Autonomy founder Lynch scores extradition decision delay as Home Sec ponders sending him to US

Home Secretary Priti Patel has granted Autonomy founder Mike Lynch a two month grace period on the decision to extradite him, according to reports. Lynch's waiting period to see if Patel will order his extradition to stand trial on criminal charges in the US will now end on 29 November, the Daily Telegraph reported. I just …

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Home Secretary would like to remind the US that extradition works both ways, and that if they really would like Mr Lynch to be sent to America, a certain Mrs Sacoolas should be extradited for the much more serious crime of killing a person, No?

Of course not, that would require a spine and for the "special" relationship to not be "special" in the abusive sense of the word...

[UCAP]

One thing that not many people are aware of is that while the UK ratified the extradition treaty with the US, the US Congress flatly refused to ratify it back. So we are stuck with an treaty that one party insists you stick to while at the same time saying that they have no obligations to do so themselves.

[Headley_Grange]

Ratification

@UCAP

According to the treaty on the gov.uk site

"[Instruments of Ratification were exchanged on 26 April 2007 and the Treaty entered into force on 26 April 2007]"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf

[oiseau]

... and for the "special" relationship...

By "special" you mean getting fucked shafted?

... to not be "special".

You mean so willingly?

O.

[Anonymous Coward]

The cases are different as night and day. Even if they weren't, justice doesn't work by swapping. Each case should be judged on it's own merit.

Do I believe Lynch is at a disadvantage in the US? Yes, based on other cases which provide circumstantial evidence. E.g., that German car executive arrested for vacationing in Florida - I can't believe that would ever happen to a US executive.

However, Lynch has been evaluated by a British court, and was eviscerated. It's foolish to pretend the British judge must be under the thumb of the US hegemony. Rather, be thankful that British courts are among the fairest in world. Lynch made some bad choices - and he should pay the price - in Britain.

[Alan Johnson]

Lynch him

"However, Lynch has been evaluated by a British court, and was eviscerated."

Lynch's arguments againest extradition has been eviscerated. The civil case against him for fraud has yet to reach a judgement after an immense delay and this suggest at the very least that the case against him for fraud is weak. If it is difficult to prove to a standard of balance of probabilities then there shoudl be little or no prospect of proving it to a criminal standard. The unfortunate reality is the US criminal justice system is intrinsically unjust and corrupt in the system of plea bargaining and immunities in return for testimony. The venue is clearly inappropriate and unfair, a UK citizen, running a UK company operating in the UK under UK accounting rules, that sold shares within the UK is brought before a US court for these actiosn within the UK. This alone is grossly unfair and puts the defendant at a severe disadvantage. The case is clearly a charade designed to obscure the abject incompetence, financial negligence and childish misjudgements which caused them to lose vast amounts of money.

There is a very real chace that Lynch could be found not to have committed fraud or only to have committed very insignificant and minor fraud to a statndard of the balance of probabilities while being found guilty of serious widespread fraud in the US to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This will just highlight quite who mush cof a sham teh US courts are in a case like this. Sushovan Hussain has already been convicted for little more than refusing demands from the prosecutors to perjure himself and accuse Lynch of fraud.

An extradition treaty should not be a tool for venue shopping in order to secure convictions that could not be secured where the alleged crimes were committed.

[Henry Wertz 1]

Re: Lynch him

The case is a bit weak. The accounting was very shady, things like using prepayments for a year (or even 5 years) service contract to cover losses in 1 quarter (so that quarter looks ok but the 5 year contract would then show 0 income for the other 19 quarters...) Shady but not actually illegal at the time. Apparently it was evident on the books that this was happening, and Autonomy officials were not making statements one way or the other about their financial condition. HP got some warnings of irregular accounting at the time and just ignored them and bought Autonomy anyway.

This may still be fraud but that's why the case is dragging so long, the accounting was shady but legal and there is no smoking gun "they said this and it was false."

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Perhaps the Home Secretary would like to remind the US that extradition works both ways

Dream on. The UK's role in this relationship is one of subservience. Just do what you are told to do.

[RegGuy1]

Global Britain. :-)

[Peter D]

Quid Pro Quo

Ms Patel should lt it be known the US can have him if it drops all charges against a certain Antipodean journo. She should also start pronouncing the 'G' on the end of gerunds, present participles and verbs in participial clauses. She only does it to look as though she has the common touch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quid Pro Quo

Better still, they can have Assange and leave Lynch alone.

Has Assange still got a visa to allow him to stay in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quid Pro Quo

I thought Priti was all about deporting convicted felons?

