Wife Wants Viktor Bout Brought Back To Thailand To Face Charges Here

[moetownblues]

And you think that the US will roll over to political pressure from Thailand and send him back? I think not. If tHailand ask for him back the yanks will tell them to go #$@$ themselves.

[Buchholz]

Some four or five years ago, there was an American guy extradited to Thailand. At the time, the press said that this was the first time that this had happened (US to TH). The man was wanted for various charges in both countries, but as the charges in Thailand were more serious (murder), the Americans agreed to send the guy to Thailand with the proviso that if the murder charge in Thailand failed then he would be returned to the USA to face the outstanding charges there.

The murder charge failed, and the guy is still walking around in Thailand (albeit on bail for other charges).

So - "i wonder how the USA will react if a Thai court request Bout back." not a snowball's chance in hel_l I would suggest.

Lets keep this as theoretical/hypothetical legal questions.

How would be the procedure in such a case? The 'USA' will not argue with "Has that happened before? Ever?" or "remember that guy some four or five years ago - so no,no not again".

The request to send him back would be a very valid one according to the Thai law, a request by a court the 'USA' cannot simply ignore or do something that would be seen disrespectful towards the Thai court and law system, the very law system that helped them in the first place to get Bout. They must have some good reasons to deny it. If there is no trust in the Thai law system the circumstance of his arrest would be become in a trail in the USA also highly questionable and could as a procedural error ruin the sought outcome the whole process.

American law pays heed to precedence. Has it ever happened before? is very valid as that would be one of the first things the courts there would consider.

In the proffered example, the precedence is not established as the situation (charges in both countries) doesn't apply here.

Has a person ever been extradited to the USA by a country who subsequently requested that the extradition be retracted and the accused returned to that country?

so what? No precedence? Will that be enough to deny to send him back?

so easy?

That a situation has never occurred even once in the 234 years of American jurisprudence should give you a clue as to the ridiculousness of your proposed scenario, but don't let that stop you from dreaming.

That would be too easy.

[whybother]

so what? No precedence? Will that be enough to deny to send him back?

so easy?

And what about the risk of a procedural error in the circumstances how he was arrested and detained?

Anyway Bout never talked with any FARC rebels in Bangkok nor sold them any weapons. If i go for the easy argument - the case should be closed.

If there is a problem with a procedural error with his arrest or his being detained, then he should have appealed the case that went in favour of extradition. He didn't. He appealed the case that was dropped.

He wasn't charged with talking to FARC rebels or selling them weapons. He was charged with conspiracy to sell them weapons, which it sounds very much like he did. And he will have his chance in US court to defend himself of these charges. That wasn't for the Thai court to decide. They only needed to decide whether to grant extradition or not.

[moetownblues]

Thailand could have him on weekends and public holidays.

[jdinasia]

Its a normal legal proceeding and her right to take legal action. A court will judge about this.

If there was a procedural error or something else not 100% kosher and they need Bout back in Thailand to fix this, i wonder how the USA will react if a Thai court request Bout back.

Umm, that's not going to happen.

The US might consider it, when legal poceedings against Bout are cleared in the US

Otherwise, it's just a case of a defendant wanting charges reinstated ... something that is not the defendant's right to do. The "state" chooses what charges to press, and how. The "state" withdrew the second set of charges against Bout, thus creating the situation to legally extradite him.

Buh Bye Vic

[SergeiY]

for c - you mean same as Bout was seen to try to avoid justice(his 'delay tactic', albeit his legal right, was highly criticized at this board) the USA would do the same and try everything to delay and to deny him justice?

Actually, Bout appealed that charges against him should NOT be dropped. Exactly how do you explain that?

The US asked for extradition based on 2 sets of charges. They were successful on one set, so they withdrew the other. Bout appealed against the courts accepting the withdrawal of charges.

What justice is Bout expecting? The courts found that he should be extradited. Does he want to complete the appeal of the other case so he can be extradited on that too? Or does he want that case dropped so he can be extradited on the first case?

I would expect that the US would appeal against a decision that does not go in their favour. They wouldn't appeal a decision that DID go in their favour.

See it without any prejudice towards Bout.

The second request/charges came after the first request didn't made it successfully in the first-instance. They were filed by the USA with the intention to keep him in custody as long as possible. Bout was ready to face this charges and prove his innocence in the 'extradition court'. To do so is his legal right, after all it was the reason for his detention.

Why the charges have been withdrawn? Why does the 'USA' avoid the court?

This delayed of course his extradition in the first case after this was successful (for the US) in a second ruling. because as its written in the OP "Under Thai law all court cases must be cleared before an extradition can be carried out." Bouts request to that the charrhes will not be dropped but go on trial was of course also a play on time. The extradition had to be made in a timeframe of 90 days or 3 month or so after the court ruling.

Bout is of course expecting and demanding that his case is handled according to this very Thai law. That is pure and simple his legal right.

Should be enough as explanation.

So if we we would now come to the hypothetical point c) the court request Bout back.

and d) how will the USA react?

I think about d) all of us would with their 'gut instinct' assume that the USA will say 'No, we will never give him back. We just keep him and you can nothing do about'

Meanwhile a firm believer in the fairness of the American legal system and someone who argued it was all legal under the Thai law and that it was all legitimate how it was dealt - this person would have to argue that the USA should send Bout of course back to Thailand so that the law can has it way.

Edited November 23, 2010 by SergeiY

[craigt3365]

I find this case facisnating. A true life "cloak and dagger" story. If you want a good read, try this:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,721532,00.html

Some interesting excerpts:

Bout has been in pretrial custody for more than two years now. His wife Alla has since moved to Bangkok. She is everything but the typical trophy wife so often seen at the side of rich Russian businessmen. A petite redhead who used to run a clothing store in Russia, she is fighting like a lioness for her husband, often sleeping in taxis or in front of the prison gates.

At some point in November 2007, a plan must have been assembled in the United States to set a trap for Bout. A special unit of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) made contact with Bout through a middleman named Andrew Smulian, who knew the Russian well. Smulian proposed a lucrative deal to Bout. He told the arms dealer that the Colombian guerilla organization FARC wanted to buy $20 million worth of weapons: 700 surface-to-air missiles, 5,000 AK-47 rifles, several million rounds of ammunition and an unspecified number of landmines.

Bout was suspicious and, using a photo, tried to identify the FARC members supposedly involved in the deal. He had done business with FARC a decade earlier, when he dropped weapons over the jungles of South America. At the last minute, Bout decided not to appear at a meeting in Bucharest. The frustrated DEA agents, who were waiting at the airport in the Romanian capital, cursed Bout for his professionalism.

The agents decided to try again, this time in Bangkok instead of Bucharest.

Off on Vacation

Apparently greed trumped Bout's instincts the second time around. Convinced that nothing could happen to him in Thailand, he decided to fly to Bangkok on March 5, 2008 for a "vacation" in the country. After arriving on a night flight, he checked into a five-star hotel, the Sofitel Silom, in Bangkok's business district, where he had reserved a suite on the 15th floor. Before hanging the "Do not disturb" sign on his door, Bout booked the hotel's conference room for 3 p.m., and then he went to bed.

At the meeting, Bout spent two hours negotiating with the supposed FARC representatives. He discussed their weapons program and agreed to provide them with everything they had requested. When the undercover agents explained to him that the missiles had to be capable of shooting down American aircraft, he told them that he enthusiastically supported their efforts, and that he was always in favor of targeting Americans. That was when the men revealed themselves as US agents. Bout surrendered without resisting.

Bout must have known that he was violating UN arms embargos with his shipments to Liberia and Angola, because he made sure that his pilots always took along spray paint to paint over the call signs on their aircraft so that they couldn't be identified.

Bout must have known that he was violating UN arms embargos with his shipments to Liberia and Angola, because he made sure that his pilots always took along spray paint to paint over the call signs on their aircraft so that they couldn't be identified.

It is undeniable that some very strange things happened in Bangkok. Sirichoke Sopha, a member of parliament and a close adviser to Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, paid a visit to the prisoner on a Sunday in April.

Sopha allegedly offered the Russian a deal. The Thais wanted him to testify about an aircraft that authorities in Bangkok had seized in December 2009 with 35 tons of weapons on board, which was en route from North Korea to Iran and was being flown by a pilot Bout knew. If members of the Thai opposition are to be believed, the alleged deal also revolved around the possible extradition of former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and allegations of abuse of office and incitement to terrorism. The Thai government wanted Bout to provide incriminating material. They also wanted the Kremlin to turn over the politician, who is currently spending much of his time in Montenegro and Moscow, to Bangkok. Only if these conditions were fulfilled would Bout be released and sent home to Russia.

Bout, at any rate, seems to be homesick for Moscow. "That's the only place I feel safe," he told his wife. It's arguably a sign of his close ties to senior government officials.

