.1 2 3 4 5 6 JOHN S. GORDON United States Attorney RONALD L. CHENG Assistant United States Attorney Acting Chief, Criminal Division MATTHEW E. SLOAN (Cal. State Bar No. 165165) Assistant United States Attorney 1200 United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2434 Facsimile: (213) 894-2427 7 8 Attorneys for Complainant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9 , ~-, p C~~ r -,., ,-'.., ,-:> ~-1 r '.y::) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 o L- L- L 1- 0 IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF 13 MOGENS AMDI PEDERSEN, 14 A fugitive from the Kingdom of Denmark. 15 No. 17 -0 C>" "-' ellr6~ :,; ,,:, -=; Od-Q3~M I ~g '. ~~ W UNITED STATES' PPOSI~ION TO RELEASE ON BOND I PENDING CONCLUSION OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS Court: 16 ~ '",;_, r. I 12 1'.) : .-" Magistrate Judge Stephe'n J. Hillman Hearing Date: Feb. 22, 2002 Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m. 18 19 Complainant, United States of America, by and through its 20 counsel of record, the United States Attorney, hereby submits 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II II II II II -, 1 2 3 4 5 6 JOHN S. GORDON United States Attorney RONALD L. CHENG Assistant United States Attorney Acting Chief, Criminal Division MATTHEW E. SLOAN (Cal. State Bar No. 165165) Assistant United States Attorney 1200 United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2434 Facsimile: (213) 894 - 2427 7 8 Attorneys for Complainant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ., ~-) r ,.. r: ~ .~ .-" 9 ~ -1 r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 'OJ":) 1'.) FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA :;~~'_ . ~ 11 OL- 12 IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF 13 MOGENS AMDI PEDERSEN, 14 A fugitive from the Kingdom of Denmark. 15 No. '1..'1.)..0 17 v-flfL, C(/f-'.y ~ O~-03-d:-5M I . , . ". \ ~o -o ::J:: .r:·· lpPo~I~ UNITED STATES' TO RELEASE ON BOND I PENDING CONCLUSION OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS Court: 16 ~. " . Magistrate Judge Stephe"n J. Hillman Hearing Date: Feb. 22, 2002 Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m. 18 19 Complainant, United States of America, by and through its 20 counsel of record, the United States Attorney, hereby submits 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II II II II II -: I . 1 2 3 4 5 6 JOHN S. GORDON United States Attorney RONALD L. CHENG Assistant United States Attorney Acting Chief, Criminal Division MATTHEW E. SLOAN (Cal. State Bar No. 165165) Assistant United States Attorney 1200 United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2434 Facsimile: (213) 894-2427 7 8 Attorneys for Complainant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . r-' C'" .-:.., t'; ~~ - ...::. r ...." 9 <- , r- c.~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 , FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALI FORNf A 11 o L- 12 IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF 13 MOGENS AMDI PEDERSEN, 14 A fugitive from the Kingdom of Denmark. 15 No. L- L l- 0 O~-O~M 17 ?;.:....~ . . -, _:, l"-.) '"'D Cilf'.y ~<_ _ ::; -:; I ~g ~ ~~ w UNITED STATES' PPOS~ION TO RELEASE ON BOND I PENDING CONCLUSION OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS Court: 16 er{1 ~ . Magistrate Judge Steph~n J. Hillman Hearing Date: Feb. 22, 2002 Hearing Time: 10:30 a . m. 18 19 Complainant, United States of America, by and through its 20 counsel of record, the United States Attorney, hereby submits 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II II II II II .., 1 its opposition to MOGENS AMDI PEDERSEN's request for release on 2 bond pending extradition. 3 DATED: February 21, 2002 4 Respectfully submitted, JOHN S. GORDON United States Attorney 5 6 7 8 9 10 ;rt' RONALD L. CHENG Assistant United States Attorney Act~/;C't;f, 1 Division / 1()AlJ lM) '0 MATTHEW E. SLOAN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Complainant United States of America 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 2 PAGE(s) 3 FEDERAL CASES: 4 Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F. 2d 1 (1st Cir. 1977) ............................... 5 5 6 7 Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) Extradition of Gonzalez, 52 F. Supp. 2d 725 (W.D. La. 1999) ...................... 6 ......... .............. 7 8 9 Matter of Extradition of Russell, 647 F. Supp. 1044 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd, 805 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1986) ..................... 7 10 11 12 Matter of Extradition of Russell, 805 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1986) 8 In Re Extradition of Siegmund, 887 F. Supp. 1383 (D. Nev. 1995) ......................... 8 13 14 15 Matter of Extradition of Smyth, 976 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1992) Matter of Extradition of Sutton, 898 F. Supp. 691 (E.D. Mo. 1995) ......................... 9 Hababou v. Albright, 82 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D .N.J. 2000) ...................... 8, 9 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jimenez v. Aristiguieta, 314 F.2d 649 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 914 (1963) ....... .. . _ ............. 6 Kamrin v. United States, 725 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 817 (1984) ..... ...... .... ......... 5 Koskotas v. Roche, 740 F. Supp. 904 (D. Mass. 1990), aff'd, 931 F.2d 169 (1st Cir. 1991) Martin v. Warden, 993 F.2d 824 (11th Cir. 1993.) ...................... 8 ........................... 8 25 26 27 In re Mitchell, 171 F. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1909) ............................... 9 In Re Nacif-Borge, 829 F. Supp. 1210 (D .Nev. 1993) ......................... 10 28 United States ex rel. McNamara v. Henkel, 46 F.2d 84 (S .D.N.Y . 1912) ............................... 7 -11- -..-J -/ TABLE OF AUTHORIES (cont'd) PAGE(s) 1 2 FEDERAL CASES: 3 United States v. Hills, 765 F. Supp. 381 (E.D. Mich. 1991) 4 5 6 United States v. Kin-Hong, 83 F.3d 523 (1st Cir. 1996) passim .............................. 7 United States v. Leitner, 784 F.2d 159 (2nd Cir. 1986) .......................... 8, 9 7 8 9 United States v. Salerno, 878 F.2d 317 (9th Cir. 1989) United States v. Taitz, 130 F.R.D. 442 (S.D.Cal. 1990) passim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 11 12 United States v. Williams, 611 F.2d 914 (1st Cir. 1979) Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40 (1903) 7, 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 7 13 FEDERAL STATUTES: 14 18 U.S.C. § 3141 · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 18 U.S.C. § 3142 · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 18 U.S.C. § 3156 · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -111- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 PAGE 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 II. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 A. THERE IS A PRESUMPTION AGAINST BAIL IN INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. BAIL MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IN EXTRADITION CASES UPON A SHOWING BY THE FUGITIVE THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND THAT THE FUGITIVE POSES NO RISK OF FLIGHT OR DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C. PEDERSEN HAS NOT AND CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" JUSTIFYING RELEASE ON BOND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. PEDERSEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELEASE ON BAIL BECAUSE HE IS A FLIGHT RISK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 III. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 DECLARATION OF MATTHEW E. SLOAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I 3 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 This is an extradition matter. The fugitive, MOGENS AMDI 5 PEDERSEN ("PEDERSEN"), a citizen of Denmark, was arrested by the 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation at Los Angeles International 7 Airport on February 17, 2002, on the basis of an arrest warrant 8 issued by a court in Rinkobing, Denmark. 9 warrant is attached to the Declaration of Assistant U.S. Attorney (A copy of the arrest 10 Matthew E. Sloan ( "Sloan Decl.") as Exhibit A ("Ex. 11 PEDERSEN has been charged by the Danish authorities of one count 12 of "embezzlement of a particularly aggravated nature" and two 13 counts of "tax fraud of a particul a rly aggravated nature," in 14 violation of Sections 278 and 279 of the Danish Criminal Code. 15 (The text of the 3-count charging document is set forth in the 16 December 11, 2001 Transcript from the Court in -Ringkobing, 17 attached hereto as Ex. B, at 2-4). 18 extradition in force between the United States of America and the 19 Kingdom of Denmark, signed June 22, 1972, and entered into force 20 on July 21, 1977: 25 UST 1293; TIAS 7864. 