Syed v Government of Switzerland
[2023] EWHC 2376 (Admin)
Ahsan Ali Syed v Government of Switzerland & Anor
31 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1959 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Switzerland for a big fraud. He tried to stop his extradition to Switzerland by arguing the paperwork was bad, he'd already been investigated (but not charged) elsewhere, it took too long, Switzerland wouldn't follow the rules, and he's now stateless. A judge rejected all his arguments and ruled he must be sent to Switzerland.
Key Facts
- •Ahsan Ali Syed's extradition to Switzerland is requested for advanced fee fraud involving CHF 28.6 million.
- •Syed allegedly misused two companies he managed to obtain money from 23 parties.
- •The alleged fraud occurred between September 2010 and May 2011.
- •Syed allegedly used the funds for personal expenses, including purchasing property and a private aircraft.
- •Syed's Turkish citizenship was revoked in May 2024.
- •The District Judge sent the case to the Secretary of State, who ordered extradition.
Legal Principles
Dual criminality test requires sufficient particulars in the extradition request.
Extradition Act 2003, Part 2
The court can consider supplementary material properly authenticated by the requesting state.
Government of the United States v Shlesinger [2013] EWHC 2671 (Admin); Mauro v Government of the United States of America [2009] EWHC 150 (Admin)
Double jeopardy (s 80, EA 2003) applies only where precisely the same offence is charged or it would be an abuse of process.
Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 125; Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphreys [1977] AC 1; Beedie [1998] QB 356; Prejoinau v Deputy General Prosecutor of Messina (Italy) [2023] EWHC 2378 (Admin)
Unjust or oppressive extradition (s 82, EA 2003) considers prejudice to the accused and hardship.
Kakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779
Extradition is prohibited without specialty arrangements (ss 93 and 95, EA 2003).
Extradition Act 2003, ss 93 and 95
Article 8 ECHR rights can be considered in extradition but must be properly developed.
Hojden v Polish Judicial Authority [2022] EWHC 2725 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
None of the grounds of appeal are arguable.
District Judge's decision upheld.
The extradition request was sufficiently particularised; double jeopardy did not apply; extradition was not unjust or oppressive.
Secretary of State's decision upheld.
Specialty arrangements with Switzerland exist under Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition.
Statelessness ground rejected.
The evidential picture is too unclear; any Article 8 rights would be protected in Switzerland; extradition is proportionate.
Similar Cases
District Court of Bratislava (Slovakia) v Gabriel Soltes
[2024] EWHC 2754 (Admin)
The Government of the Republic of Türkiye v Chan Demir
[2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin)
Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigation Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)
[2023] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Igor Gisca v Prosecutor General of Trieste, Italy
[2023] EWHC 241 (Admin)