Vancouver, British Columbia — July 24, 2025 — Amicus International Consulting, a global authority in cross-border legal strategy, legal identity transformation, and second citizenship services, presents a comprehensive analysis of one of the most persistent obstacles in international law enforcement: the principle of dual criminality and the resulting delays it often causes in extradition cases. Titled “Dual Criminality and Delays: Legal Challenges in Extradition Cases,” this report unpacks how extradition, despite being governed by a web of treaties and conventions, frequently stalls due to differences in legal systems, definitions of crime, and judicial interpretation across borders.
In a world with increasingly interconnected criminal networks, digital offences, and political prosecutions, the dual criminality requirement — where a crime must be recognized in both the requesting and requested state — is both a safeguard and a source of significant legal friction. This press release examines the practical implications of this doctrine, presents real-world case studies, and discusses how legal systems and governments are adapting to these challenges in 2025.
Understanding Dual Criminality: A Foundational Principle
The doctrine of dual criminality requires that the offence for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime in both the requesting country and the country being asked to surrender the accused. It is one of the fundamental requirements of most bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties, existing to protect individuals from being prosecuted for acts that are not recognized as criminal under the laws of their current jurisdiction.
Key points of dual criminality include:
The crime must be substantially similar in definition and legal elements
The offence must carry a penalty typically defined by treaty (often more than one year of imprisonment)
Differences in classification (felony vs. misdemeanour, for example) may still satisfy the requirement if the core behaviour is criminal in both states
Case Study: Financial Fraud Between the U.K. and the United Arab Emirates
In 2022, British authorities sought the extradition of a UAE businessman accused of embezzling £4.7 million through a London-based shell company. While embezzlement is a criminal offence in both jurisdictions, the UAE initially refused to extradite him, claiming the offence was considered a “civil-commercial dispute” under Emirati law. After 14 months of negotiations and the submission of supplemental evidence, the UAE reclassified the offence, and extradition was approved. This case illustrated how interpretive differences in legal codes can cause substantial delays even when dual criminality appears evident.
When Dual Criminality Fails: Legal Roadblocks and Denials
Not all cases resolve with cooperation. Extradition is often denied or delayed outright when legal standards diverge, such as:
Political crimes: One country may view the offence as criminal while the other sees it as protected speech or political activity
Religious or moral laws: Blasphemy, adultery, or apostasy may be criminal in one country but legal in another
Cybercrimes: Emerging digital offences like “online sedition” or “data nationalism” may not be universally recognized
Drug offences: Jurisdictions vary widely on cannabis-related charges, causing frequent complications
Military offences: Draft evasion or desertion may not be considered extraditable by civilian courts
Case Study: Blasphemy Charges and Extradition Refusal in France
In 2021, a Pakistani cleric sought the extradition of an asylum seeker residing in France, alleging the individual had defamed religious figures on social media. French courts denied the request, citing that the alleged offence was not a crime under French law and thus did not meet the threshold of dual criminality. The individual remained protected under France’s laws regarding freedom of expression.
Delays in Extradition: Legal Maneuvers or Justice Denied?
Even when dual criminality is eventually acknowledged, extradition proceedings are often delayed by:
Lengthy judicial reviews and appeals by defence counsel
Multiple layers of government approval, including ministries of justice and foreign affairs
Requests for additional documentation or clarifications
Claims of political motivation or human rights violations
Complexities of multilingual translation and record authentication
While delays protect individuals from rushed or unjust prosecution, they also frustrate victims, erode public trust, and in some cases, allow fugitives to abscond altogether.
Case Study: The Russian Hacker in Germany
In 2019, a Russian national accused of cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure was arrested in Berlin. Despite a U.S. extradition request, the process took over 18 months due to repeated legal challenges. Defence attorneys argued that the alleged offence — unauthorized access to digital infrastructure — was not criminalized in Germany in the same form. Following revisions to German law and additional evidence from U.S. authorities, the extradition was finally approved in 2021. The delay, while procedurally justified, allowed accomplices to erase digital trails and avoid prosecution.
