Ex-Deutsche Bank trader Andreas Hauschild appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 October 2018 having been charged by the Serious Fraud Office with conspiracy to defraud in connection with the manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR). He is accused of conspiring with others between 2005 and 2009 to make illegal profits from manipulating the EURIBOR.
In 2016 the Serious Fraud Office obtained a European Arrest Warrant as Hauschild was resident in Germany and had declined a requisition request to attend at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He was subsequently arrested in Germany on the European Arrest Warrant where he contested his extradition to the UK. The German court refused to order his extradition on the basis that EURIBOR rigging was not an offence at the time it is alleged to have occurred.
If Hauschild had remained in Germany, then there would have been little that the Serious Fraud Office could have done to secure his return to the UK to stand trial. However, he chose not to do this and travelled to Italy some months after the German court had refused to extradite him. A valuable feature of the European Arrest Warrant scheme is that, regardless of whether one country refuses to execute the warrant, it is still in existence in every other EU member state. Thus, by travelling to Italy, Hauschild triggered the European Arrest Warrant, which was still valid in Italy, and was detained. Once again, he challenged the extradition process, however this time the Italian courts ordered his extradition to the UK.
Without the existence of the European Arrest Warrant scheme it would have been extremely difficult for the Serious Fraud Office to secure the extradition of Hauschild. While most of the press coverage of extradition proceedings consists of salacious, and largely inaccurate, stories of fugitives avoiding extradition from the UK due to ‘human rights’, this recent development highlights the value of the European Arrest Warrant scheme in affording the UK the ability to extradite wanted persons to this jurisdictions to stand trial.
Another point of note is that persons subject to extradition proceedings following the execution of a European Arrest Warrant should always be aware that even if they are discharged from extradition proceedings in one jurisdiction, that does not mean that the European Arrest Warrant falls away. It remains in existence unless, and until, it is removed by the court which issued it. It is therefore important to remain in dialogue with the country requesting extradition even after extradition proceedings have concluded.
Ex-Deutsche Bank trader Andreas Hauschild appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 October 2018 having been charged by the Serious Fraud Office with conspiracy to defraud in connection with the manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR). He is accused of conspiring with others between 2005 and 2009 to make illegal profits from manipulating the EURIBOR.
In 2016 the Serious Fraud Office obtained a European Arrest Warrant as Hauschild was resident in Germany and had declined a requisition request to attend at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He was subsequently arrested in Germany on the European Arrest Warrant where he contested his extradition to the UK. The German court refused to order his extradition on the basis that EURIBOR rigging was not an offence at the time it is alleged to have occurred.
If Hauschild had remained in Germany, then there would have been little that the Serious Fraud Office could have done to secure his return to the UK to stand trial. However, he chose not to do this and travelled to Italy some months after the German court had refused to extradite him. A valuable feature of the European Arrest Warrant scheme is that, regardless of whether one country refuses to execute the warrant, it is still in existence in every other EU member state. Thus, by travelling to Italy, Hauschild triggered the European Arrest Warrant, which was still valid in Italy, and was detained. Once again, he challenged the extradition process, however this time the Italian courts ordered his extradition to the UK.
Without the existence of the European Arrest Warrant scheme it would have been extremely difficult for the Serious Fraud Office to secure the extradition of Hauschild. While most of the press coverage of extradition proceedings consists of salacious, and largely inaccurate, stories of fugitives avoiding extradition from the UK due to ‘human rights’, this recent development highlights the value of the European Arrest Warrant scheme in affording the UK the ability to extradite wanted persons to this jurisdictions to stand trial.
Another point of note is that persons subject to extradition proceedings following the execution of a European Arrest Warrant should always be aware that even if they are discharged from extradition proceedings in one jurisdiction, that does not mean that the European Arrest Warrant falls away. It remains in existence unless, and until, it is removed by the court which issued it. It is therefore important to remain in dialogue with the country requesting extradition even after extradition proceedings have concluded.
