IELR Blog

6th AIRCOP Meeting Discusses Detecting Illicit Traffic By Air

February 21, 2019 by Alex Psilakis Leave a Comment

On February 11, 2019, 90 representatives from various international organizations and national law enforcement agencies met at the INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France for the 6^th Global Meeting of the Airport Communication Project (AIRCOP). AIRCOP is a coordinated effort by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, and the World Customs Organization (WCO). It strives to improve the capacities of international airports to catch and confiscate illicit goods including drugs, as well as high-risk passengers at any and all points of their journey.

The meeting, which ran from February 11 to 13, gathered a wide variety of attendees. It featured members from AIRCOP national focal points, particularly from countries in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, where AIRCOP focuses their operations. It also included trainers and mentors from national law enforcement agencies that partner with AIRCOP, as well as international agencies that work alongside AIRCOP, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT). Private donors, like the European Union (EU), also attended. The EU is the largest financial contributor to AIRCOP, largely because it began as an operation specific to the EU. In 2010, the EU launched the Cocaine Route Programme, which aimed to reduce cocaine trafficking to Europe via passenger transportation, cargo, and mail. Since then, the project has expanded in scale and scope, utilizing global cooperation to assist regions most vulnerable to drug trafficking.

The meeting touched on a variety of topics. Participants discussed the evolving threats that criminals pose, often appearing “smarter” or “faster” than national law enforcement personnel. They pointed specifically to organized crime and terrorism as threats AIRCOP must address. Attendees also reflected on AIRCOP’s past successes, achieved through cooperative techniques such as the sharing of best practices. Those successes include seizing eight tons of cocaine, $14.5 million in undeclared funds, and two persons wanted on INTERPOL Red Notices, among many others. Various high-level officials presented remarks outlining AIRCOP’s growth and success. UNODC Division for Operations Director Ms. Miwa Kato, for example, noted that, “Through our joint efforts, we have come a long way, not only by welcoming new countries, but also by targeting and combating all types of threats that occur on airport platforms.” Other premier personnel, including Tim Morris, INTERPOL Executive Director of Public Service, and Ana Hinojosa, WCO Director of Compliance and Facilitation, offered remarks as well.

AIRCOP has confronted – and continues to confront – an array of global issues. In 2017, they partnered with EUROPOL and the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA) to crack down on an international airline ticket fraud scheme. While AIRCOP focused their operations on airports in Africa and the Middle East, they assisted in detaining a total of 195 individuals. Several of these individuals aimed to smuggle illicit substances across borders, using the cheaply purchased tickets to fly back and forth with greater frequency. Over 60 countries from around the globe participated in the operation. More recently, the UNODC – one of AIRCOP’s three branches – has noticed an increase in drug trafficking throughout West Africa, where the profits made from selling drugs routinely go to terrorist organizations. Although AIRCOP has noticed drugs like methamphetamine streaming through airports in Nigeria, Ghana, and Benin, the UNODC has stressed that drug trafficking is harming the entire region, with Executive Director Yury Fedotov noting that, “UNODC is registering new alarming trends on drug trafficking in West and Central Africa with disruptive and destabilizing effects on governance, security, economic growth, and public health.” Drugs transported throughout the region include not just methamphetamine, but heroine, cocaine, and a variety of opioids.

To confront these evolving and developing threats, AIRCOP must do exactly what they outlined in their 6^th Global Meeting – evolve and develop. The international organization has proven highly effective in shutting down illicit trafficking that flows through airports, and by continuing to improve the means by which member states share information and coordinate operations, AIRCOP may prove even more effective.

Danske Bank Closes Operations in Russia and Baltics After Estonia Orders Its Closure

February 20, 2019 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On February 19, 2019, Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (the Estonian FSA) gave Danske Bank 20 days to submit an action plan to close its local branch within eight months. In December, Estonian authorities detained 10 former Danske Bank employees on suspicion they had facilitated money laundering through non-resident clients, including many Russians.

This week the European Banking Authority announced it was opening a formal investigation into a possible violation of EU laws by the FSA and its Danish counterpart Finanstilsynet over the case.

On February 19, 2019, Danske Bank announced that, following the investigation of suspicious transactions in Estonia during the period of 2007 to 2015, the Estonian FSA has ordered Danske Bank to cease banking operations in Estonia, which Danske Bank has agreed to do.