The Role of the Judiciary in Dual Criminality Interpretation
Courts are often tasked with interpreting whether an act constitutes a crime “in substance,” even if legal terminology differs. This requires a comparative legal analysis that may include:
Legislative intent and policy goals
Case law in both jurisdictions
International legal definitions, particularly in cybercrime, terrorism, and financial fraud
Precedents from human rights courts or regional bodies
Case Study: Comparing Criminal Elements in a Tax Evasion Case
An Australian businessman residing in Portugal was accused of international tax evasion through a series of offshore trusts. While Portugal did not define “willful offshore misreporting” in the same terms, courts determined the core offence — deliberate concealment of taxable income — constituted a crime in both jurisdictions. The judge allowed the extradition, emphasizing substance over semantics.
Impact on Political and Diplomatic Relations
Extradition delays due to disputes over dual criminality can sour bilateral relations, especially when high-profile suspects are involved. Governments may exert political pressure, suspend treaties, or issue diplomatic protests.
Case Study: India-U.K. Tensions Over Financial Fugitive
In the long-running case of Vijay Mallya, India’s extradition request from the U.K. was delayed by multiple appeals, partly grounded in arguments over the nature of “willful loan default.” Although eventually approved, the prolonged process led to political accusations, parliamentary inquiries, and public criticism in India, highlighting the limitations of legal diplomacy.
The Role of Human Rights Protections in Dual Criminality Challenges
Defence attorneys often invoke the principle of non-refoulement — the prohibition against returning someone to a country where they risk torture, unfair trial, or persecution — as a complementary argument when dual criminality is questionable.
Case Study: LGBTQ+ Persecution and Extradition Denial
In 2020, a transgender activist from Central Asia facing “morality charges” under vaguely defined national laws sought asylum in Sweden. Authorities refused extradition because the criminal offence cited did not exist in Sweden and was rooted in discriminatory legislation. The individual received permanent residency under Sweden’s human rights asylum program.
How Amicus International Consulting Navigates Extradition Risks
At Amicus International Consulting, we do not support clients in evading justice. However, we assist those who seek to change their legal identity, obtain second citizenship, or relocate internationally in a manner that is fully compliant with international law and human rights principles.
Our protocols include:
Complete background checks to identify potential legal conflicts
Analysis of extradition treaties before relocation is advised
Counsel on jurisdictions that uphold due process
Legal representation coordination in cases involving disputed criminal definitions
Ethical review of client motivations to avoid assisting fugitives
Best Practices for Governments and Legal Professionals
To streamline extradition and resolve dual criminality disputes fairly, Amicus recommends:
Updating bilateral treaties to reflect modern offences such as cybercrime, financial engineering, and terrorism finance
Using standardized legal glossaries and offence mapping for cross-jurisdictional clarity
Providing judicial training on comparative law interpretation
Instituting time-bound processes to limit procedural abuse
Enhancing diplomatic channels to manage political fallout during delays
Emerging Trends and the Future of Dual Criminality
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are increasingly including detailed offence definitions to reduce ambiguity
Digital harmonization efforts in the EU and ASEAN are creating unified cybercrime standards
Interpol’s Fusion Task Forces are improving real-time evidence sharing to pre-empt dual criminality objections
Private law firms and international NGOs are filing third-party amicus briefs to clarify human rights implications in extradition cases.
Conclusion: Safeguard or Stumbling Block?
The principle of dual criminality was designed to protect citizens from unjust prosecutions and incompatible legal systems. However, as globalization blurs the lines between jurisdictions, this safeguard can become a stumbling block to justice — unless it is reinterpreted to reflect modern realities.
Governments, courts, and legal advisors must strike a balance between upholding sovereignty and civil rights, while ensuring that borders do not become barriers to accountability. At Amicus International Consulting, we remain committed to navigating these complexities with transparency, ethics, and legal precision.
Contact Information
Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.amicusint.ca
