
The Supreme Court has recently re-examined the double criminality rule in a judgment that is reckoned to have caused consternation within the US Department of Justice: El-Khouri v Government of the United States of America [2025] 2 WLR 232.
In the current edition of New Law Journal (23rd May 2025), David Walbank KC outlines the key principles to be derived from a ruling that, in the eyes of many, will lead to a welcome reshaping of the extradition landscape and a long overdue rebalancing of the regime as it applies between this country and, in particular, the United States.
Joseph El-Khouri was a dual United Kingdom/Lebanese national resident in the UK. He was suspected of insider dealing. The Financial Conduct Authority had conducted a criminal investigation but decided there was insufficient evidence to charge. However, US prosecutors took a different view. A New York grand jury returned an indictment charging Mr El-Khouri with 17 offences, including securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy, and a request was made for his extradition to the US.
The Supreme Court’s judgment focused on s.137 of the Extradition Act 2003 which, for category 2 territories such as the United States, enshrines the double criminality rule, whereby the conduct forming the basis of the extradition request must constitute a crime under the laws of both the requesting state and the requested state. The central issue for the Supreme Court was whether that provision provided an effective safeguard against a requesting state’s exorbitant claim of extra-territorial jurisdiction by permitting extradition only if the UK would itself claim jurisdiction in corresponding circumstances.
You can read the full article here: [El-Khouri v Government of the United States]
David Walbank KC specialises in defending charges of white-collar crime. He is also the founder and presenter of the video case review website, [www.crimecastlaw.co.uk], on which he has recently launched a new series: ‘The Top 25 Financial Crime Cases of 2024’.