Danske Bank also announced it is closing operations in Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia.

Danske Bank’s press release announced that, independently of the Estonian FSA’s notification, Danske Bank has decided to close all its activities in the Baltics and Russia.

In the future Danske Bank will serve only subsidiaries of Danske Bank’s Nordic customers and global companies with a significant Nordic footprint. It has transferred all other banking activities to its non-core unit to be wound up or divested.

Analysis

The decision by the Estonian FSA to order the Danske Bank branch to close and the decision of Danske Bank to also close its operations in Latvia, Lithuania and Russia, along with the pending criminal investigations of Danske Bank in France, the United Kingdom and the United States, the investigation of the European Banking Authority, and the detention of 10 former Danske Bank employees in Estonia, illustrate the financial and reputational loss that accompanies inadequate attention to financial regulatory matters, especially relating to transnational corruption and money laundering. In the onslaught of investigations Danske Bank is struggling to survive. In this context its trimming of its operations is essential to its survival.

Third Russian Individual Potentially Tied to Skripal Under Investigation By Bulgaria

February 14, 2019 by Evan Schleicher Leave a Comment

Bulgaria has reopened a 2015 investigation into the poisoning of a prominent arms dealer after it emerged that this case might be connected to the nerve agent attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, who was poisoned last year in the U.K. This occurred after Bellingcat, a watchdog that lauds itself as “the home of online investigations,” released a report which suggested that a third, “unknown” Russian operative in the British case was also connected to the 2015 case in Bulgaria.

A previous blog post, authored by Maria O’Sullivan, noted that “On June 27, 2018, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) gained the power to assign blame for chemical weapons attacks.” In a hopeful final note, this blog post mused that the measure “was a large stepping stone towards international accountability.” However, despite the promise which this measure still holds for accountability, measures taken by Russia and other countries have stifled its implementation and, by consequence, its potential effectiveness. Principally, Russia has refused to provide funding to the attribution mechanism and has demanded the return of its share of the unspent budget. It defends this decision by noting that of 193 nations, only 82 approved of the measure, while 24, including China, India, Russia, and Iran, opposed it, and many abstained. It is also telling that the Russian who sits on the Executive Council of the OPCW, Vladimir Kuznetsov, is a convicted money launderer who has been charged with accepting bribes and undermining humanitarian operations. While there is presently no publicly available evidence of corruption within the OPCW involving Kuznetsov, it is irrefutable that he has been involved in similar crimes in the past. When taken in concert with evidence that Syrian and Russian sources have colluded to obstruct investigations by the OPCW into chemical weapon use in Syria, this evidence seems to strongly indicate that Russia is attempting to escape culpability for attacks which it is widely believed to have committed.

Despite clear evidence of Russian evasion of OPCW investigations, it is unclear whether the Russian agents involved in the poisonings of Emilian Gebrev used substances banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. In fact, Bulgarian investigators said on February 11, 2019 that “No substances from the Chemical Weapons Convention’s banned list were found” in the case of Gebrev. Additionally, they have not yet found a connection between this case and the case of Skripal, though the investigation is still ongoing at the time of this writing. However, despite the lack of a connection between these cases and despite an extensive Russian information campaign, it is clear that Russia was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and potentially that of Gebrev. Hard evidence including surveillance images of individuals who appear to be GRU operatives near the site of Skripal’s poisoning has made it difficult for Russian denials to gain major traction.

Given the previously mentioned facts, it is necessary to ask: Are U.S. and EU. sanctions against Russia legitimate and do they conform to the legal strictures of the Chemical Weapons Convention? The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated that “the EU is demonstrating a disregard for existing international legal instruments, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, by abrogating to itself the right to attribute blame for chemical weapons incidents.” This shift seems to concede to OPCW the ability to assign blame, which Russia had previously rejected. Further, it does little to respond to the base level justification of EU actions, which is that Russians have been tied to a chemical weapon attack on an individual. Having reviewed the evidence, the author believes that Russian agents were clearly implicated in the attacks, which would justify response by OPCW. However, because the OPCW did not claim the unilateral right to attribute blame for chemical weapons incidents, U.S. and EU actions would only be problematic if they directly contradicted conclusions made by OPCW. In the absence of an OPCW decision, it is instructive to look to the respective domestic laws of the U.S. and the EU to see if any violation has occurred.

