Out of the loop here: Do US courts have jurisdiction over that guy?
Of course, France today has provisions to prosecute someone in France for a crime committed elsewhere, which satisfies their European neighbours for the most part.
This said, a "bad" EU members might well choose to extradite further, once a prisoner is obtained from France. I expect this would trigger appeals at the ECJ and possibly repercussions for the "bad" country, but in the meantime the prisoner might well be gone. I also don't know what the "punishment" would be for a country that refused to execute a valid EAW. I guess this sort of thing is left to ECJ judges.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-co...
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
> unless they take over the execution of the prison sentence against the wanted person
Yes, that bit. France still cannot extradite its citizens, but it can meet its obligations to its partners by prosecuting and incarcerating someone within France.
It just means there is a framework for granting a request.
There are two types list treaties and dual crime. Dual crime means it has to be crime in both countries, list treaty mean applies to only specific lists of crimes
There are other restrictions that could be limiting, some countries won't extradite if the death penality is a possibility, some will not extradite its citizen's but will do visitors or residents etc.
As with all deals, there will be always some other items in play while the treaty was negotiated and signed, recognizing or supporting the other country's claim, trade agreements, tariff reduction etc. Depending on the size of the partner the deal will be favourable or not.
[1] For example Assange is Australian in UK being extradited to the U.S.
The USA just happens to be more aggressive about seeking extradition than most.
The USA has taken an expansionist view to the definition of jurisdiction, particularly for network-related activity. In short, they basically claim jurisdiction everywhere. That's something that very few other countries can realistically try to pull off without people laughing in their face, and its success is entirely due to might.
Very rarely, it does become political.
Only if the infringement is for financial gain, otherwise the infringement is treated as a civil matter. Also, the government must show the act was willful. Whether the infringement is a treated as a misdemeanor or felony is dependent on certain thresholds set in the statute.
During cold war, any kind of suspected "socialism" seemly counted as "something to do with USA" because a bunch of people were thrown out of helicopters (literally) when they couldn't be extradited.
It is a trick to avoid prosecution. When no body is found, it is hard to prove the person is dead and therefore hard to prosecute the perpetrators of the murder.
The only actual limit is if you hide in Russia or China.
And indeed, https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/french-law-prohibits-ext... claims that French law says that France will not extradite its own citizens. And they have written that into every treaty they sign. For example http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/France%20International%20Ext... is the treaty with the USA and it includes:
Article 3(1) declares that neither State has an obligation to extradite its own nationals, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the discretion to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of the person at the time the offense was committed.
Article 3(2) requires a State that refuses an extradition request solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought to submit the case to its authorities for prosecution, if so requested by the Requesting State.
It appears that you are entirely correct!
So let's say person X is wanted in the US. They get Country A to emit a warrant for them, A gets X from France, then extradites X to the US.
Also I think Germany will only extradite to EU countries.
If a Danish customer takes his Danish Krones to the bank and sends them to a supplier in Germany in the form on Euros, the transaction goes like DKK → USD → EUR, so US claims jurisdiction over it and enforces its domestic laws on it:
https://www.icenews.is/2012/03/04/us-confiscates-policemans-...
And it doesn't even have to be an international transaction. Even domestic ones sometime run afoul of this limitation, as this Canadian small business owner found out:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/square-canada-1.53031...
> The power of U.S. sanctions lies in the use of the U.S. dollar in most international transactions. A foreign company that sends its proceeds from trade with Iran through an international bank would likely face sanctions because part of it would be conducted in dollars. An international company with an American employee who has something to do with a transaction, no matter how inconsequential, could also run afoul of U.S. sanctions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-...
I'm so hazy on the details, other than that French nationals were prosecuted for alleged crimes in France because those crimes were denominated in US currency.
Edit: My memory must be wrong - there's a comment below that France will not extradite citizens
The US has tons of soft power in china, russia, etc, but no real influence in either because we have no political/military dominion over them. At least not yet.
Canada is a prime example. Canada has "soft power" in china but still their "citizens/spies" are arrested and they have to beg the US/EU to help free their "citizens/spies" in china. And for all the mocking of Trump that canada loves to do, when trump cracks the whip and tells them to arrest a chinese executive, they do it. It wasn't Trump's "soft power" that made canada jump, that's for sure. It isn't trump's "soft power" that make sweden, britain, etc side with him over china either.
Neither pax americana, pax romana, pax mongolica, etc were built around soft power. Actually the dependence on "soft power" probably signaled the end of pax romana, pax mongolica, etc.
Which prompts the question of whether he has applied for citizenship.
Apparently that is an option for people who have lived in the country for at least 5 years, but it is subject to "good character" requirements and possibly some degree of political consideration, so it may not be enough for him to solely rely on being deemed innocent until proven guilty.
You would think somebody with past convictions for insider trading, credit card fraud, hacking, and embezzlement would be a bit smarter about his next criminal enterprise.
FYI -- Don't locate a data center in the US if plan on breaking US laws.