Key Facts
- •Christopher Hamilton appeals against an extradition order to the USA for money laundering and wire fraud related to the OneCoin Ponzi scheme.
- •The appeal focuses on the 'forum' challenge, arguing extradition is not in the interests of justice.
- •Hamilton's alleged activities involved laundering €16 million through his company, Viola Asset Management (VAM), and subsequently diverting $32 million.
- •A UK investigation was closed due to insufficient evidence, despite the US having relevant information.
- •The judge dismissed the forum challenge, finding that several factors favoured extradition.
- •Hamilton's appeal argues the judge misinterpreted statutory factors and failed to adequately consider counterarguments.
- •New medical evidence regarding Hamilton's serious health conditions was submitted during the appeal.
Legal Principles
The overarching test under section 83A of the Extradition Act 2003 is whether extradition would not be in the interests of justice.
Dibden v Tribunal De Grande Instance De Lille, France [2014] EWHC 3074 (Admin), Shaw v USA [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
Section 83A(2) sets out two conditions for a forum bar: (a) substantial relevant activity in the UK; and (b) considering specified matters, extradition should not occur.
Extradition Act 2003, section 83A
The seven specified matters in section 83A(3) have no hierarchical weight; the court makes an overall evaluative judgment.
Shaw at [40], Atraskevic at [14], Dibden at [18], Love at [43]–[44], USA v McDaid [2020] EWHC 1527 (Admin)
On appeal, the court determines if the judge's decision was wrong, not undertaking a fresh evaluation. The focus is on whether the judge's analysis was flawed.
Love at [25]–[26]
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The judge's reasoning contained several flaws, including misinterpreting statutory factors and failing to adequately consider counterarguments. The court conducted a fresh analysis of the statutory factors and concluded that extradition would not be in the interests of justice.
Hamilton's extradition is quashed.
The court found that most of the harm caused by Hamilton's conduct occurred in the UK, relevant evidence is available in the UK, and the interests of justice favoured a UK prosecution.
Hamilton is discharged from the proceedings.
The court concluded that the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution is the UK, given Hamilton's strong UK connections, the location of his alleged crimes, and the availability of evidence.