Both arms dealers and those who investigate them live very dangerous lives in that part of the world. Ivan Safronov, a journalist who wrote about shady deals, plunged to his death from a Moscow window in 2007. Though it was meant to look like a suicide, there are indications that it was a contract killing. Oleg Orlov, a Russian arms dealer, was arrested in Kiev and subsequently murdered in prison -- supposedly by a fellow prisoner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An extremely complicated case for sure!

[jdinasia]

Again .. the defendant does not have the right to decide that charges should not be dropped Simple. No further explanation required

[whybother]

See it without any prejudice towards Bout.

The second request/charges came after the first request didn't made it successfully in the first-instance. They were filed by the USA with the intention to keep him in custody as long as possible. Bout was ready to face this charges and prove his innocence in the 'extradition court'. To do so is his legal right, after all it was the reason for his detention.

Why the charges have been withdrawn? Why does the 'USA' avoid the court?

This delayed of course his extradition in the first case after this was successful (for the US) in a second ruling. because as its written in the OP "Under Thai law all court cases must be cleared before an extradition can be carried out." Bouts request to that the charrhes will not be dropped but go on trial was of course also a play on time. The extradition had to be made in a timeframe of 90 days or 3 month or so after the court ruling.

Bout is of course expecting and demanding that his case is handled according to this very Thai law. That is pure and simple his legal right.

Should be enough as explanation.

So if we we would now come to the hypothetical point c) the court request Bout back.

and d) how will the USA react?

I think about d) all of us would with their 'gut instinct' assume that the USA will say 'No, we will never give him back. We just keep him and you can nothing do about'

Meanwhile a firm believer in the fairness of the American legal system and someone who argued it was all legal under the Thai law and that it was all legitimate how it was dealt - this person would have to argue that the USA should send Bout of course back to Thailand so that the law can has it way.

I read that an extension of the 90 days could have been requested.

The second charge was withdrawn because the first charge was successful.

The court case was not to prove Bout was guilty or innocent. It was to determine if Bout should be extradited or not. Even if Bout was successful in the second case (ie no extradition) he still would have been extradited on the first case.

Bout was trying to delay the extradition, but given that the request could have been made to keep him longer than 90 days on the first case, the result of the second case was irrelevant.

[SergeiY]

so what? No precedence? Will that be enough to deny to send him back?

so easy?

And what about the risk of a procedural error in the circumstances how he was arrested and detained?

Anyway Bout never talked with any FARC rebels in Bangkok nor sold them any weapons. If i go for the easy argument - the case should be closed.

If there is a problem with a procedural error with his arrest or his being detained, then he should have appealed the case that went in favour of extradition. He didn't. He appealed the case that was dropped.

He wasn't charged with talking to FARC rebels or selling them weapons. He was charged with conspiracy to sell them weapons, which it sounds very much like he did. And he will have his chance in US court to defend himself of these charges. That wasn't for the Thai court to decide. They only needed to decide whether to grant extradition or not.

Under Thai law all court cases must be cleared before an extradition can be carried out.

That is their point. And if they have there a point is it that what i would call 'procedural error'. That puts the legitimacy of the extradition in question according to the Thai law until Bout had his day in a court in Thailand with the second charges. Maybe the extradite him for that too, if the charges filled by the USA where legit they should have nothing to worry, just be fine with the second request.

And without having Bout again in Bangkok to make his extradition 100% legit the whole trail in the USA could be at risk too, because his arrest in Bangkok, his detention and his extradition now lacks legitimacy. That could be another procedural error that spoils the show in a court overthere.

[craigt3365]

Maybe this is why she is claiming they have no money? But I doubt he would put all his eggs in a few baskets. Look at how many bank accounts and cover businesses Thaksin and his family had!

Sergei Bout, 49, is a Russian citizen. His foreign bank accounts are frozen and he faces the threat of arrest if he travels to the West. Richard Chichakli, 51, is a Syrian-born United States citizen who fled from Texas and now lives in Moscow with his Russian wife. His bank accounts are also frozen, and his name is on a United Nations list of arms embargo breakers.

[whybother]

Under Thai law all court cases must be cleared before an extradition can be carried out.

That is their point. And if they have there a point is it that what i would call 'procedural error'. That puts the legitimacy of the extradition in question according to the Thai law until Bout had his day in a court in Thailand with the second charges. Maybe the extradite him for that too, if the charges filled by the USA where legit they should have nothing to worry, just be fine with the second request.

And without having Bout again in Bangkok to make his extradition 100% legit the whole trail in the USA could be at risk too, because his arrest in Bangkok, his detention and his extradition now lacks legitimacy. That could be another procedural error that spoils the show in a court overthere.