It appears as though the EU is operating within its domestic legal frameworks, since these actions were undertaken after a domestic “decision in October to broaden the sanctions regime.” The U.S. has a similar domestic obligation to sanction individuals connected to Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act. From a purely legal perspective, this Act allows the U.S. to take the actions which it has taken, since the President is authorized under this Act to sanction individuals which he determines to have violated international law.

In sum, the actions taken against Russian GRU agents in response to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal are legal from an international perspective and fall in line with the intentions and direction of the OPCW. Corruption and political maneuvering have rendered the OPCW far less capable of making and enforcing decisions in cases such as that of Mr. Skripal. As such, it seems that the question is not whether the OPCW should blame Russians for the poisoning of Mr. Skripal, but whether it will, given the large, potentially corrupting influence of Russians within the organization.

U.S. Jury Convicts El Chapo on All Counts for Leading the Sinaloa Organized Crime Cartel

February 13, 2019 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On February 12, 2019, a federal jury in Brooklyn, New York convicted Joaquin Achivaldo Guzman Loera, known as “El Chapo”, of leading a continuing criminal enterprise – the Mexican organized crime syndicate – commonly known as the Sinaloa Cartel. In particular, he was convicted of 26 drug-related violations and one murder conspiracy. He was convicted of all 10 counts of a superseding indictment, including narcotics trafficking, using a firearm in furtherance of his enterprise, and participating in a money laundering conspiracy. As the U.S. Justice Department press release discusses, the verdict came after a 12-week trial before U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan. El Chapo faces a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment at his sentencing schedule on June 25.

El Chapo was convicted of serving as the head of the Sinaloa Cartel, which is an international drug trafficking organization responsible for importing and distributing huge quantities of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin in the U.S. The prosecution introduced evidence at trial, including testimony from 14 cooperating witnesses, narcotics seizures totaling over 130,000 kilograms of cocaine and heroin; weapons, including AK-47s and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher; ledgers; text messages; videos; photographs; and intercepted recordings. The evidence focused on the drug trafficking activity of El Chapo and his co-conspirators over a 25-year period from January 1989 until December 2014.

Testimony was that El Chap oversaw the clandestine transportation of narcotics to U.S. wholesale distributors and the return of billions of illicit dollars generated from U.S. drug sales. El Chapo employed “sicarios” or hit men, who committed hundreds of acts of violence in Mexico to enforce Sinaloa’s control of territories and to eliminate those who posed a threat to the Sinaloa Cartel.

The evidence was that the Cartel smuggled tens of thousands of kilograms of narcotics through submarines, carbon fiber airplanes, trains with secret compartments, and transnational underground tunnels.

El Chapo employed a sophisticated encrypted communications network to operate his syndicate. He paid an information technology engineer one million dollars to buy and set up a network so that El Chapo could communicate by internet with his drug trafficking associates in Colombia, Ecuador, Canada and the U.S. without fear of the interception of his calls El Chapo used encrypted cell phones and apps.

Various co-conspirators testified that El Chapo directed his hitmen to kidnap, interrogate, torture, and shoot members of rival drug organizations, at times carrying out acts of violence himself.

The evidence showed that El Chapo and his organization used a vast network of corrupt government officials, including local law enforcement officers, prison guards, state officials, high ranking members of the armed forces, and politicians.

El Chapo’s business produced billions of dollars in illicit proceeds and used various methods to launder money, including bulk cash smuggling. At one point, U.S. law enforcement seized $1.26 million from hidden compartments in a truck driven by El Chapo’s brother in Douglas, Arizona in 1989. El Chapo oversaw numerous shell companies, including a juice company and a fish flour company to launder the cartel’s narcotics trafficking proceeds.

El Chapo faces a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for leading a continuing criminal enterprise, and a sentence of up to life imprisonment on the seven remaining drug counts. The government will seek a forfeiture money judgment for billions of dollars constituting the cartel’s illegal drug-trafficking proceeds.

El Chapo was a mythical dark folk hero, notorious for his innovative smuggling operations, his violence against competitors, his prison breaks using intricate tunnels, and the inability of law enforcement to capture him once he escaped from prison, even though he gave media interviews. When law enforcement did find his hiding places, El Chapo often escaped through secret compartments leading under the houses where he stayed, making his way through the sewer system to freedom.

The conviction signals a major achievement of bilateral law enforcement cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico although the dominance of El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel will be immediately replaced by other cartels, so long as the demand exists in the U.S.

The IELR this month will have a more comprehensive article on the case.

Thai Authorities Release Bahraini Refugee Soccer Player Amidst Diplomatic Pressure

February 12, 2019 by Alex Psilakis Leave a Comment

Last week, the IELR Blog reported on the case of Hakeem al-Araibi, a 25-year-old refugee originally from Bahrain who resides and plays professional soccer in Australia. While al-Araibi has retained refugee status in Australia since 2017, Bahraini authorities have had an arrest warrant out for him since he fled the country in 2014. They allege that al-Araibi vandalized a police station, even though he was playing in a televised soccer match when the supposed crime took place. Bahraini authorities issued an INTERPOL Red Notice against al-Araibi, so after travelling from Australia to Thailand last November, he was arrested. However, INTERPOL soon lifted that request, as red notices are not meant to apply to refugees. Nevertheless, he was entered into Thai custody, where he awaited his potential extradition to Bahrain.

On Monday, February 11, Thai authorities released al-Araibi after detaining him for more than two months. According to Thailand’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Bahraini authorities no longer sought al-Araibi’s extradition, leaving the OAG no further reason to detain him. Although Bahrain terminated their extradition request, they emphasized that they had not cleared al-Araibi of the charges against him. Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry issued an official statement, noting that “The Kingdom of Bahrain reaffirms its right to pursue all necessary legal actions against Mr. al-Araibi.”

Al-Araibi’s release follows a massive international outcry against his detention. Since al-Araibi had made no secret of his public opposition to Bahrain’s human rights record, many attributed his arrest to his previous comments. Figures from the sports world and beyond spoke in his defense. “Hakeem’s case is about a football player, it’s about a human-rights defender, it’s about a refugee and it’s about global sport’s ability to uphold its stated commitment to human rights,” said Mr. Schwab, executive director of the World Players Association. FIFA officials, as well as members of the International Olympic Committee, also vocalized their support for al-Araibi.

The Australian government applied pressure on Thailand as well. Even though Thailand claims that they were acting on an INTERPOL Red Notice, Australia denies having tipped off Thai authorities to the red notice. Thailand’s Foreign Minister has stood firm, stating that they “would not have become involved in the issue had we not received the red notice alert from the Australian Interpol.” In spite of this diplomatic tit-for-tat, Australia has continuously lobbied on al-Araibi’s behalf. Upon al-Araibi’s release, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison praised the outcome, as well as al-Araibi’s imminent return to Australia.

Al-Araibi has since returned to Australia. Although Interpol has removed the red notice against him due to his refugee status, al-Araibi’s conviction still stands under Bahraini law. Yet with the red notice removed, it will prove incredibly difficult for Bahrain to detain al-Araibi, regardless of the recent negative press against the country. Instead, human rights law – supported by diplomatic pressure – has ensured Hakeem al-Araibi’s safe return home.

New Article on the CLOUD Act in English and French

February 8, 2019 by Fred Davis Leave a Comment

My colleague Anna Gressel and I have written an article, published in the current ABA Litigation Journal, which attempts to make sense out of the CLOUD Act adopted by the US Congress last year. You will find it here. (For French-speakers, a copy in that language is here).

The Act addresses an intriguing and difficult issue: how should national criminal and privacy laws deal with so-called “deterritorialized” data? Traditionally, laws protecting privacy have been local: there is an intuitive connection between the place where I am or store things and the laws that protect me and my information. So to arrest me, or get access to my home or papers, the local police must turn to local procedures that restrain their conduct. But today, the physical location of data is often meaningless: sensitive, important information that I easily access and handle in my home or office may be stored in a distant country, or may have no identifiable location at all — some service providers automatically divide even simple emails into “shards” that are constantly redistributed among servers in different countries to achieve efficiency. So if my most precious personal and financial information is stored someplace “in the cloud,” what country’s laws protect it?

The Supreme Court was faced with this question in March 2018 in a case where Microsoft was ordered to turn over emails to which it could easily gain access in the US, but which were physically stored on a server in Ireland because the account holder was from there. The core question was whether Ireland had an interest in regulating police access to data stored on its territory, or whether US investigative authorities could simply go ahead and get an order for their production in the US without even informing Ireland. On this the parties and scores of amici curiae were starkly divided. Before the question could be decided, however, Congress passed the CLOUD Act, which mooted the pending case. The Act’s core provision is that if a service provider in the United States is appropriately ordered to turn over information to which it has access, it must do so no matter where the information is stored – unless it can show that the data involved is stored in a friendly country whose privacy laws would thereby be violated. The CLOUD Act‘s substitution of access location for storage location, coupled with international coordination, is certainly an innovative, and probably a positive, step forward. The key may be whether other countries ultimately pursue the invitation to work with US lawmakers and investigators, or come up with an alternative, so that an appropriate and internationally acceptable balance can be found.

I would be especially interested in thoughts any of you may have about whether this approach is likely to gain support in your own communities.

___

Fred Davis is Of Counsel in the New York and Paris offices of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, and a member of the New York and Paris Bars. He is also a Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School where he teaches courses on comparative criminal procedures and cross-border criminal investigations. His book American Criminal Justice: An Introduction will be published soon by the Cambridge University Press.

Thai Authorities Detain Bahraini Refugee Soccer Player After INTERPOL Red Notice Request

February 6, 2019 by Zarine Kharazian Leave a Comment

Hakeem al-Araibi, a 25-year-old refugee soccer player from Bahrain, will remain in a Thai jail for at least two months as he prepares to fight an extradition request from his native country.

Al-Araibi claims the Bahraini government arrested and tortured him in 2012 because of his outspoken criticism of the country’s human rights record. Two years later, al-Araibi was sentenced to ten years in absentia for allegedly vandalizing a police station. He fled to Australia as a refugee in 2017.

In November, al-Araibi boarded a flight to Bangkok, and Australian authorities alerted Thai officials that the soccer player was the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice issued by Bahrain. Thai police arrested al-Araibi upon his arrival in Bangkok.

Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution expressly prohibits the international police organization from “undertak[ing] any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.” Several authoritarian governments, such as Russia and Turkey, however, have recently come under fire for their abuse of the red notice system as a tool to punish political opponents.

Numerous human rights organizations have criticized the Thai government’s handling of the al-Araibi case. Human Rights Watch has launched a digital campaign called “#SaveHakeem” to encourage athletes and the public to write Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to demand al-Araibi’s release.

For the IELR Blog’s previous coverage on INTERPOL red notice abuse, see here.

US Unseals 2 Indictments against Huawei Corporate Entities – One for Money Laundering, Obstruction of Justice and Sanctions Violations and Another for Theft of Trade Secrets, Wire Fraud et al

January 29, 2019 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On January 28, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed two indictments against Huawei corporate entities and the Huawei Chief Financial Officer Wanzhou Meng.

In the U.S. Court Eastern District of New York, a 13-count indictment was unsealed, charging four defendants, including Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Huawei), and two Huawei affiliates – Huawei Device USA Inc. (Huawei USA) and Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. (Skycom) as well as Meng.

The indictment alleges that starting in 2007, Huawei employees lied about Huawei’s relationship to a company in Iran called Skycom, and falsely asserting it was not an affiliate of Huawei. The company allegedly claimed that Huawei had only limited operations in Iran and that Huawei did not violate U.S. or other laws or regulations concerning Iran. Even after the media reported in late 2012 and 2013 disclosed that Huawei operated Skycom as an unofficial affiliate in Iran and that Meng had served on the board of directors of Skycom, Huawei employees, and especially Meng, falsely claimed that Huawei had sold its interest in Skycom to an unrelated third party in 2007 and that Skycom was only Huawei’s local business partner in Iran. In reality, the indictment alleges Skycom was Huawei’s longstanding Iranian affiliate, and Huawei initiated the 2007 sale to appear as an arm’s length transaction between two unrelated parties, when Huawei actually controlled the company that bought Skycom.

The indictment charges that, in reliance of Huawei’s misrepresentation, U.S. banks continued their banking relationships with Huawei in violation of the Iran sanctions. One bank cleared more than $100 million worth of Skycom-related transactions through the U.S. between 2010 and 2014.

The indictment charges that Huawei and its principals repeatedly lied to U.S. government authorities on Huawei’s business in Iran.

