since Mr. Bout in not actually part of FARC (the terrorist organisation in Coloumbia) and his extradition was requested by the US there was no legitimacy in the denial of the extradition request. Since Mr. Bout has no known connections with any standing military there is no military motivation to deny the extradition request.

The Appeals Court ruled that while all of the US Government's paperwork was in order, the legitimacy of the charges would have to be decided in the requesting Court. They then ruled that Mr. Bout would remain in detention for 90 days during which time the US Government would have to extradite him. Failure by the US Government to extradite him during the time period would result in Mr. Bout being released from confinement.

And this is a less lawyerese type of speech ?

If the definition of Extradition is "the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal", how can the US extradite him. It's representatives of Thailand (like police, or so) to extradite, that is officially turn-over Victor Bout the moment the judicial system rules positive on the request by the US.

[dave_boo]

Actually was looking for a more clear explanation than that. Why wouldn't the US be able to extradite him within 90 days? Did they create a barrier that would prevent that? If not, doesn't this mean he will be extradited (except if for some bizarre reason the US doesn't want him anymore)?

There's no reason the US wouldn't extradite him during that ime. However, most country consider prolonged imprisonment as not good; especially when they're doing it as a favour for some other country.

What part of my explanation didn't you understand?

[dave_boo]

And this is a less lawyerese type of speech ?

If the definition of Extradition is "the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal", how can the US extradite him. It's representatives of Thailand (like police, or so) to extradite, that is officially turn-over Victor Bout the moment the judicial system rules positive on the request by the US.

I thought it was.

And extradite merely means to remove a person from one country to another for prosecution or serving of a sentence (whether or not the judgement was rendered while the defendant was present and fled or was tried in absentia(although this is the hardest way to get an extradition). Since Thailand will not physically move Mr. Bout to the US, the US Government is responsibile for obtaining custody of Mr. Bout where he is being held and providing the transportation to the location of his trial.

[rubl]

And this is a less lawyerese type of speech ?

If the definition of Extradition is "the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal", how can the US extradite him. It's representatives of Thailand (like police, or so) to extradite, that is officially turn-over Victor Bout the moment the judicial system rules positive on the request by the US.

I thought it was.

And extradite merely means to remove a person from one country to another for prosecution or serving of a sentence (whether or not the judgement was rendered while the defendant was present and fled or was tried in absentia(although this is the hardest way to get an extradition). Since Thailand will not physically move Mr. Bout to the US, the US Government is responsibile for obtaining custody of Mr. Bout where he is being held and providing the transportation to the location of his trial.

Thank you, now you make sense.

[Jingthing]

We want it boiled down, please. Is he going to the USA, or not?!?

[dave_boo]

We want it boiled down, please. Is he going to the USA, or not?!?

Unless the US steps on its own อวัยวะเพศชาย then yes, Mr. Bout is going to the US.

[Jingthing]

Thank You!!!!!

That's what I thought, but I wanted some confirmation.

[Thai at Heart]

The testimonies showed that FARC had fought the Colombia authorities for decades to dislodge democratically elected governments

Coming from the hub of coups one can only chuckle

[Jingthing]

The testimonies showed that FARC had fought the Colombia authorities for decades to dislodge democratically elected governments

Coming from the hub of coups one can only chuckle

This was a foreign policy issue and from a diplomatic point of view, its a good decision. Better to get it over with than drag it out indefinitely.

[Thai at Heart]

The testimonies showed that FARC had fought the Colombia authorities for decades to dislodge democratically elected governments

Coming from the hub of coups one can only chuckle

This was a foreign policy issue and from a diplomatic point of view, its a good decision. Better to get it over with than drag it out indefinitely.

I just found it quite funny that in some way, fighting to overthrow democratically elected governments added to the "terrorist" nature of the FARC. How many coups is it so far (violent and non-violent) and counting?

I am very glad that the legalese attached to this verdict shows that the decision has been considered, and legally correct by Thai law. This is a very delicate matter, and apparent expediency needs to be removed from the discussion.

The issue about the manner in which they have ensnared Bout are open to discussion, but Thailand can only rely on publishing studied and legally correct decisions. I wonder if on any of the tapes they have, anyone actually poses the statement that the FARC intend to use the weapons to "kill" Americans and Bout agrees. It maybe so, it maybe not, but if they get him back to the US it will be an interesting case indeed.

That said, personally, I don't like this type of illicit entrapment of people that leads to extradition. I can't change it myself, but I think it is open to massive abuse. I don't doubt that Victor Bout is a gun runner extraordinaire, but I prefer to see the legal system handle these issues fairly and justly.

But what would happen if Chechen rebels managed to get their hands on M16's? Would the 'sales rep' be fair game (according to Russian law) if he was on holiday in Thailand? Taking the apparent moral high ground when it comes to things like gun running isn't particularly easy to do?

[Jingthing]

You're right. It is funny. Thai politics is a laugh a minute.

