Peter Weinzierl v Government of the United States of America & Anor
| Judge | Lord Justice William,Mr Justice Johnson |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 391 (Admin) |
| Date | 25 February 2025 |
| Counsel | James Lewis Kc,Ben Watson Kc,Ciju Puthuppally,Rosemary Davidson,Richard Evans,Rebecca Hill |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 391 (Admin)
Case Nos: AC-2023-LON-000066 and 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 25 February 2025
Before :
LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
and
MR JUSTICE JOHNSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
PETER WEINZIERL Appellant
- and -
(1)
(2)
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
James Lewis KC, Ben Watson KC and Ciju Puthuppally (instructed by Devonshires LLP) for the Appellant
Rosemary Davidson and Richard Evans (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the First Respondent
Rebecca Hill (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates: 3-6 December 2024
Application and further written submissions: 13 and 24 January 2025 and 4 February 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down by release to The National Archives on 25 February 2025 at
10.30am.
Approved Judgment Weinzierl v USA
Lord Justice William Davis and Mr Justice Johnson:
1. This is the judgment of the court.
2. The first respondent (who we refer to as “the respondent”) alleges that the appellant
committed money laundering offences. It seeks his extradition to the United States of
America. The appellant opposes extradition on grounds that the request is an abuse of
rejected the appellant’s arguments and sent the case to the second respondent (to
whom we refer as “the Secretary of State”). The Secretary of State ordered the
appellant’s extradition. The appellant appeals against the decision of the judge and the
decision of the Secretary of State. He also applies to adduce fresh evidence on the
appeal.
3. The grounds of appeal raise these issues:
Whether the judge’s decision to send the case to the Secretary of State was wrong
because:
(1) The judgment was taken directly from the respondent’s submissions.
(2) The extradition request is an abuse of process.
(3) The extradition request is not sufficiently particularised.
(4) There is no extradition offence.
(5) Extradition is barred by the passage of time.
(6) Extradition is incompatible with article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (“ECHR”).
(7) Extradition is barred because of the appellant’s physical or mental condition.
(8) Extradition is incompatible with article 8 ECHR.
And whether the Secretary of State’s decision to extradite the appellant was wrong
because:
(9) Extradition is barred by inadequate specialty protection.
4. On behalf of the appellant, James Lewis KC advanced grounds (1) – (4), Ben Watson
KC advanced grounds (6) – (8) and Ciju Puthuppally advanced ground (9). Rosemary
Davidson responded to grounds (1) – (8) on behalf of the respondent. Rebecca Hill
responded to ground (9) on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The background
The appellant
5. The appellant is a citizen of Austria. He was born in 1965 and is now 59 years old. He
has two sisters. He married for a second time in March 2024, his previous marriage
Approved Judgment Weinzierl v USA
having ended in 2017. He does not have children but has a stepson who is at
university in the Netherlands. He is a trained lawyer and economist, with degrees
from both Austrian and American universities. He has worked in the finance industry
since completing further education, mostly within corporate finance in small private
banks. He is a former board member of Meinl Bank AG in Austria (referred to by the
respondent as “Foreign Bank 1”) and Meinl Bank Antigua in Antigua and Barbuda
(referred to as “Foreign Bank 2”). In 2021, the appellant lived in Russia but travelled
regularly to London. He is a man of good character.
The indictment
6. On 18 September 2020, a grand jury in New York returned an indictment charging the
appellant with 4 federal criminal offences: conspiracy to commit money laundering
(count 1), international promotional money laundering (counts 2 and 3) and money
laundering spending (count 4).
7. The allegations set out in the indictment are that:
Count 1 (conspiracy to commit money laundering): “In or
about and between 2006 and 2016, both dates being
approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New
York and elsewhere, the defendants… together with others, did
knowingly and intentionally conspire to commit offenses under
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956, and 1957, to wit:
(a) to transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport,
transmit and transfer monetary instruments and funds from a
place in the United States to and through a place outside the
United States and to a place in the United States from and
through a place outside the United States with the intent to
promote the carrying on of one or more specified unlawful
StatesCode, Section 1343; (ii) an offense against a foreign
nation involving bribery of a public official, in violation of
Panama’s Penal Code; (iii) an offense against a foreign nation
involving bribery of a public official, in violation of Mexico’s
Penal Code; and (iv) an offense against a foreign nation
involving bribery of a public official, in violation of Brazil’s
Penal Code, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section
1956(a)(2)(A);
(b) to conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions
involving the proceeds of one or more specified unlawful
States Code, Section 1343; and (ii) international promotional
money laundering, in violation of Title 18,United States Code,
Section 1956(a)(2)(A), knowing that the property involved
represented proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and
knowing that the transaction was designed in whole and in part
to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership
and control of the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity;
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting