Extradition

• Pages: 36-37

Page 36

In October 1999, Greece (Petitioner) requested that the U.S. extradite Crystalla Kyriakidou (Respondent). According to the request, Respondent had entered the U.S. using a false passport under the name of Christina Manta. Petitioner sought to extradite Respondent on (1) deceit of especially great damage, by profession and by habit; (2) deceit which caused an especially important damage, in continuation and by habit; (3) continuing deceit against a bank, with damage of more than 5,000,000 drachmas [about $18,000 USD] and committed by a person who acted by profession and by habit and especially dangerous; and (4) fraud by profession and out of habit of particularly great damage.

A California federal court issued an arrest warrant and, on June 30, 2005, authorities provisionally arrested Manta in the belief that she was Kyriakidou. At the extradition hearing, the magistrate judge (MJ) partially granted the government's request for extradition. The MJ concluded that the person before the court, Christina Manta, was Crystalla Kyriakidou, the one Greece sought for extradition. The MJ approved extradition on only two charges: (1) ongoing deceit that caused an especially important damage, and (2) professional and habitual fraud of particularly great damage. The applicable agreements as of January 1, 2007 are Treaty of Extradition and Exchange of Notes, 47 Stat. 2185; T.S. 855; 138 L.N.T.S. 293 (in force, Nov. 1, 1932 ; and Protocol Interpreting Article I of 1931 Treaty, 51 Stat. 2185; E.A.S. 114; 185 L.N.T.S. 408 (in force Sept. 2, 1937).

On one charge, the MJ relied on an investigative report from a Greek Public Prosecutor; it stemmed from testimony from Kiskiras and three other witnesses. For the other charge, the MJ relied on sworn testimony before an Athenian Appeal Court where a witness identified "Manta" as "Kyriakidou." Manta unsuccessfully challenged her extradition by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. Manta now appeals.

Manta raises two objections on appeal. They are (1) that the crime did not fall within the terms of the treaty, and (2) that there no probable cause to believe that Petitioner was the one who had committed the crimes charged. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the habeas petition.

Article I of the [Extradition] Treaty between the U.S. and Greece sets forth the usual 'dual criminality' requirement. Dual criminality exists if the 'essential...