The US UK extradition treaty is a product of post 9/11 and comically imbalanced as persons may be extradited from the UK to the US for crimes committed in the UK which would be a crime in the US but not the opposite. See further: https://www.stokoepartnership.com/bambos-tsiattalou-discusse...
A US person can be federally charged for violating a foreign law while overseas. The example used when I read of this was a guy convicted for wrapping lobsters for shipment in Nicaragua in wax paper instead of a bag (or something along those lines).
It was very strange because the violation in Nicaragua was a misdemeanor, but the US law for committing a crime is a felony.
Maybe I am getting this wrong but that is not the opposite.
I think OP said: An UK citizen can be extradicted from the UK to the US just by having done a thing that it is illegal in the US but not in the UK.
You said: An US citizen can be charged in the US if he committed a crime abroad even if that thing is not typified as illegal in the US.
Wake me up when an US citizen is extradicted to the UK because he did something perfectly legal in Washington but which is considered a crime in London.
>Wake me up when an US citizen is extradicted to the UK because he did something perfectly legal in Washington but which is considered a crime in London.
If it were the case, I suppose tens of millions of US people could be extradited that way given the differences in free speech laws - a lot of what is said in US is probably a crime [IANAL] in UK :)
He also provided 0 citations to people being extradited from the UK for a crime in the US that isn't a crime in the UK. Reading the actual content of the agreement in question I can't find anything remotely close to that text in it.
I think it must be difficult to find something that fits that distinction out of all major cases, basically the things that are illegal and not misdemeanors in one western democracy are probably illegal in the others - the only thing that jumps to mind are laws related to fascism in Germany.
That sounds like the lobster seller was charged under the notoriously broad Lacy Act, which I have heard most often in arguments that is is impossible to be cognizant of everything that is illegal in the US, since this law roughly imports foreign laws. My understanding is it makes it a federal crime to trade in wildlife or plants that are illegal under the laws of a state, a Native American tribe, or any foreign law.
But it is limited to trade of plants and animals, not meant as a general extradition agreement or to import _all_ foreign laws.
And not just living plants, but also (quite dead) wood and products derived from wood, apparently especially if the CEO donated to the opposing political party (the GOP):
Apart from being poorly OCR'd, this article espouses a conspiracy theory that the actual facts on the ground just don't support. Gibson violated U.S. Customs law by accepting shipments of wood that they knew were mislabeled at the port of entry [1].
Both Martin and Taylor ran far, far away from this scheme.
Gibson absolutely deserved the whacking they got.
You can get around these problems in a legal way and be somewhat responsible. Taylor, famously, bought all the ebony stands in the world and promised to buy all ebony at the same price because the local population were cutting down rare ebony trees and leaving them to rot if they didn't have black heartwood. This, of course, creates a monopoly which is its own problem ... however, any solution you come up with has to take into account that the locals will destroy the extremely rare ebony trees for absurdly small (to us) amounts of money.
You can work within the legal frameworks, and Gibson has more than enough staff to be able to comply. Gibson isn't some tiny company that unjustly trod by the government. Had you or I done this, we would be rotting in jail. Gibson merely got a fine and even got its wood back.
"At one point in the saga, Juszkiewicz was told by government agents he could make his problems go away if he used foreign labor for manufacturing."
Wow--
(I do get we should not be importing endangered s pieces of wood. This seems like someone overreacted? I guess the moral of the story is don't play around with the feds?)
> I do get we should not be importing endangered s pieces of wood. This seems like someone overreacted?
Exotic wood is in many ways like conflict diamonds. It funds some quite horrible people who will denude a country of its exotic wood if allowed--we have seen this in action already.
Enforcement is far easier on the US side than on the origin side--which is normally some corrupt as hell dictatorship with people who are brutally poor.