21 is attached as Ex. C). 22 ")). There is a treaty of (A copy of the Treaty Pursuant to a request from the Danish Ministry of Justice, 23 the United States filed a Complaint in this Court on February 18, 24 2002, seeking PEDERSEN's provisional arrest pending extradition. 25 The Court granted the United States' request, and issued an 26 order , based on probable cause, for PEDERSEN's arrest. 27 February 21, 2002, the Danish Foreign Ministry delivered the 28 documents supporting its request for PEDERSEN's extradition to 3 On ?vv 1 the American Embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark. 2 Certificate, certifying the American Embassy's receipt of such 3 documents is attached as Ex. D.) 4 (A copy of the On February 19, 2002, the Court held a preliminary detention 5 hearing. 6 without bail pending his extradition on the basis of the strong 7 presumption against bail in matters involving foreign 8 extradition. 9 3 1 7 ( 9 th Ci r. 198 9 ) 10 The United States requested that PEDERSEN be detained See,~, United States v. Salerno, 878 F.2d 317, At the hearing, PEDERSEN asserted that he should be released lIon bond based on the existence of several vaguely specified 12 factors, 13 risk, that he is the leader of a philanthropic organization, and 14 that he has certain unspecified health problems. 15 temporarily detained PEDERSEN, but requested further briefing 16 regarding what, if any, 17 overcome the strong presumption against releasing a fugitive on 18 bail pending extradition. 19 including his claim that he does not represent a flight The Court "special circumstances" are" sufficient to As demonstrated below, the courts have very narrowly 20 circumscribed the types of "special circumstances" that will 21 justify release on bond and have repeatedly stated that the 22 absence of a flight risk alone does not constitute a "special 23 circumstance." 24 to overcome the presumption against bail, the fugitive must 25 demonstrate both the presence of "special circumstances" and the 26 absence of a flight risk. Id. 27 of these requirements, his request for bond must be denied and he 28 should be detained pending resolution of his extradition Salerno, 878 F.2d at 317-318. Indeed, in order Since PEDERSEN can satisfy neither 4 1 proceedings. 2 II 3 ARGUMENT 4 A. THERE IS A PRESUMPTION AGAINST BAIL IN INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS 5 The United States Supreme Court and the federal courts of 6 appeals, including the Ninth Circuit, have long held that bail 7 should not ordinarily be granted in international extradition 8 proceedings, except in certain narrowly circumscribed "special 9 circumstances." Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 40 (1903) (affirming 10 detention without bail of a fugitive sought by Great Britain for 11 defrauding a corporation of which he was a director); Salerno, 12 878 F.2d at 317("There is a presumption against bail in an 13 extradition case."); see also Matter of Extradition of Smyth 976 14 F.2d 1535, 1535 - 36 (9th Cir. 1992); Kamrin v. United States, 725 15 F.2d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, . 469 .U.S. 817 16 (1984); Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F.2d 1 (1 st Cir. 1977) ("Unlike 17 the situation for domestic crimes, there is no presumption 18 favoring bail. The reverse is rather the case.,,)l 19 · 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Because an international extradition is not a criminal case, the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141, et. ~, does not apply, and the criteria governing the allowance and the amount of bail in U.S. criminal cases, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g), are not applicable. Kamrin, 725 F.2d at 1227-1228 (noting that "bail is [not] one of the remedies and recourses of United States law to which an extraditee is entitled.") Rather, the issue of bail in such extradition proceedings is governed by principles of federal common law. The Bail Reform Act applies only to a "criminal offense. . which is in violation of an Act of Congress and is triable in any court established by Act of Congress. " 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 3141 and 3156(a) (2). In extradition cases, by contrast, the law that the defendant is charged with violating is that of a foreign nation. 1 5 1 The rationale underlying this presumption is well-grounded See,~, 2 in principles of international comity. 3 v. Hills, 765 F. Supp. 381, 385 (E.D. Mich. 1991) (noting the 4 United States' 5 complying with treaty obligations and producing extradited 6 persons. 7 the requesting nation. 8 the event that the fugitive is released on bond and escapes, the 9 presentation of the forfeited bond to Denmark, the requesting II) United States "overriding foreign relations interest in Here, the United States bears treaty obligations to The courts have long recognized that, in 10 nation, in lieu of the prisoner, would fail to satisfy the 11 requesting nation's demand and would cause embarrassment to the 12 United States and damage to its foreign policy. 13 Court explained more than 90 years ago: 14 15 16 17 18 As the Supreme The demanding government, when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other government is under obligation to make the surrender; an obligation "whicih it might be impossible to fulfill if release on bail were permitted. The enforcement of the bond, if forfeited, would hardly meet the international demand; and the regaining of the custody of the accused obviously would be surrounded with serious embarrassment. 19 Wright, 190 U.S. at 62 (1903) Accord Jimenez v. Aristiguieta, 20 314 F.2d 649, 653 (5th Cir.) (IiNo amount of money could answer 21 the damage that would be sustained by the United States were the 22 appellant to be released on bond, flee the jurisdiction, and be 23 unavailable for surrender, if so determined. The obligation of 24 this country under its [extradition] treaty with Venezuela is of 25 paramount importance. II) , cert. denied, 373 U.S. 914 (1963); 26 Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) 27 (lithe presumption against bail in extradition cases counsels 28 6 1 against incurring even a small risk [of flight] 2 circumstances") 3 F.2d 84, 84 4 foreign nation United States ex reI. McNamara v. Henkel, 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1912) II (presentation of forfeited bail to a is ridiculous, if not insulting"). BAIL MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IN EXTRADITION CASES UPON A SHOWING BY THE FUGITIVE THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND THAT THE FUGITIVE POSES NO RISK OF FLIGHT OR DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY B. 5 i absent special 6 7 "Special circumstances" are limited to situations in which 8 the justification for release is pressing as well as plain. 9 United States v. Kin-Hong, 83 F.3d 523, 524 (1st Cir. 1996). The 10 II special circumstances" test permits release on bail only where: 11 (1) "special circumstances" exist, and (2) the fugitive is not a 12 flight risk or danger to the community. See, e.g., Extradition 13 of Gonzalez, 52 F. Supp. 2d 725, 735 (W.D. La. 1999). 2 14 There are two key aspects of the "special circumstances ll 15 test that bear special emphasis here. First, the burden of 16 showing special circumstances rests at all times upon the 17 fugitive. See, e.g., Salerno, 878 F.2d at 317-18. Indeed, the 18 burden of showing such "special circumstances" remains on the 19 extraditee even if he demonstrates that he is not a flight risk. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The "special circumstances" test is the standard for release on bail whether before or after the extradition hearing and is fully applicable to situations where, as here, the fugitive has been arrested on a provisional arrest warrant. See United States v. Williams, 611 F.2d 914, 914-15 (1st Cir. 1979) ("The district court erred in limi ting the 'special circumstances I rule to post-hearing bail applications") i Hills, 765 F. Supp. at 385 (special circumstances test "also applies to requests for release on bond, made after only a 'provisional arrest ''') i Matter of Extradition of Russell, 647 F. Supp. 1044, 1048 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd, 805 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1986); cf. Wright, 190 U.S. at 41, 62-63. 7 VJ, 1 2 Id.; Martin v. Warden, 993 F.2d 824, 827-8 & n.4 (11 th Cir. 1993.) Second and more importantly, the courts have consistently 3 held that the absence of a flight risk does not constitute a 4 special circumstance, nor is it a basis for release absent 5 additional "special circumstances." 