[chantorn]

The testimonies showed that FARC had fought the Colombia authorities for decades to dislodge democratically elected governments

Coming from the hub of coups one can only chuckle

This was a foreign policy issue and from a diplomatic point of view, its a good decision. Better to get it over with than drag it out indefinitely.

I just found it quite funny that in some way, fighting to overthrow democratically elected governments added to the "terrorist" nature of the FARC. How many coups is it so far (violent and non-violent) and counting?

I am very glad that the legalese attached to this verdict shows that the decision has been considered, and legally correct by Thai law. This is a very delicate matter, and apparent expediency needs to be removed from the discussion.

The issue about the manner in which they have ensnared Bout are open to discussion, but Thailand can only rely on publishing studied and legally correct decisions. I wonder if on any of the tapes they have, anyone actually poses the statement that the FARC intend to use the weapons to "kill" Americans and Bout agrees. It maybe so, it maybe not, but if they get him back to the US it will be an interesting case indeed.

That said, personally, I don't like this type of illicit entrapment of people that leads to extradition. I can't change it myself, but I think it is open to massive abuse. I don't doubt that Victor Bout is a gun runner extraordinaire, but I prefer to see the legal system handle these issues fairly and justly.

But what would happen if Chechen rebels managed to get their hands on M16's? Would the 'sales rep' be fair game (according to Russian law) if he was on holiday in Thailand? Taking the apparent moral high ground when it comes to things like gun running isn't particularly easy to do?

I believe thoses Chechen rebels' M16 are Russian made duplicate; or even Chinese. In Thailand, an M79 was raided & closed down early this year.

[animatic]

Can someone who speaks lawyer summarize this?

The guy is toast.

The lawyerese is pretty clear the lower court was swayed by other issues,

and the upper court disagreed and had to do it quite plainly.

Unless seriously LARGE plane loads of non-ruble money arrives, super discretely,

and that MIGHT buy a stall, or an escape, but not too likely.

[craigt3365]

One thing for sure, with his money, he will have a great lawyer when he get to the US. You can bitch all you want about the US, but the legal system is pretty good. Heck, even OJ Simpson got off with murder...due to a great lawyer and a poor prosecution. But then he got nailed in civil court.

So, like mentioned above, it will be a really interesting trial. Something the Russians don't want to happen for obvious reasons....

If he escaped now, Thailand's reputation with the world would be in the toilet...not that it isn't already!

[Naam]

If he escaped now, Thailand's reputation with the world would be in the toilet...not that it isn't already!

some people think if he is extradited Thailand's reputation with the world...

"1 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders, provision and supplying of weapons and terrorist training with intent to kill US citizens;

2 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders of US government employees and officials;"

sure! he had nothing else in mind then killing US citizens... my àss!

Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and "Iran Contra" send their greetings!

[craigt3365]

If he escaped now, Thailand's reputation with the world would be in the toilet...not that it isn't already!

some people think if he is extradited Thailand's reputation with the world...

"1 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders, provision and supplying of weapons and terrorist training with intent to kill US citizens;

2 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders of US government employees and officials;"

sure! he had nothing else in mind then killing US citizens... my àss!

Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and "Iran Contra" send their greetings!

Sorry, but not sure I fully understand how all that has to do with him potentially ESCAPING from jail...as opposed to being released...

[brahmburgers]

90 days is not long in lawyer time. With the weight of Russian offialdom coming down heavily upon Thai middle men, there could easily be delays. There are tricks that Bout himself could do - feign illness, suicide attempt, etc.

It's not a done deal, and as I said in published letters to both major Bkk Eng.lang newspapers, the Russians likely have a lot hanging on this decision. Bout could not be buying and selling high tech weapons from the former East Bloc without Russian officials knowing about it. A lot of dirty laundry will get thrown around if Bout gets to a little interagation room in the States. US officials are not particularly known for using torture (Gitmo asside), but they have quite effective methods for extracting info when they want to.

My guess is the 90 days will fly by and the famously sluggish Thai bureaucracy will comply with Russian pressure to delay.

> > > reason for edit: one word added for clarity

Edited September 2, 2010 by brahmburgers

[dave_boo]

If he escaped now, Thailand's reputation with the world would be in the toilet...not that it isn't already!

some people think if he is extradited Thailand's reputation with the world...

"1 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders, provision and supplying of weapons and terrorist training with intent to kill US citizens;

2 Criminal conspiracy in committing murders of US government employees and officials;"

sure! he had nothing else in mind then killing US citizens... my àss!

Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and "Iran Contra" send their greetings!

And yet if the US tried to extradite him based on attempted murder of Germans it would be ok?

He is charged with provided material and technical support to a group that has been recoginsed internationally as a terrorist group. That group has attempted to kill Americans (including officials although I do feel less bad about that). Ergo, within the generally accepted bounds of International Law the US was exercising their rights to attempt bringing him to justice.