Extradition
| Pages | 7-8 |
7
international law update Volume 19, January–March 2013
© 2013 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
bring a forfeiture action under the statutory scheme
once this litigation has concluded, Gov’t Br. at 43.
ere, it hardly need be said, the basics of due
process require that the Guild be given a chance to
contest the government’s detention of its property.”
[Slip op. 22]
: Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, No. 11-2012 (4th Cir.
October 22, 2012).
EXTRADITION
R E R
A, F C “
”
A; C
’ -
’ ; C
,
’
In December 2006, Tanci Issa Balzan allegedly
swindled an Argentina fashion designer, Ruben
Gonzalez, out of several clothing items and designs,
in violation of the Argentine Criminal Code.
According to the charging documents, Balzan
pretended to represent an investor who would
purchase 49% of the fashion designer’s business for
$50,000. Balzan took from the fashion designer
four dresses, four bags, two jackets, a shirt and ten
folders with sketches of designs to deliver them
to the investor, who would then deposit the rst
installment of the investment. e investor money
never came, and Balzan disappeared.
In March 2010, Argentina requested Balzan’s
extradition from the U.S. In October 2010, the U.S.
led a complaint under 18 U.S.C. Section 3184 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, requesting the court to certify Balzan as
extraditable.
e Extradition Treaty Between the United States
of America and Argentine Republic (U.S.-Argentina,
June 10, 1997, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-18, available
at www.state.gov/documents/organization/101677.
pdf) has a “dual criminality” requirement. Article 2
provides that “[a]n oense shall be an extraditable
oense if it is punishable under the laws of both
Parties by deprivation of liberty for a maximum
period of more than one year or by a more severe
penalty.”
e complaint alleged that Balzan’s conduct is
punishable by more than one year of imprisonment
in both the U.S. and Argentina. Under Texas Penal
Code Section 31.03, a theft is punishable with more
than one year’s imprisonment if the value of the
property obtained is at least $1,500. A magistrate
judge issued an order of certication and committal
for extradition. e U.S. District Court adopted the
opinion of the Magistrate Judge.
Balzan led for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing
that his alleged fraud is not an extraditable oense
because the government failed to establish the value
of the goods he obtained unlawfully. A dierent
magistrate judge recommended to deny the habeas
petition, and the District Court adopted the report.
Balzan appeals.
e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
arms because the competent evidence presented
supported the determination that Balzan committed
an oense within the scope of the Extradition Treaty.
e Court’s review is very narrow in this case. It
only asks whether any competent evidence tends to
support the magistrate’s probable-cause assessment
of the goods’ value.
“e evidentiary rules governing ordinary
civil and criminal trials do not control what may
be admitted in an extradition hearing. Under 18
U.S.C. § 3190, a properly authenticated document
is admissible at such a hearing. Consequently,
authenticated documents may serve as competent
evidence in support of a magistrate’s determination.”
“e magistrate who conducted the extradition
hearing found that ‘[t]he Government of
Argentina submitted documents that were properly
authenticated and certied.’ She relied on those
To continue reading
Request your trial