6 accord Williams, 611 F.2d at 915; Hababou v. Albright, 82 F. 7 Supp. 2d 347, 352 (D.N.J. 2000); Koskotas v. Roche, 740 F. Supp. 8 904, 919 (D. Mass. 1990), aff'd, 931 F.2d 169 (1st Cir. 1991); In 9 Re Extradition of Siegmund, 887 F. Supp. 1383, 1387 (D. Nev. Salerno, 878 F.2d at 317-18; 10 1995); United States v. Hills, 765 F. Supp. 381, 385 (E.D. Mich. 11 1991). 12 extradition, a fugitive must demonstrate both the absence of a 13 flight risk and the presence of "special circumstances." 14 Salerno, 878 F. 2d at 318; Matter of Extradition of Russell, 805 15 F. 2d 1215, 1217 (5 th Cir. 1986). 16 To the contrary, to justify release on bail pending In United States v. Leitner, 784 F.2d 159~ 160 (2 nd Cir. 17 198-6). (per curiam), for example, the Second Circuit affirmed the 18 district court's reversal of the grant of bail in a case where 19 the magistrate judge had ordered release based on a finding that 20 the respondent did not pose a risk of flight. 21 the extradition of a United States citizen who had been arrested 22 in Israel and charged with acts of violence against Arabs in 1983 23 and 1984. 24 cooperate with the Israeli government. 25 threats, Leitner fled to his home in the United States and lived 26 openly under his own name for a year and a half. 27 judge found that Leitner "posed almost no risk of flight, 28 especially given the conditions of bond imposed," and granted him Leitner involved He was freed on bail in Israel after agreeing to 8 After receiving death The magistrate .. 1 bail. Id. at 160. 2 appeals affirmed the district court, finding that no "special 3 circumstances" existed to justify the fugitive's release, despite 4 the "low risk of flight." Id. at 161. C. 5 6 7 The district court reversed. The court of PEDERSEN HAS NOT AND CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" JUSTIFYING RELEASE ON BOND Although there is no finite list of what fac~ors may 8 constitute "special circumstances," courts have stated that there 9 is a presumption against bail and have narrowly circumscribed the 10 set of factors that may present 11 Extradition of Sutton, 898 F. Supp. 691, 694 (E.D. Mo. 1995) 12 ("Courts have taken a limited view of what constitutes 'special 13 circumstances.' II) 14 ago, Judge Learned Hand wrote that bail should be granted in 15 extradition cases "only in the most pressing circumstances, and 16 when the requirements of justice are absolutely per'emptory. 17 re Mitchell, 171 F. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1909). 18 rejection of claims of special circumstances since Judge Hand's 19 day have shown that this principle remains in full force. 20 ~, 21 counsel, gather evidence and confer with witnesses do not support 22 finding of special circumstances) 23 Supp. 2d at 351-52 (delay in extradition of at least a year while 24 fugitive was awaiting trial on u.S. charges does not constitute 25 special circumstances). 26 i sp~cial circumstan c~ s. Hills, 765 F. Supp. at 385. Matter of Nearly a century II In The courts' frequent See, Smyth, 976 F.2d at 1535-36 (the need to consult with i Hababou v. Albright, 82 F. At the initial detention hearing on February 19, 2002, 27 PEDERSEN appeared to raise only three grounds for finding that 28 "special circumstances" existed justifying his release on bond: 9 vy- 1 (1) the alleged absence of a flight risk; 2 of an allegedly charitable and philanthropic foundation; and (3) 3 vague, unspecified concerns about his health. 4 as true, none of these factors is sufficient, whether viewed 5 alone or collectively, to satisfy the "special circumstances" 6 test. 7 (2) that he is the head Even if accepted PEDERSEN's principal argument appears to be that "special 8 circumstances" exist because he is not a flight risk. As will be 9 addressed fully in the immediately following section, the United 10 States strongly disputes PEDERSEN's claim that he is not a flight 11 risk. 12 consistently held that the absence of a flight risk is 13 insufficient by itself to constitute a "special circumstance." 14 See Salerno, 878 F. 2d at 317; 15 Nevertheless, even if his claim were true, the courts have ~ II.B, supra. PEDERSEN's second argument -- that he is entitled to special ~- i~ 16 treatment because of his alleged philanthropy similarly 17 un~vailing. 18 virtues or attributes into account in extradition cases, the 19 "character and background of a person subject to extradition" are 20 generally "considered in regard to risk of flight and danger to 21 the community, rather than as a special circumstance." 22 Nacif-Borge, 829 F.Supp. 1210, 1220 (D.Nev. 1993) (citing other 23 cases ) . 24 factual assertion that he is a committed philanthropist. 25 Indeed, the gravamen of the three-count indictment issued by the 26 authorities in Denmark is that rather than helping the needy, 27 PEDERSEN was fraudulently using the charitable foundation he 28 established to funnel million of dollars to himself and his co- While some courts have taken the fugitive's personal In Re Moreover, the United States strongly contests PEDERSEN's 10 1 2 defendants. See,~, Ex. B at 2-3. PEDERSEN's third argument also fails. While some courts 3 have recognized that a serious deterioration of a fugitive's 4 health while in custody may constitute one of many factors 5 pertinent to determining whether "special circumstances" exist, 6 see~, 7 F.R.D. 442, 446 8 any case that has found this factor sufficient by itself to 9 satisfy the "special circumstances" test. Salerno, 878 F.2d at 317; United States v. Taitz, 130 (S.D. Cal. 1990), the United States is unaware of In any event, PEDERSEN 10 has yet to make any showing that he has suffered, or is likely to 11 suffer, such a deterioration of his health as a result of his 12 detention in this case. 13 D. PEDERSEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELEASE ON BAIL BECAUSE HE IS A FLIGHT RISK 14 Even if PEDERSEN were able to demonstrate the existence of 15 "special circumstances," this Court should detain him because he 16 presents a serious flight risk, and it is unlikely that a mere 17 monetary bond -- especially in an amount as small as $1 million, 18 which pales by comparison to the size of the fraud alleged here 19 - would be sufficient to ensure his return to Court. The 20 conclusion that PEDERSEN represents a severe flight risk is 21 supported by several facts that have been related to the United 22 States by the Danish Ministry of Justice, including that: (1) 23 PEDERSEN is not a U.S. citizen; (2) he has maintained an 24 anonymous existence abroad for more than 20 years and has moved 25 extensiv ely during that time period; (3) the media has reported 26 that PEDERSEN was living in Miami, Florida until last year, but 27 is believed to have moved suddenly to Zimbabwe in August 2001 28 11 VJ 1 after learning that the media had discovered his presence in 2 Miamij 3 told the FBI that he was in transit to Mexico when he was 4 arrested on February 17, 2002j 5 apartments, which are owned by his organization, in more than 30 6 countries worldwidej and (6) documents found during the search of 7 one of PEDERSEN's offices, conducted by the Danish police, 8 indicate that he was preparing to apply for citizenship in 9 countries (Brazil and Zimbabwe) that have no extradition treaties (4) PEDERSEN has no known relations to Los Angeles and ~ (Sloan Decl., (5) he has access to houses and 10 with Denmark. 11 has grave concerns that a monetary bond will be sufficient to 12 secure PEDERSEN's return to court given the Danish Ministry of 13 Justice's claims that PEDERSEN is the undisputed leader of an 14 organization that controls well over $100 million in assets 15 worldwide and had gross income of over $100 million as recently 16 as 1995. (Sloan Decl., ~ 5.) Finally, the United States 6.) 17 III 18 CONCLUSION 19 In this case, no special circumstances appear to be 20 present that would justify the release of the PEDERSEN on bail. 21 Even if such special circumstances were present, PEDERSEN 22 presents an unacceptable risk of flight. 23 States respectfully requests the Court to detain PEDERSEN pending 24 the resolution of his extrad 't ion proceedings. 25 Accordingly, the United The United States requests the opportunity, if the Court 26 finds the presence of special circumstances, to present 27 additional evidence of PEDERSEN'S flight risk to the Court. 28 12 1 DECLARATION OF MATTHEW E. SLOAN 2 3 I, Matthew E. Sloan, declare as follows: 4 1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the 5 Central District of California, and am currently assigned to 6 handle matters relating to the extradition request made by the 7 Kingdom of Denmark regarding MODGENS AMDI PEDERSEN ("PEDERSEN") 8 I make this declaration in support of the United States' motion 9 opposing the release on bond of PEDERSEN pending the resolution 10 11 of his extradition proceedings. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy 12 of the arrest warrant/order of detention issued by the Court in 13 Ringkobing, Denmark on December 18, 2001. 