[alain williams]

If he goes to the USA

he will almost certainly be found guilty, no matter what the facts are.

[oiseau]

Re: If he goes to the USA

... certainly be found guilty, no matter what the facts are.

Indeed.

I have been for a long time convinced that the ... longest cross-examinations in modern English legal history ... are not because this is a complex case.

Far from it.

To me it is clear cut: HP screwed up and now needs a fall guy to make up for the US$ 6.6 billion of shareholder money they proactively insisted to flush down the loo.

It has been carried out in this manner ie: ... record for the longest wait for judgment... so that Lynch gets effectively extradited before judgement is handed down.

Once he is in one of those comfortable prisons the US is notorious for, he can then be found to be innocent (which I am quite sure he is) but as ... the extradition proceedings have overtaken the civil trial ... it will be rendered irrelevant.

All this is absolutely outrageous and sets a very bad example internationally.

If this happens in the UK, what can you expect elsewhere?

O.

[Franco]

Re: If he goes to the USA

Been saying this all along, it's protectionism. HP fucked up royally but can't admit that, so look for Johnny Foreigner to blame.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If he goes to the USA

Actually, a friend of a friend was involved in one of the recent banking scandals (not LIBOR, but similar). As I understand it he was promoted sideways into a new role and 4 weeks later the team were charged with fixing the market - he clearly had no idea and had quite possibly been rotated in to take the fall.

Short version is he fought extradition for a long time on the same presumption, that there's no justice to be had for a european banker in the US. His former employer didn't support him financially in this so he eventually ran out of money to fight it, was extradited, got to court and was promptly acquitted.

He's back in the UK, considerably wiser and no longer working in finance. So it doesn't always go the way you expect it to.

[Ashto5]

Re: If he goes to the USA

And probably broke ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If he goes to the USA

Broker then he was.As I recall he stopped fighting when the next step was sell the house. Not a great option with a young family.

[amanfromMars 1]

Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand?

Don't you recognise an old fashioned witch-hunt for a scapegoat whenever you see it ..... and similarly purple in the shades of Assange.

England expects ...... UKGBNI HM Gov to grow a pair and advise Uncle Sam .... Thanks but No Thanks ..... for the consequences of abject capitulations are guaranteed to be dire and quickly self-defeating in this postmodern internetworking age which suffers not the slings and arrows of misfortunes nor the deeds of the worthily dispossessed and vainly possessed.

[Ashto5]

No Extradition

No extradition until the USA killer lady is returned for trial to the UK

Grow some and stand up to Biden

[jim.warwick]

It's a game of chicken...

It's ridiculous that we haven't got a verdict in the civil case yet and it feels like Priti Patel is now engaged in a game of chicken with the civil trial judge Mr Justice Hildyard.

Who's going to blink first? Priti with the extradition ruling (which should be a rubber stamp by the rules), or Hildyard with the civil case outcome?

I guess Priti's gamble is that Lynch is found (to some extent) guilty in the civil trial, and then the extradition is politically easy for her.

...not so easy if he's found not guilty though - particularly since it's a balance of probability test.

Sadly, this is now all to do with politics and UK/US relations rather than anything to do with justice.

[Peter2]

Re: It's a game of chicken...

I'd be inclined to state that if he is extradited will depend on the outcome of the civil case, and then just continue delaying the extradition until that case is resolved.

Obviously if he wins the civil case in the UK then on the balance of probabilities then he has no case to answer in the USA.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: It's a game of chicken...

Even if he wins the case, I'm not sure that helps with the extradition. Labour under Blair (which was full of lawyers and so should have known better) signed us up to two rubbish extradition treaties. The European Arrest Warrant and the US one. Both don't allow the politicians to stick their oar in. There are almost no grounds for the Home Secretary to get involved and stop it. I suspect even winnning the court case won't be legal grounds to do so, and they'll have to cheat to find a loophole.

Because the Home Secretary is acting in a "quasi-judicial" role when deciding on extradition matters, their decisions are subject to judicial revue. So if they give grounds not to do it that don't meet the law, they can be made to reconsider the decision until they can make up some grounds or other.

Perhaps rinse and repeat taking 6 months per decision and judicial revue, until he's in his 90s then refuse on medical grounds?

[pavel.petrman]

There is a saying...

... that the western way to deal with a disaster of whatever sort is to find a hero and glorify him whereas the eastern way is to find a culprit at any cost and punishhim exemplarily. This case in question is but one example of a long line of affairs exemplifying that the political longitudes are shifting at least as quickly as the geomagnetic north pole.