The Government of the United States of America v Navinder Singh Sarao
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 2016 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court |
| Subject Matter | Criminal |
IN THE WESTMINTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- V –
NAVINDER SINGH SARAO
___________________________________________________________________________
Ruling of District Judge Purdy dated 23/3/16. Extradition Act 2003.
Issues: (i) Extradition Offence: S.137. (ii) Forum: S.83A. (iii) Private & family life:
S.87 (3) & Article 8 & (iv) abuse of process i.e. an allegedly wilfully materially
misleading extradition Request by USA. Background: alleged “spoofing” or improper
& dishonest market manipulation of Chicago Mercantile Exchange by adapted
computer software as inter alia contributed to the so called “flash crash” (6/5/10) & an
overall illegal gain of $40 million between 2009-2014.
Advocates: U.S.A.: Mark Summers, Q.C. & Aaron Watkins
Def: James Lewis, Q.C. & Joel Smith
1. Background.
Navinder Sarao is a U.K. born citizen (d.o.b. 14/11/78) now 36 years old and a Requested
Person by virtue of a formal fully certified extradition request from the Government of the
United States of America (hereafter U.S.A.). In essence this is an accusation Request seeking
extradition to face trial for “spoofing” or electronically manipulating the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (C.M.E.) to make very substantial sums as the market either fell or
climbed following alleged manipulation to the tune of some $40 million (U.S.); although the
express period of the charges (as sample counts only) runs from January 2009 – April 2014
and alleges $8.9m illegal gains from improper market manipulation or “spoofing”. In short
the Defence contend all conduct was lawful with every transaction facing the usual market
risks which could, and sometimes did, lead to loss not profit. I pause to stress guilt or
innocence is not for this court, exercising the extradition jurisdiction, to determine. Only a
trial court, hearing all the evidence, is equipped to determine guilt or innocence. This court
therefore expresses no view on guilt/innocence and nothing herein should be taken to suggest
a view. Additionally I note this case has attracted much publicity under the banner headlines
of involvement in the “flash crash” which occurred on 6/5/10 and resulted in a significant
1
To continue reading
Request your trial