14 3. Attached hereto as Exhib{t B is a true and correct, but 15 partially redacted, copy of the December 11, 2001 transcript of 16 the proceedings in this matter before the Court in Ringkobing, 17 Denmark. 18 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy 19 of the extradition treaty between the United States and the 20 Kingdom of Denmark. 21 5. I have been informed by representatives of the Danish 22 Ministry of Justice and local law enforcement officials that (1) 23 PEDERSEN has maintained an anonymous existence abroad for more 24 than 20 years and has moved extensively during that time period; 25 (2 ) PEDERSEN is believed to have been living in Miami, Florida 26 unti l last year, but moved suddenly to Zimbabwe in August 2001 27 after learning that the media had discovered his presence in 28 Miami; (3 ) PEDERSEN has no known relations or connections to Los 13 1 Angeles and was in transit to Mexico when he was arrested on 2 February 17, 2002; 3 apartments, which are owned by his organization in more than 30 4 countries worldwide; and (5) documents found during the search of 5 one of 6 apply for citizenship in countries (Brazil and Zimbabwe) that 7 have no extradition treaties with Denmark. 8 9 6. (4) PEDERSEN has access to houses and PEDERSEN's offices, indicate that he was preparing to I have been informed by representatives of the Danish Ministry of Justice that PEDERSEN is the undisputed leader of an 10 organization that controls well over US $100 million in assets 11 worldwide and had gross income of over US $100 million as 12 recently as 1995. 13 7. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 14 is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in Los 15 Angeles, California on this 21st day of Februa~rf 2002. 16 17 18 19 11~f~ MATTHEW E. SLOAN Assistant United States Attorney 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 The C 0 u r t R n n 9 k 0 b n 9 [Stamp] Transcript from the Record On 18 December 2001 at 10.00 am the Court in Ringkebing opened the case in Judge Steen L0vbjerg Nielsen ' s chambers. SS 384/2001 The Prosecutor v. Mogens Amdi Pedersen, cpr.nr.090139-1645 , departed to Great Britain, No one appeared or had been summoned. Then Court made the following Or d e r The Court finds that it has been established by the review of the projects on which it has been brought out that the money from "The Foundation for the Support of Humanitarian Purposes, the Promotion of Research, and the Protection of the Natural Environment" has been spent, that there is probable cause to suspect that to ·a not inconsiderable extent the money has been spent on matters outside the approved purposes, and that thereby there has been a violation in any case of section 289 of the Danish Criminal Code, cf. section 13 of the Tax Control Act in connection with the Foundation's tax returns. The Court finds that strong reasons have been produced for assuming that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen has had a quite decisive influence on the dispositions of the school cpmmunity, including also the dispositions made by the Foundation. The Court consequently finds that there is probable cause to suspect that the defendant has contributed decisively to the assumed violation. In the light of the long period when the defendant has had a decisive influence on the organisation, including also the long period after the searches made, when the defendants have lrnown about the pending investigation, the Court does not find that assumptions that the defendant will obstruct the course of justice can at the present time justify that the defendant is taken into custody. Consequently the Court does not find that the conditions of custody pursuant to section 762(1)(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act exist. Taking into account that, although the defendant is a key person in the present case, he has maintained his anonymous existence abroad established through many years and according to the evidence has not responded to approaches from any authority in the case, including even the appointment of a counsel for him, the Court finds that according to the evidence on the circumstances of the defendant there are certain reasons to believe that he will evade prosecution or enforcement, cf. section 762( 1)( 1). The Court therefore allows the request for custody and lS EXH131T A The C 0 u r t n R n 9 k 0 b n 9 [Stamp] Transcript from the Record On 18 December 2001 at 10.00 am the Court in Ringlrnbing opened the case in Judge Steen L0vbjerg Nielsen ' s chambers. SS 384/2001 The Prosecutor v. Mogens Amdi Pedersen, cpr.nr.090139-1645 , departed to Great Britain, No one appeared or had been summoned. Then Court made the following Order The Court finds that it has been established by the review of the projects on which it has been brought out that the money from "The Foundation for the Support of Humanitarian Purposes, the Promotion of Research, and the Protection of the Natural Environment" has been spent, that there is probable cause to suspect that to ·a not inconsiderable extent the money has been spent on matters outside the approved purposes, and that thereby there has been a violation in any case of section 289 of the Danish Criminal Code, cf. section 13 of the Tax Control Act in connection with the Foundation ' s tax returns. The Court finds that strong reasons have been produced for assuming that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen has had a quite decisive influence on the dispositions of the school cpmmunity, including also the dispositions made by the Foundation. The Court consequently finds that there is probable cause to suspect that the defendant has contributed decisively to the assumed violation. In the light of the long period when the defendant has had a decisive influence on the organisation, including also the long period after the searches made, when the defendants have lrnown about the pending investigation, the Court does not find that assumptions that the defendant will obstruct the course of justice can at the present time justify that the defendant is taken into custody. Consequently the Court does not find that the conditions of custody pursuant to section 762( 1)(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act exist. Taking into account that, although the defendant is a key person in the present case, he has maintained his anonymous existence abroad established through many years and according to the evidence has not responded to approaches from any authority in the case, including even the appointment of a counsel for him, the Court finds that according to the evidence on the circumstances of the defendant there are certain reasons to believe that he will evade prosecution or enforcement, cf. section 762(1 )(1) . The Court therefore allows the request for custody and 15 EXHIBIT A The C 0 u r t n R [Stamp] n 9 k " b n 9 Transcript from the Record On 18 December 2001 at 10.00 am the Court in Ringkebing opened the case in Judge Steen Levbjerg Nielsen 's chambers. SS 384/2001 The Prosecutor v. Mogens Amdi Pedersen, cpr.nr.090139-1645 , departed to Great Britain, No one appeared or had been summoned. Then Court made the following Or d e r The Court finds that it has been established by the review of the projects on which it has been brought out that the money from "The Foundation for the Support of Humanitarian Purposes, the Promotion of Research, and the Protection of the Natural Environment" has been spent, that there is probable cause to suspect that to a not inconsiderable extent the money has been spent on matters outside the approved purposes, and that thereby there has been a violation in any case of section 289 of the Danish Criminal Code, cf. section 13 of the Tax Control Act in connection with the Foundation's tax returns. The Court finds that strong reasons have been produced for assuming that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen has had a quite decisive influence on the dispositions of the school community, including also the dispositions made by the Foundation. The Court consequently finds that there is probable cause to suspect that the defendant has contributed decisively to the assumed violation. In the light of the long period when the defendant has had a decisive influence on the organisation, including also the long period after the searches made, when the defendants have known about the pending investigation, the Court does not find that assumptions that the defendant will obstruct the course of justice can at the present time justify that the defendant is taken into custody. Consequently the Court does not find that the conditions of custody pursuant to section 762(1)(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act exist. Taking into account that, although the defendant is a key person in the present case, he has maintained his anonymous existence abroad