IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF VIVIEN THEN V ROSA MELENDEZ, UNITED STATES MARSHAL IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF VIVIEN THEN

• Date: 01 December 1995
• Citation: (1995) 7 SAcLJ 447
• Published date: 01 December 1995
• Author: Reported by THIO LI-ANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE) — NO C95-06WD

WILLIAM DWYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FEBRUARY 23 1995

International Law—Extradition—Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus—Petition denied—motion for a stay of extradition order—Schedule adopted

In this case, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to review an extradition order. For reasons given in oral judgment, the District Judge Dwyer J denied the petition. A schedule was adopted governing the petitioner’s motion for a stay of the extradition order and for admission to bail. The court ordered that the extradition order be stayed in the interim pending the court’s ruling on the motion for a stay or a decision by the state department. The petitioner was ordered to remain in detention.

William L Dwyer J: For the reasons stated in the oral decision given in open court on February 23, 1995, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

The following schedule is adopted: Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the extradition order pending review by the Court of Appeals and/or granting or denial of relief by the Department of State will be due on March 2, 1995; the government’s response will be due on March 9; and oral argument will be held at 11:00 a.m. on March 10, 1995. Petitioner’s motion for admission to bail will be filed, briefed and argued on the same schedule.

The extradition order is stayed pending the court’s ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal and/or decision by the state department.

Petitioner will remain in detention.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Petition dismissed.

Reported by Thio Li-ann

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE) — NO CR94-576

DAVID E WILSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 DECEMBER 1994

International Law—Extradition—Penal Code offence of cheating—Accused seeking refuge in United States—Extradition request—Whether alleged offence is extradition crime—Criminal Procedure—Conditions for issuing extradition order—Evidence to be considered by magistrate—Rule of identity—Factual allegations and standard of proof of criminality—Sufficient probable cause

International Law—Extradition—State Succession—Existence of valid extradition treaty between United States of America and Republic of Singapore—Whether Singapore succeeded to bilateral United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty (1931) made when Singapore was a British colony—Reciprocal US-Singapore practice of honouring extradition requests—Continuing mutual intention that 1931 treaty is valid and has full effect between United States and Republic of Singapore

The defendant was charged with two counts of cheating under the Penal Code, committed within the territory of Singapore. Between January and March 1993, in alleged colloboration with others, she physically presented two false bills of lading worth US$2 and US$3 million to the United Overseas Bank Ltd., thereby allegedly deceiving the victim Bank who honoured the bills. Subsequently, the defendant fled to the United States after the police contacted her. She was later arrested in the United States for making a false passport application.

Pursuant to a request made by the Government of Singapore the United States, acting on behalf of the former, sought before the United States District Court to extradite the defendant to Singapore to stand trial for the cheating offences. There was no dispute as to the findings of the US Magistrate to the effect that the defendant was in fact the person accused of the charges which were the subject of the extradition request. Furthermore, that the offences charged fell within the ambit of Articles 17, 18,19 and 20 of the extradition treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Singapore and were hence extraditable offences.

The issues involved in this proceeding were twofold:

1. (i) whether a valid extradition treaty existed between the United States of America and the Republic of Singapore

2. (ii) whether the factual allegations set out in the request were supported by probable cause

The defendant argued that no valid extradition treaty existed between the states concerned, since no such treaty had ever been ratified by the United States Senate. Furthermore, the defendant contended it was “doubtful”

currently whether the United States Senate would ratify an extradition treaty...