High Court Rules in Favor of British National in Extradition Case Involving Cryptocurrency Fraud

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2893 (Admin)
Judgment on


In the recent decision of the High Court in “Christopher Hamilton v The Government of the United States of America,” a significant extradition case was presented which turned on the application of the “forum bar.” This provision aims to prevent extradition where it is not in the interests of justice, considering a balance of local and international interests. The High Court’s thorough analysis has shed light on the interplay between the interests of justice and other statutory factors affecting extradition cases.

Key Facts

The appellant, a British national, was implicated in a global fraud scheme involving the cryptocurrency OneCoin. The United States sought his extradition to face charges of money laundering and wire fraud. The appellant challenged his extradition on various grounds, most notably under the “forum” bar of the Extradition Act 2003. A key issue on appeal was whether the District Judge was correct in dismissing the appellant’s forum challenge to extradition.

The High Court examined the seven statutory factors outlined in section 83A of the Extradition Act, which the District Judge had considered in the first instance. The appellant’s connections to the UK, the location of the bulk of the relevant activity and alleged harm, the victims’ interests, the belief of a UK prosecutor about the most appropriate jurisdiction, the availability of the necessary evidence in the UK, potential delays, and the desirability of centralized prosecutions were all scrutinized.

The central legal principle in this case involved the interpretation and application of the forum bar under section 83A of the Extradition Act 2003. This section serves as a safeguard against extradition when the interests of justice would be better served by conducting the trial in the UK. The evaluation process requires the court to consider specified matters, explicitly listed under section 83A(3), without ranking them in order of importance.

The court must first meet a threshold question (section 83A(2)(a)), examining if a “substantial measure” of the defendant’s relevant activity occurred in the UK, requiring a fact-specific determination. Only then is the court to evaluate if extradition is contrary to the interests of justice based on those specified matters. Interestingly, the court emphasized that this forum bar is not meant to serve a vague or broad reflection on justice but is to be understood within the tight confines of the statute’s wording.

Another critical legal aspect addressed was the allowance for fresh evidence in extradition appeals. Section 104(4) of the Act provides conditions under which fresh evidence may be considered, emphasizing the importance of such evidence having the potential to lead to a different outcome at the initial hearing.


The High Court found several flaws in the original judgment regarding the proper application of the legal principles related to the forum bar. The appellate court undertook a fresh evaluation of the statutory factors, which led to the conclusion that extradition would not be in the interests of justice. The following key reasons for this decision included:

  1. The appellant’s role in the conspiracy occurred primarily in the UK.
  2. The harm caused by the appellant’s alleged offences was primarily to the UK banking system.
  3. The UK victims’ interests were not considered lesser than those of the US victims.
  4. The evidence necessary to prove the offences was available in the UK.
  5. The appellant’s strong connections to the UK, including significant health concerns, were relevant to the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the appellant was discharged, and the extradition order was quashed.


This case serves as an instructive example of the stringent and systematic approach required when applying the forum bar in extradition cases. The High Court’s decision underscores the necessity of grounding legal judgments within the explicit parameters of the statutory framework. It also affirms that where a forum argument prevails, the result is not to absolve the individual of criminal responsibility but to ensure that their trial occurs in the jurisdiction with the closest and most substantial connection to the relevant activity and associated harm. This case will undoubtedly become a significant reference point for future extradition cases within the UK legal system.

Related Summaries