established through many years and according to the evidence has not responded to approaches from any authority in the case, including even the appointment of a counsel for him, the Court finds that according to the evidence on the circumstances of the defendant there are certain reasons to believe that he will evade prosecution or enforcement, cf. section 762(1)( I) . The Court therefore allows the request for custody and 15 EXHIBIT A ge 2 of2 orders that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen be taken into custody. Steen L0vbjerg Nielsen On the basis of the decision on custody made, the Court ordered that the defendant is to be arrested so that within 24 hours after the arrest he may be arraigned in court. The Court noted that pursuant to section 748( 1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act the defendant has not been notified of the present hearing, and the reasons for this, which have also been cited in support of closing the doors, also indicate that the Court orders the counsel for the defence to refrain from informing the defendant of the proceedings in Court today regarding the court order, cf. section 748(6) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Consequently the Court ordered that the defendant shall be prevented from being acquainted with the entry in the court record today, and the Court also ordered the counsel for the defence to refrain from informing the defendant of the proceedings in Court today, cf. section 748(6) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The Court noted that one of the next days the Court will calculate and award a fee on account to the counsel passed to the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen. The case was suspended. The Court adjourned . . L0vbjerg Nielsen. This is certified to be a true copy of the transcript. The Court in Ringkebing, 18 December 2001 On behalf of the Judge [Signature] Grete M0lskov Head clerk 16 The Court in Ringkebing [Stamp) Transcript from the Record On 11 December 200l at 01.00 p.m. the Court in RiDgk.ebing was opened by judge Steen L~bjerg Nielsen in the meeting room OD the first floor of the court building. S5384/2001-12-24 The Prosecutor v. Mogens Amdi Pedersen, cpr. nl . 090139-1645, d~arted to Great Britain. For the Prosecution appeared deputy public Prosecutor Poul Gade. The Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime, and detective superintendent Knud Aa. Haargaard. J. Quade Andersen, solicitor, Heming. appeared as assigned counsel for the defence. The Prosecutor requested that the doors be closed. Tne Prosecutor referred to the fact that the ca.se iDvo~ a request for arrest and search in connection with a defcDdant. and that the publicity of the coUrt session would decisively prevCQt the evidence of the case, cf. section 29(2)(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. >< The Prosecutor further requested the Court from preveIJting the dcfendaDt from being a.cqu:tinted with the entry in the Report. aDd the Court should order the COWlScl for the defence to refrain from informillg the defendant of proceediDgs at the heanng, d . section 748(6) ofthc Danish Administration of Justice Act. . The asSigned counsel protested against the Court allowing any of these requests . Then Cowt made the following ORDER: For the reasons stated by the Prosecutor the Court finds timt the publicity of the ccurt sessioc must be assumed decisively to prevent the evidence of the case . The cond.l~lons for closing the doors are therefore present. cf. section 29(2)(3) of the Darush Administration of Justice Act, for which reason it is ordered that: The doors be closed . ~131T 17 Steen Levbjerg Niebcn. The doo~ were cloted at 1.04 p.m. The Court declared that pursuant to section 748(1) oftbc Danish Administratioa of Justlce Act the defendant ha3 cot been infonnc:d ot the prcscot court session. and the reasons behind this, which have also been cited in support of closing the doors. also favour preventing the dcfCDdant from being acquainted with the entry in the Record, and the same rea.scms favour the Court's ordering the counsel for the defeDce to refrain from infonning the defendant of the prClC"N:dinp at the hcaring. cf. section 7 48(6) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The Court then ordered that the de:fe:ndant should be prr:va1t.ed from being acquainted with the entry in the Rcc:ord, aDd the Court also ordered the counsel to refrain from informing the defendant of the proceMinp ax the beariDg, d. section 748(6) of the Danish Administratioa of Justice Act. A letter dated 28/1 .200 1 from the Public Prosecutor for Serious Ecooomic Crime, the Case Summary as per 1.11.2001 and a ring binder with exhibits were thc:n produced. The counsel for the defence also produced a legal opinion on the concept of public utility in tax law by professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff. The Prosecutor then requested that pursuant to section 762(1)(1) and (3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act the Court should direct that the dcfendaut Mogen.s Amdi Pedersen, who is not presem in this country, may be imprisoned in absentia, so that within 24 hours after being fakeD into custody in this country he may be arraigned in court., cf. section 764(1). The Prosecutor stated that in the period after the search on 25 April ,2001 the LDvestigation has led to probable cause to suspect that money from Tvind's Humanitarian Foundation has been transferred to a number of companies and LDdividuals so that in reality the money hu been transferred to the defeDdant Amdi Pedcrsca's free disposal. On this ba.ckground the cluef constable in Holstebro decided on 28 November 2001 to modify the charge against Mogcns Amdi Pcdet'SCll SO ~ henceforth a charge is made with the following counts in the way these c:hatses have been expressed in the letter of 28111.200 I, viz.: Count 1: \1ogens Amdi Pedersen is cbarged with embezzlement of a particularly aggravated nature, d . section 278(1)(3), cf section 286(2) of the Danish Criminal Code, or of complicity to this, cf. section 23 of the Danish Criminal Code, h:l\'1ng jOllltly and by previous agreement WIth Poul Jergensen, Bodll Ross Sar:nsen, and Eva Vestergaard, among others, for the purpose of obtam1l1g for 18 -- / Page J of i5 himself or for atben an unlawful pin. in the period betweCD JUlIWY 1917 aDd March 200 1 ual&wtblly speDl approx. OKK 7S Ill., which amount was paid to "The F oundarion far the Support of HUIlWlitarian Purposes. the PramoticD of h!c:arch. and the Protcctian of me Natural Environment", Skoriczrvej 8, Ulfborg, whereas the defendants via alloc:ations &om the Foundation. in which the defendants had a COIltTolling inten:st, aDd in contraveation of the statutes of the Foundation. effected disbursements of entrusted money to an aniount of totally about DKK 75 m, of which they tooK possession in this manDer. thereby taking advantage of the access created for themselves to lcp1ly bind the Foundation, acting contrary to the interests of the Foundation in financial matters which they W'CTe bound to watch over, all under the following specific ciraun.staDccs: in the period between 1987 aDd 2001 a total of appro:t. 300 persons paid a total of approx. DKK 70 m to the Foundation pursuant to obligations that the payers bad assumed according to deeds of gift issued. In the period when the erime was committed, after applications to the Foundation prepa~ by the defendants themselves, these funds with accrued iutercst were paid to various recipients. under the pretence that thereby the Foundation supported purposes of pub lie utility within the objects clause of tile Founcbrtion. None of these recipients eould rightfully recci~ paymentS from the Foundation, since the funds were not spent on purposes of public utility . 