DOJ-OGR-00001282.jpg
770 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
770 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the legal uncertainty surrounding the timing of nationality assessment for a defendant's extradition between the United States and France. It contrasts the government's position that nationality is determined at the time of the offense with the defendant's expert view that it's at the time of the extradition request. The document highlights that conflicting interpretations of the U.S.-France Extradition Treaty and French law create ambiguity that could frustrate or bar the extradition.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of an extradition request, whose argument about the timing of nationality assessment is being discussed.
|
| French legal expert | Legal expert |
An expert retained by the Defendant who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the extradition request.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as assessing the risks related to the defendant's potential renunciation of citizenship.
|
| Ministry of Justice | Government agency |
A French government body whose translated letter provides an interpretation of Article 694-4 of the French Code of Cr...
|
Timeline (2 events)
1996-04-23
The Extradition Treaty between the United States and France was established.
An extradition request for the Defendant is being considered, with legal arguments presented regarding the timing of nationality assessment.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A party to the Extradition Treaty with France, mentioned in the context of its executive authority to surrender natio...
|
|
|
A party to the Extradition Treaty with the United States, whose legal code (French Code of Criminal Procedure) is bei...
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses the "Extradition Treaty between the United States and France of April 23, 1996" and its application to a specific case.
The document outlines the legal arguments presented by the Defendant to the Court regarding an extradition request.
Key Quotes (3)
"[t]here is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed."Source
— Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France of April 23, 1996
(Cited from the treaty to support the argument that nationality is determined at the time the offense was committed.)
DOJ-OGR-00001282.jpg
Quote #1
"Extradition shall not be granted . . . [w]hen the person claimed has French nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested."Source
— Article 694-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cited from French law to support the argument that nationality is assessed at the time of the offense.)
DOJ-OGR-00001282.jpg
Quote #2
"When the individual claimed to have French citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being requested."Source
— Ministry of Justice
(A translated reading of Article 694-4 from a letter, cited in a footnote to show a specific interpretation of the law.)
DOJ-OGR-00001282.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,302 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1692 Filed 03/22/22 Page 9 of 12
nationality is assessed at the time the offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent
to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said
assessment of nationality.”¹ Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2. The Defendant, meanwhile, relies on the
opinion of a French legal expert who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the
extradition request. See Reply, Ex. A ¶ 11. The Defendant’s expert concedes that there is no
case law addressing this precise issue. Id. ¶ 21.
to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said
assessment of nationality.”¹ Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2. The Defendant, meanwhile, relies on the
opinion of a French legal expert who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the
extradition request. See Reply, Ex. A ¶ 11. The Defendant’s expert concedes that there is no
case law addressing this precise issue. Id. ¶ 21.
Exacerbating the uncertainty is the fact that the relevant legal materials also lend
themselves to multiple interpretations. For instance, Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between
the United States and France of April 23, 1996 provides that “[t]here is no obligation upon the
Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but
the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the
United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person
sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed.” See Reply,
Ex. A ¶ 9 (emphasis added)). Article 694-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure similarly
provides that “Extradition shall not be granted . . . [w]hen the person claimed has French
nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is
requested.”² Id. ¶ 10; see also Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty
as to the relevance of the Defendant’s offer of renunciation of her French citizenship to her
ability to frustrate, if not entirely bar, extradition. The Court’s assessment of the risks largely
themselves to multiple interpretations. For instance, Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between
the United States and France of April 23, 1996 provides that “[t]here is no obligation upon the
Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but
the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the
United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person
sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed.” See Reply,
Ex. A ¶ 9 (emphasis added)). Article 694-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure similarly
provides that “Extradition shall not be granted . . . [w]hen the person claimed has French
nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is
requested.”² Id. ¶ 10; see also Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty
as to the relevance of the Defendant’s offer of renunciation of her French citizenship to her
ability to frustrate, if not entirely bar, extradition. The Court’s assessment of the risks largely
¹ The Court cites the translated version of the letter, though the original letter is in French.
² Here, there are minor discrepancies between the two sides’ respective translations. The
translated letter from the Ministry of Justice cites Article 694-4 as reading, “When the individual
claimed to have French citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the
offense on the basis of which removal is being requested.” Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2.
² Here, there are minor discrepancies between the two sides’ respective translations. The
translated letter from the Ministry of Justice cites Article 694-4 as reading, “When the individual
claimed to have French citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the
offense on the basis of which removal is being requested.” Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2.
9
DOJ-OGR-00001282
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document