In 2017, when Huawei became aware of the government’s investigation, Huawei and Huawei USA allegedly tried to obstruct the investigation by moving witnesses with knowledge about Huawei’s Iran-based business to the PRC, and by concealing and destroying evidence of Huawei’s Iran-based business that was located in the U.S.

In December 2018, Canadian authorities detained Meng in Vancouver pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant issued under Canadian law. The U.S. government is seeking Meng’s extradition to the U.S.

Indictment against Huawei Corporate Entities for Stealing Trade Secret Technology

On January 28, 2019, a 10-count indictment was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, charging Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device Co. USA with theft of trade secrets conspiracy, attempted theft of trade secrets, seven counts of wire fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice. On January 16, a grand jury returned the indictment, detailing Huawei’s efforts to steal trade secrets from Bellevue, Washington based T-Mobile USA and then obstruct justice when T-Mobile threatened to sue Huawei in U.S. District Court in Seattle. The alleged conduct occurred from 2012 to 2014, and includes an internal Huawei announcement that the company was offering bonuses to employees who succeeded in stealing confidential information from other companies.

The FBI obtained emails revealing that in July 2013, Huawei offered bonuses to employees based on the value of information they stole from other companies around the world, and provided to Huawei through an encrypted email address.

The unsealing of the indictments occurs at a critical time, since the U.S. had until January 30 to send to Canada its formal extradition request for Meng. The unsealing of the indictments occurs during intensive trade negotiations between the U.S. and China over tariffs. Among the controversial issues are U.S. complaints about China’s theft of trade secrets and violations of U.S. sanctions.

Oregon Senators introduce Bills to Counter Foreign Embassies and Consulates Helping Nationals Flee U.S. Justice

January 28, 2019 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On January 25, 2019, Oregon’s Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden introduced two bills that would impose significant consequences on foreign consulates that help their citizens escape legal accountability within the U.S.

Merkley and Wyden’s legislation follows investigative reporting by the Oregonian that found Saudi consular officials within the U.S. helped Abdulrahmeen Sameer Noorah, a Saudi national, escape the U.S. soon before his trial. Noorah was charged with manslaughter, felony hit-and-run, and reckless driving after fatally striking an Oregon teen with his car. A Saudi consulate posted $100,000 bail for Noorah before he escaped, and the U.S. Marshalls Service suspects Saudi officials helped Noorah escape the country on a private flight.

In addition to the Noorah case, the Saudi government is alleged to have helped at least four other Saudi nationals charged with serious crimes evade accountability in Oregon. Reportedly, the Saudi government bailed out Ali Hussain Alhamoud, a Saudi national, from Lincoln County Jail in 2012 after he was indicted on multiple sex crime charges. Alhamoud subsequently fled successfully to Saudi Arabia, and his case remains open in the United States. The Saudi consulate in Los Angeles posted bond for Saudi nationals in two of the three other known cases where Saudi nationals fled prosecution.

The first bill being introduced today, the ESCAPE (Examining Saudi Consular Activities Promoting Extraction) of Saudi Nationals Act, would:

“Urge the President to declare any Saudi diplomat involved in the extraction of Noorah or Alhamoud as a persona non-grata, which would trigger their expulsion from the United States.

Urge the State Department not to accredit any Saudi diplomat at the Los Angeles Consulate until those two fugitives are returned to the United States.

Require the State Department, in coordination with the U.S. Attorney General, to deliver a report within 90 days investigating any involvement of the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles in aiding the disappearance of Noorah and Alhamoud.

Amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to require the State Department to shut down any consulate or embassy in the United States that is found to have aided in the removal of one of its citizens in order to evade criminal accountability, provided Saudi diplomats found to have aided such a removal are not expelled from the United States.”

The second bill, the Preserving American Justice Act, would:

“Charge the Department of Justice with maintaining an annual report about foreign nationals who flee before facing justice in the United States. Currently, no agency formally tracks this information.

Require the Director of National Intelligence to maintain a list of countries that facilitate the escape of foreign nationals.

If Department of Justice determines that the Saudi government assisted any alleged criminal in escaping justice in the United States, the bill would prohibit the issuance of all visas and travel to the United States to the following groups of Saudi nationals: the Council of Ministers, their respective families, King Salman, all of his direct descendants and full-relatives.

Create a tax penalty for any countries that land on such a list, removing a tax exemption that foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds are able to access on certain types of investment income. This penalty could significantly impact the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, which is estimated at near $400 billion.”