00 the contrary, the purpose oCthe payments was for their personal pin to transfer the funds of the Foundation to the defendants' own assets., to grant financial aid to ventures controlled by the defendant Mogeru · Amdi Pedersen. or to favour IIldividuals, instituti0n5 or corporations which were either controUed · by Uae defendant Pedersen. or which by virtue of agreement, economic association. orgaruSa.1loo.al association, or in other, similar manner were closely related to or had close community of interests with the defendants, and which in reality did not speod the funds on purposes of public interest, which at the same time were ·in the nature of humanitarian purposes, purposes of promotion of research or pt'otectioD of the natural enVlronmeot. Hereby the defendants caused the Foundation a loss of approx . DKK 75 Ill, while the defendants for themselves or others obtained an unlawful gain to the same amount Count 2. For taX frmd of a particularly aggravated nature. cf. section 289 of the Danish Cnmmal Code, fIf. section 13 of the Danish Tax Control Act, or complicity hereto, cf sectioa 23 oCthe Danish CrimiDal Code. haVUlg in the ta.'t returns for the Foundation III the period i987 -2000 made tax deductlons for allocations and provlSlons amounting to approx DKK 85 m, and by subsequently furn.t.Shmg the ca.x authontles \~1th Ulcorrect, Ulcomp lete, or rrusleading mformabon on these allocations and provisioos, \\ hcrea.s under the circumstances mentloned 10 Count I, for the purpose of ta." evasion , the defendants have incorrectly stated that the deductions mentioned were 19 Page 4 of 15 based on allocations or provisions for purposes of public utility or similar, so that the expc:DSCS mc:atioDed were deductible, cf. scction 4(1) aDd section 4(4) of the Danish TaxatioD of FOU1ldas:ioDS Act, whereby the publiC: purse was deprived of approx.. OKK 28 m. Count 3: For tax fraud of a particularly aggravated patw'e. cf. section 219 of the Danish Criminal Code, cf. section 13(1) of the Danish Tax Control Act, or complicity hereto, cf. section 23 oithe Danish Criminal Code. ~ in the tax returns for the CODtributors of capital to the Foundation in the period 1987-2000 fumisbcd incorrect.. incomplete, or misleading information cooc=nmg the deduc:tioDs of the c:oatributors for the curTaU paymcots to the Foundation UDder the following specific circumslaDccs: In the period when the crime was committed the dcfeudants c:auxd approx.. 300 contributors to sign &itt certificates to the foUDdation. which had bcco approved as reclpient of ta.x privileged contributions, cf. section SA aDd section 12(3) of the Danish Tax Assessment Act. inducing these coab"ibutors to transfer IS% of their salaries, but not less than DKI< 15,000, annually to the Foundation. to amount of about DKK 70 m . iI. tDta.l Subsequently, for the pwpose of ux evasioa, the defendants effec:ted the prepa.ra1.lon of tax returns for the contributors, in which deductions were made for the pa)ments to the Foundation to the amount mcutioned of approx. OKK 70 m. The defendants knew that these deductions were unwarranted and the individual ta.x returns consequently incorrect, beGause the defendants did not intcDd to spend the funds of the Foundation on public utility purposes, which in fact did not happen. cf. for details under CoWlt 1 in the foregoing, and because the approval of the Foundation pursuant to section 12(3) of the Danish Tax Assessment Act by the tax authorities had been obtained fraudulently . '. Hereby a loss of not less than DKK 35 m was inflicted on the public purse. Regarding the basis of the charges the Prosecutor referred to the letter, stating that the background of the modifications to the charges is that the Prosecutor now finds that many seized materials give probable cause to suspect that not only have the funds been spent inconsistently with the public utility purposes, but that at the same time the funds have been transferred back to the defendants' own assets or to institutions controlled by the defendants in a manner whereby they obtained a gain for themselves at the expenSe of the Foundation In addition to this the charges concerning tax fraud have been extended to involve two forms of tax fraud, because it has been established that not only do the defendants appear to have had a decisive influence on the deduction in connection with the allocations of the Foundation, but also on the deductions made by the contributors in their tax. returns . It is true that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen did not make these deductions in his own tax returns, but the Tvind community as such appears to have prepared the deeds of gift, and possibly the individuals who 20 Page 5 of 15 made the deductions did not Icnow themselves that the deductions were made unl&wfully, but probably only followed instructions from the management. which must therefore be principally responsible for the procedure. As soon as possible the Prosecutor will now inform all the defendants of the modifications of the charges, and via the seized material the Prosecutor has now leamed who the persons are who appear to have had the decisive influence on the events, which now leads to charges against Kirsten Larsen, Marlene Gunst, Ruth Sejerse Olsen and possibly Sten Byrner. On the other hand, the Prosecutor considers withdrawing the charge against Eva Vestergaard. The Prosecutor has explained the basis of suspicion against the defendant Mogens Ameli Pedersen in the Case Summary produced. In the Prosecutor's opinion it may be stated briefly that it is believed that the basic structure concerning the treasury of the Teacher Group, designated LG, is now known, and that information obtained shows that the final control of it lay with what is Icnown as "our office", which appears to be equivalent to Kirsten Larsen and Mogens Amdi Pedersen. in some connections called KLAP, as the top level and with some further specified persons as the next level. It is believed that all the specific projects are known which received support in the period from 1987 to 1993-94, whereas the newest projects are still being investigated. FUrther, there are still some interrogations to be made, but in general the investigation is now close to a conclusion. Under tab 42 there is a review of all the so-called LG projects, wruch are the projects that are conducted for the funds of the Teacher Group. It is .dated 1"6 August 1994, and it was found on a computer that was seized at !be search at Plagborgvej . It is assumed that the value of these possessions exceeds DKK one thousand m, and it is unknown how much the operation of these projects yield, but it is known that large amounts are received on 'various accounts every month. The projects are divided into a Dumber of projects in Africa. called the Federation in Africa., and which involve partly building, production of various commodities, and the sale of clothes . The same applies to a number of projects in Europe, called the Federation in 'Europe, where especiaUy the collection of clothes and the operation of second-hand shops predominate. In addition to this there is a group called Handelshuset, and a group called Skole.sarnvirket, which mainly concerns various schools :0 this COUDtry Then there is a group called TWFE and TWT, which stands fo~ Trans World Forest Enterprise and Trans World Trading. Furthermore t:-:ere is a group called USS, which concerns a large number of projects on :-a.-rr.s In various countries, and in the Prosecutor 's opinion these farms are o ~erated or. a purely commerCial basis. Then there is a group called 'Fors ke;ugt andet" (Miscellaneous), incl uding a biogas plant on Tahiti and the w ind turbine at Tvind Finally, the tab covers a survey of the various real estate companies and their possessions , including D .S'!. Fa!lIeseje, D .S I. Estate, D . S 1. Thomas Brocklebank, and others, and as they are all designated as LG's comparues, it must be clear that both the funds of the Teacher Group and the companies belonging to the Teacher Group are 21 ' -../ essential concepts for Tvind. In the Prosecutor's opinion the activities mentioned are productive, and this is supponed by Exhibit G-2-3, which is produced under tab 33. which was found at the search at Sten B}11ler. who in a period bad a central position in the Tvind organisation. It is unknown, however, at what time this exhibit was prepared. but it must be noted that both IF AS and La Societe Verte are mentioned as profitable projects, while also companies in USS. which eXactly involve projects in fanns in various countries, are listed as sources of income. Under tab 7 there is a letter as Exhibit G-2-3. and judging by the context of the letter it is the Prosecutor's opinion that it has been drawn up by the defendant Mogms Amdi Pedersen at some time in 1992. The letter concerns the basic structure of the total economy, and it describes how the individual managers are under the direction of Marlene Gunst and Ruth Sejeree Olsen. In the Prosecutor's opinion this is the level which in some places is described as "LS ' s Economy", and which is placed immediately under the top level, which in the letter is called "our office". which is described as the supreme management, "which itself decides its relations to managers, principal fonnatioos. the divisions of the total economy, and to Marlene and Ruth" . Later the letter mentions "four lines of responsibility, where the fourth line is "our office...•. At the same time it appears from the letter that a position is takcn on the distribution of usn 16 m, and in the Prosecutor's opinion tbis shows that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen controls the treasury of the Teacher Group, heading some specified department managers and an orgac.isational structure, and it is done in such a manner that there is no doubt that be has the definitive influence on the proceedings. Under tab 3 there is an Exhibit G-2-3 . which was also found in Sten Byrner's papers. The document establishes that the funds "are at any time at our . disposal", and it mentions 36 companies which must be domiciled in places where they are neither liable to pay tax, to keep books, or to be registered, and they are all established as normal limited liability companies with three shareholders, who are to be a combination of some of 13 specified persons, with indication of the combination to be chosen . Of the 36 companies 24 have a bank account placed in 24 different West European banks The 36 companies are effectively being controlled jointly through Hobbhouse Investment Co . Ltd.lFarmers Trust. because all the shareholders have signed share transfers concerning their shareholdings to the benefit of these, and in od er to strengthen this control further number of documents was to be prepared. If Mogens Ameli Pedersen has not prepared the document it must De assumed that a person placed just under him in the hierarchy has done it . ':...'r.der tab 43 there is a number of organisation surveys shoWlng that this ?lan was actuelly . realised The organisation survey was found at the search ilt Odinsvej -In Grindsted, and it shows that the three orgamsations The hobbhouse Trust, The Hobbhouse Investment Company Ltd and The Farmers Trust exist as two foundations and a company, respect ively, and all have Kirsten Larsen as their chairtlerson, while exactly persons from the grou p of persons stated have been appointed chairpersons and protectors, resp ectively. The so-called "trustees" are, among others, Fairbank Limited, Coo{:'er Investments Limited , and Lyle Enterprise Limited, and again 22 """ . .- persons are found from the specified group of persons as shareholders. On the following pages the individual organisations are found which operate the single projects in various places. It may be seen from this that Fairbank Limited, Cooper Investmc:nts Limited, and Lyle Enterprise Limited are placed as over-aU holding companies for the various networks of compani~ operating the projects. 00 page 6 the organisation is shown that concerns Floresta and Floryl. which has relation to one of the essential projccts of the case Previously the Prosecutor knew only that these were owned by Bahia Farming Ltd., but now the ownership can be traced back direct to the Tvind management. This is a general conclusion., which c:an be made for all the companies after the review. From March 2001, however, the change has taken place that Fairbank Limited, Cooper Investments Limited and Lyle Enterprise Limited have been combined into one. It is & recurrent feature in all the documents that all decisions are put before Mogens Amdi Pedersen and that nothing is decided ifhe is against it. In the Prosecutor's opinion this applies also to decisions made in "The Foundation for the Support of Humanitarian Purposes, the Promotion of Rcsea.rch and the Protection of the Natural Environment" . Under tab 17 there is a description of thefie1ds of responsibility of the Foundation, and the included letter is signed by Ane Hansen. It has been written on the computer that belongs to the defendant Poul Jergensen's partner Dorthe Svendsen, and in the Prosecutor's opinion Ane Hansen was at that time a kind of assistant for the entity called "LG's Oekonomi" in the description. It appears from this that everything is agreed with "LG's Oekonomi"a fonnight before every board meeting, and that also minutes, applications and reports are sent to it. Draft accounts are also reviewed with "LG's Oekonomi", and it seems tbat the board . of the Foundation has had no proper decision-making power. It is true that under the ta.b there is a letter of 21 December 1997, which retracts the letter about the fields of responsibility, but this does not seem have any connection with this question or otherwise cbange the picture. This letter is assumed to originate from Kirsten Fuglsbjerg, who is a law graduate and who has advised Tvind on a large number of issues. Under tab 22 there is also an email from December 1998, according to which Paul Jergensen should follow a list of assignments. which "R&M have wrinen" . It is assumed that thi s reference means Ruth Sejeree Olsen and Marlene Gunst. In the Pros:cutor's opiNon this is a typical example of the procedure for making applications to the Foundation. One gets the same impression by reading the letter of 5 December 1999, which is found foremost under tab ·2 5, and in wbch the defendant Poul ]ergensen addresses himself direct to these two ? e~sons conceoUng questions of allocation of funds . The same applies to letter dated 2&- May 2000, which is produced under tab 26 . It is evident from :he documents that these two persons have a controlling position in relatioD :.:> th e Foundation, and that these persons were the ones to whom the defendant Poul ]argensen addresserl himself in writing when a police inve5tigation was commenced, cf. the letter dated 9 December 2000, which is produced under tab 30 23 .... -, - Regarding the iDdMdual projects the Prosecutor stated t~ the first. eisht projects have been received by IFAS. It appears from the mterTogatlon of Anna Sofic Pedersen found under tab 41 that she has been deputy chairperson in this private institution, and that none of the board members had any qualifications for entering into an institution whosc purpose was support of research projects. It appears from the statement how board meetings were conducted with ready printed application forms. the fiUing in of which the defendant Mogees Amdi Pedersen bad instructed in, and it appears from the statement tbat the board had 00 real ·influence on the decisions made. and likewise it must be deducted from the statement that in any case she has no knowledge of any specific research conducted under the institution. whereas it is possible that there has been talk: that already existing research results should be made available to people from the Third World. On page 10 in the Case Summary produced there is an explanation of the statements made concerning !FAS . At no point in time has there been any activity in IF AS that can be characterised as research, and the working expenses are partly expenses to the ship "Return of Marco Polo", which is owned by the Tvind Group via the shipowners B&B Shipping. Cayman. However, the institution was closed down and liquidated in 1993, and it appears from statements that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen made the relevant decision. Added to this, the defendant Poul ]grgensen has incorrectly stated to the Department of Pri~ Law that doQlUlClltS concerning the project "Voice of the Third World" had been burned, and that he had no access to IF AS's voucher material for the years 1988-1992, but tbat at the search the police found such vouchers in a safe at his place. It is known that Poul lergensen himself formulated the applications of the institution. and nothing has been found in the exhibits of the case-reminding only remotely of research. On page 11 ff in the Case Summary there is a review of the grants to Voice of the Third World.. under which a number of TV programmes were produced, some of which from the ship "Return of . Marco Polo", and according to the Foundation itself the amounts have been spent on lease of the ship, operation of the ship and material, equipment and supplies, administration and communication, and wages_ Both the :;atellite company and the owner of the ship were LG companies, and d~ng the project the company of 10hn F. Parsons Inc. was employed as c.o nsultants. This company Wa.! owned by Caribbean Farming Ltd., which in turn was owned by Fairbank. Cooper and Lyle Ltd ., and these were exactly the companies which as previously explained were the registered owners of all ~he companies controlled by the Tvind Group This appears from a plan of the organisatiQll found as page 11 under tab 43 . It is thus a matter of money that was ~eUed back into Tvind companies, and for which no research was made, but transmissions of opinionative TV. On page 13 in the Case Summary there is tbe statement made by 0yvind Wistrem about Tvind's TV station and about the production of programmes from the ship, and according to this statement all the crewmembers were members of the Teacher Group in Tvind. None of these had any qualifications for research o r for producing TV . Preliminary investigations show that the money paid as wages ha5 not been paid to anyone that could be called researchers, and a 24 page 9 ot 1 ::> large amount is the lease of the ship, which IS previously stated was paid to a Tvind company . In addition there are payments of about DKK .800,000 to John F. Parsons Inc. relating to wages and consultant fees. and this company also appears u a Tvind company. It must remain completely uncertain what these amounu have been paid for. A number of payments