I haven't actually seen what happened to the second case. Just that the cabinet/PM had the ability to sign-off on the extradition. It must have been that the cabinet decision overrides the appeal in the ongoing court case.

I don't think an invalid extradition would have an affect on the US case. They don't care how he gets there, as long as he gets there. Once he is there it all has to be legal from the US point of view. If an invalid extradition does have an affect on the US case, then Bout might get off on a technicality ... if he can prove that the extradition was invalid.

[jdinasia]

so what? No precedence? Will that be enough to deny to send him back?

so easy?

And what about the risk of a procedural error in the circumstances how he was arrested and detained?

Anyway Bout never talked with any FARC rebels in Bangkok nor sold them any weapons. If i go for the easy argument - the case should be closed.

If there is a problem with a procedural error with his arrest or his being detained, then he should have appealed the case that went in favour of extradition. He didn't. He appealed the case that was dropped.

He wasn't charged with talking to FARC rebels or selling them weapons. He was charged with conspiracy to sell them weapons, which it sounds very much like he did. And he will have his chance in US court to defend himself of these charges. That wasn't for the Thai court to decide. They only needed to decide whether to grant extradition or not.

Under Thai law all court cases must be cleared before an extradition can be carried out.

That is their point. And if they have there a point is it that what i would call 'procedural error'. That puts the legitimacy of the extradition in question according to the Thai law until Bout had his day in a court in Thailand with the second charges. Maybe the extradite him for that too, if the charges filled by the USA where legit they should have nothing to worry, just be fine with the second request.

And without having Bout again in Bangkok to make his extradition 100% legit the whole trail in the USA could be at risk too, because his arrest in Bangkok, his detention and his extradition now lacks legitimacy. That could be another procedural error that spoils the show in a court overthere.

Case was dropped. Bout's lawyers are trying to make case law by saying that cases can't be dropped by the prosecution ... and that is .. well ... simply wrong

[SergeiY]

That a situation has never occurred even once in the 234 years of American jurisprudence should give you a clue as to the ridiculousness of your proposed scenario, but don't let that stop you from dreaming.

That would be too easy.

Well, the question about a hypothetical situation could be still asked and an answer like yours would probably not pass a test in the the first semester at law school.

[jdinasia]

That a situation has never occurred even once in the 234 years of American jurisprudence should give you a clue as to the ridiculousness of your proposed scenario, but don't let that stop you from dreaming.

That would be too easy.

Well, the question about a hypothetical situation could be still asked and an answer like yours would probably not pass a test in the the first semester at law school.

Actually ... since the US laws do use precedence as a litmus test Buchholz is correct. But I really should congratulate you on that very well constructed sentence It seems as if the persona slipped a bit again

[Buchholz]

[kuffki]

The obvious reality-the more he stays in the media, the higher are the chances of fair trial.

With all the bad PR, USA got in the past few years, i doubt gov would want to add more.

Also no one knows but she may well be "sponsored" by Russian Government or have some friends to ensure suits are filed and the matter does stay in the media.

Should she manage to prove that he needs to be sent back to Thailand, it would be very interesting to see the reaction from USA, only because if they do-thats a huge blow, and if they do not-thats a huge blow also.

[surangw]

he has to be here to sign over the bank account !

[Beetlejuice]

What to bet she soon hires amsterdam and peroff?

TH

Perry Mason also comes into mind.

It appears Victor`s wife will be placed into the background, forgotten, lose control of her situation and not get her share from the spoils of dear old hubby`s fortune.

[Briggsy]

Relatives of people stacked six deep in army trucks leading to 78 deaths by suffocation whilst in custody have had no joy suing the government. This is simply Bout's team stressing the irregularities of his arrest to the world, there is zero chance of any successful case against the government in this case.

[kuffki]

Relatives of people stacked six deep in army trucks leading to 78 deaths by suffocation whilst in custody have had no joy suing the government. This is simply Bout's team stressing the irregularities of his arrest to the world, there is zero chance of any successful case against the government in this case.

i still think it all depends who is behind her.

Its not what you know, but who you know.

Might also be a perfect opportunity for Russian government to show the illegality of his extradition(allegedly)

Plus anything to piss off oppose USA.

[Rimmer]

One inflammatory post removed from view

[cdnvic]

If someone has concerns about any poster they are welcome to report it, but making accusations in public can earn you your own "forced holiday" as someone put it in one of the deleted posts. Stick to the subject please, and try to act respectfully to one another, even if you strongly disagree.