-1

Let us look at the following links:

These links show that London is a safe haven for foreign fraudsters and corrupt politicians.

Why is it possible for them to do commit frauds in their respective countries, flee to London, and live there safely for years?

I would also, humbly, like to ask an optional supplementary question: Is this the same possible in the USA or France (the other two permanent members of UNSC from the west)?

2
  • 3
    While I think there's a question here, it may be more helpful if you added an elaborating quote citing a pattern in your actual question. Such claims are actually made in the third and last reference you cite. While they also give some answers, I understand you might be looking for a more academic look into the question. You may want to phrase it in a way that you're looking for academic studies into the question. For example, they are probably more inclined to use metrics to compare the UK with other countries and their work will be under more scrutiny.
    – JJJ
    Sep 26 '20 at 5:43
  • 2
    I see multiple questions here. One is about money laudering in London. A second is about immigration from South Asian to the UK, and the third is about the system for extradition.
    – James K
    Sep 26 '20 at 6:02
3

Most countries go through extradition procedures before they hand a suspect over to another country. The alternative is to try them under universal jurisdiction, but that generally requires some interest in the prosecution of the case. The UK does claim universal jurisdiction on some fraud committed abroad.

  • Extradition requires an extradition request to be made. Nothing happens before that.
  • For some countries, including India, HM government must approve the request before it is passed to the legal system.
  • Extradition requires that the suspect will get a fair trial, as the UK defines it.
  • The suspect can challenge extradition in UK courts. Obviously wealth allows the suspect to hire skilled lawyers for the challenge who might be able to drag things out.
  • The suspect may be granted bail during the extradition proceedings.

So either they are living safely because no extradition request was made yet, or they are undergoing extradition proceedings (and thus not living safely), or the extradition request failed.

4
  • what is the definition of a fair trial according to the UK?
    – user366312
    Sep 26 '20 at 13:09
  • @user366312, I'm not sure if there is an exhaustive list. Very different legal systems can qualify.
    – o.m.
    Sep 26 '20 at 13:25
  • I think there is usually a requirement that to extradite a person, the alleged offense has to be a crime in the country they're being extradited from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… So perhaps these "frauds" weren't crimes under British law.
    – jamesqf
    Sep 26 '20 at 16:56
  • This answer is perfectly reasonable. I also thought though that normally extradition only occured when there was an extradition treaty in place. And usually the qualifications for extradition are rigidly defined and are for crimes of very specific nature and/or severity. So another possibility may be that the crimes that some of these individuals have committed (or are accused of) simply are not covered in the extradition treaty with the country in question. Obviously, if there is no treaty in place, there is likely to not be any extradition of any kind.
    – ouflak
    Sep 27 '20 at 9:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .