This paper examines the evidentiary thresholds that create bottlenecks in international extradition procedures for financial crimes. Despite globalization and international cooperation frameworks, significant delays and denials occur when evidence presented for extradition does not meet the stringent standards required by different jurisdictions. This paper identifies how differing evidentiary standards particularly the “probable cause” v. “reasonable grounds” distinction, impede timely extradition of financial crime defendants. The paper concludes that harmonizing evidentiary thresholds through multilateral agreements could substantially improve enforcement efficiency while maintaining due process protections.
The Exordium
The globalisation of financial markets and the sophistication of cross border financial crimes have necessitated increasingly robust international cooperation mechanisms. Yet, despite decades of multilateral agreements, mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), and international law enforcement coordination, the extraditionprocess for financial crime defendants remains plagued by delays and denials.
Central to this dysfunction is the evidentiary bottleneck, a phenomenon wherein evidence sufficient under one jurisdiction’s legal standards fails to meet the threshold required by another. The case of Raj Rajaratnam illustrates this challenge. Though ultimately extradited from India for securities fraud, the proceedings consumed nearly two years and required multiple diplomatic interventions. Similarly,the extradition battles over White-Collar defendants have highlighted the tension between common law and civil law traditions in defining what constitutes sufficient evidence of criminality.
This paper investigates the structural and procedural barriers that create these bottlenecks, with particular emphasis on how differing evidentiary standards impede the extradition of financial crime defendants.