The press release also refers to the need for accountability on the murder of former Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi,

European Court of Human Rights Orders Italy to Pay Damages to Amanda Knox

January 25, 2019 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On January 24, 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment, awarding €18,400 to Amanda Knox, a U.S. national and former student who spent years in detention in Italy after her conviction in connection with the murder of her flatmate.[

The Court’s press release explains that in the case of Knox v. Italy (application no. 76577/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, in her favor on three of the four issues.

Ms Knox was born in 1987 and at the time of the events was 20 years old. She had lived in Perugia (Italy) for about two months as a foreign student. She had a temporary job in a pub run by D.L. She had been dating Raffaele Sollecito, her boyfriend, for two weeks.

On November 2, 2007, at approximately 12:30 p.m., the police went to Ms. Knox’s flat and found Ms. Knox there together with Sollecito, who had called the policy to inform them that he had found a broken window and traces of blood in the flat. The police forced open the door of the bedroom of Meredith Kercher, the flatmate of Ms. Knox. Kercher was a British student on a university exchange. The police discovered her body with her throat slit. There were indications of sexual assault.

On November 6, 2007, the police interviewed Ms. Knox at 1:45 am and 5:45 am and she accused the bar manager of the offenses. On the same day the public prosecutor ordered the arrest of Know, Sollecito, and the bar manager, charging them with sexual assault and the murder. They were remanded in custody, but the bar manager was released two weeks later after providing an alibi. In May 2008, Knox was charged with making a malicious accusation against the bar manager.

On December 2009, the Assize Court convicted Knox and Sollecito for involvement in sexual assault and murder. Knox was also convicted for making a malicious accusation. Knox appealed. She alleged that a combination of psychological pressure, exhaustion and ignorance, both of the procedures and of her rights, had led her to make incorrect statements.

On October 3, 2011, the Court of Appeal acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the sexual assault and murder, but upheld Knox’s conviction for malicious accusation. Knox was then released from detention on the same day and left Italy for the U.S. She appealed. The Court of Cassation quashed the acquittal and referred the case back to the Assize Court of Appeal. The latter court sentenced Knox to a prison term of 28 years and 6 months for participating in sexual assault and murder, and an additional term of three years for malicious accusation. Knox appealed. The Court of Cassation acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the murder and sexual assault charges. It observed that conviction for malicious accusation had already become final and pointed out that the sentence had been a prison term of three years.

Additional criminal proceedings were brought against Knox on another count of malicious accusation, this time for accusing the police officers who interviewed her, among others, of violence and threats against her. She was acquitted on that charged.

On December 16, 2010, the Court of Cassation concluded that Rudy Guede, who was from Ivory Coast and was an acquaintance of Kercher, had been the perpetrator of the murder and sexual assault. He was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment in a final judgment.

A violation of the procedural limb (investigation) of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court held that Ms. Know did not have the benefit of an investigation capable of elucidating the facts and any responsibility and the Italian police mistreated her on November 6, 2007 when they detained her for questioning. Notwithstanding her repeated complaints, the Italian government has not investigated the alleged mistreatment.

A violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3(c) (right to legal assistance)

The Court found that the Italian Government did not succeed in establishing that the right of Ms. Knox’s access to a lawyer, at the police interview of November 6, 2007 at 5:45 a.m., at the time there was a criminal charge against her, had not irreparably undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.

A violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3(e) of the Convention (right to the assistance of an interpreter)

The Court held that the authorities had failed to assess the conduct of the interpreter (who had seen herself as a mediator and had adopted a motherly attitude towards Ms. Know while the latter was formulating her statement), to examine whether her interpreting assistance had been consistent with the safeguards under Article 6 §§1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, or to consider whether that conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against Ms. Knox. The Court believes that the initial failure had had adverse impact for other rights and had undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.

No violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.

The Court found that it did not have any evidence to establish that Ms. Knox had been subject to inhuman or degrading treatment of which she complained.

Italy has three months to appeal. The case shows the important role of the European Court of Human Rights as a final arbiter of criminal cases and international human rights allegations.

[1] A text of the decision available at present only in French is at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#.

[2] European Court of Human Rights, Judgment concerning criminal proceedings leading to the conviction of Amanda Knox for malicious accusation, ECHR 028 (2019), Press Release, Jan. 24, 2019.