have been made to La Societe Vette and L'Energie Etemelle, and in these companies there have been no other activities thao those financed in cOMcction with the support from the Foundation. Under tab 43 on page 29 these companies have been described, contrary to the LG companies proper, as private institutions, which are not owned by anyone. However, it appears from a letter dated 16 October 1998. which is produced under tab 34, that Ruth Sejeree Olsen and Marlene Gunst also took a position 00 the decisive issues in these companies. It appears from a letter of 5 December 1998, which is produced under the same tab, that Kirsten Fuglsbjerg described in detail what action Poul Jergenscn and the Foundation board member Lars Jensen were to take, and it appears that they should make a payment of a mortgage debt. Thus it is reasonably well documented that these companies were only transition companies, whicb have lent their names to some transactions. and that they have been inserted as intermediate links only, because as foreign companies they were outside the control of the Danish authorities, which exp1ains that the defendant Poul J"rgensen has made incorrect statemenu about them. Tab 10 includes a further series of letters showing that instructions about these companies were merely given to Poul J"rgcnscn and Lars Jensen. and it appears from a letter of 6 May 1995 that Kirsten Fuglsbjerg even ordered that a section about Cayman wu to be deleted from an auditor's report. Kirsten Larsen managed this company. The object .o f these companies should be the safeguarding of nature protection .intereSts, and on page 16 ff. in the Case Summary there is a description of the 50called Malaysia Project. It appears that the plantation in Malaysia is referred :0 as one of the sources of income to LG' s treasury. Under tab.4 ther~ is a :ener from " KLAP", which, as mentioned, must be assumed to be Kirsten Larsen and the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen, and it is assumed that the letter is addressed to Sten Bymer. It appears that they were to inspect a sawmill in Malaysia, and it is evident that there is a subordination .relation and a fundamental financial interest involved. Cnder tab 6 there is a letter of 3 December 1992 from Sten Bymer to "KLAP", and under item 6 financing ;n connection with Malaysia is mentioned. The letter seems to indicate that :he money granted for the project was spent on acquiring the shares in the sawmill, but there is no direct evidence of tlus In any case the leners show :hat Kirsten Larsen and the defendant Y10gens Amdi Pedersen had the decisive control of the sawmill . It IS also evident that again in connection with this ownership there is the same construction of companies with Fairbank Ltd ., Cooper Investments Ltd . and Lyle Enterprises Ltd . at the top of the system. Generally, reference is made to the Case Summary, page 18 ff concerning the investigations of the use of the funds granted for the prOject On page 19 is mentioned among other trungs that a large amount has not been spent at all, as it is mentioned that an "excess amount" was to be paid back over three years In addition there are consultancy fees that 25 'Page lU U t 1:) have been paid to COtnl'anies constructed under the Tvind Group in the marmer already described. There is also the information that a sum of USD 440 ,000 seems to have been paid to a real estate company, where is was spent on acquisition of flats in Miami, while USD 25,000 was transferred to Kirsten Larsen' s American Express account in Miami. Nothing appears to have been spent on nature protection. On page 20 ff in the Case Summary the biogas plant on Tahiti is described. A biogas plant has actually been built there. A producer, who was a personal friend of the defendant Mogens Arodi Pedersen., had been ordered by the authorities to stop pollution, and the alternative seems to have been that the production had to be closed down. A grant was made of about DKK 5 m for the project. and it appears from the letter produced under tab 21 that a large amount was to be returned to the Foundation. Under tab 10 there is a letter of 12 June 1995, and it appears from this letter that a draft for the acc:ounts for 1991 was attached. Therefore the accounts seem to be backdated, and it also appears from these accounts that a large amount was paid to J. F. Parsons Inc .• whereby money again seems to be returned to a Tvind company. However, it is a question. after all, how much weight should be attached to the so-called accounts. There are also some loans from the funds to Kirchheiner Bros Ltd. which. according to the letter produced under tab 2. has been mentioned as a company in whose name according to section A of the letter an account should be opened in a bank. and in the organisation diagrams under tab 43 the company is found on page 18 as a company that is controlled by Tvind via Fairbank Ltd. and Cooper Investments Ltd. However, the loans seem to have been paid back. In the Prosecutor's opinion all applications have been made out in Denmark, and that there has been DO nature prot~tion at all connected with this project, which was just intended to secure a conunercial enterprise for a single individual, namely Mr. Stein. It is difficult to find any public utility in the project. On page 23 if. in the Case Summary there is a review of the Floryl project in Brazil. Here it is a matter of approx . D~ 20 m. Under tab 8 there is a letter from "KLAP" to Kim Bonde Andersen concerning the o bj~t of this project Electricity production is mentioned, and development of the society, and · it must be admitted that t ,OOO fully employed people arc mentioned, but nowhere in the letter is nature protection mentioned. ~ already mentioned in the foregoing it ~as also here a matter of companies operated and controlled from the Tvind Group, and the vouchers produced under the tabs 19-23 show that also here tbe wording of the applicatiOn! was very carefully dictated . Also in this count the funds from the Foundation seem to have been used for the purchase Coder tab 32 a disc:repancy is mentioned which the tax authori ti es fOWld, and it appear' -from this that Kirsten Fuglsbjerg dictated the answer It also ap pears from the lener produced under tab 18 that chartered accountant Erik Pwr.1er Jensen drew attention to the fact that th e Foundation must not ch ara ct erise an amount as a loan, because these were not tax deductible . The solution was renaming the payments, and in addit ion to this some expens es have been called "management fee" and "travel expenses" for ;' EnergJe Eternelle, regardless of the fact that this IS just a company without any activity at all . Under the already menti oned ac counts unde r tab 10 there 26 - Page ~ l' I)f 15 ""'-../ is also a loan to Eastover Properties Ltd ., and exactly this bas a connection with the previously mentioned letter of 6 May 1995 from Kirsten Fuglsbjerg. according to which the section about Cayman should be deleted from the auditor's report. It has also been mentioned previously that it appears from a letter produced under tab 23 that an amount was to be used as a mortgage payment. Under tab 28 there is a letter that is assumed to originate from the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen on the occasion that a new management was appointed in cOMection with the project. It is described that LG has bought Jabota, and that the production is carried on by "cenain companions", and the letter mentions some purely commercial objects of the operation. Nothing is stated about nature preservation, and the object is clearly a surplus of a commercial operation. In general it is the Prosecutor's impression that the preceding review bas shown that there is probable cause to suspect thAt the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen has been guilty of the charges described in the foregoing, and that the conditions of a custodial sentence are present. The Prosecutor has also estimated that the right moment has now come for taking the defendant into custody. The Prosecutor claims that there is cause for custody pursuant to section 762(1)(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. As it appears from the report produced under tab 42, the defendant has not resided at Skorkzrvej 6, Ultbors. which was the address registered with the national registration office as residence up to may this year. It must be assumed that for a long time the defendant has resided preferably in Florida in the United States. and by a change of address in the national registration office on 25 May 2001 it was stated that · he had departed for Great Britain at an unknown address with a view to emigration. He did not reside in Denmark. and it is not believed that he has taken up residence in Great Britain. The only explanation of the change of national register address is that he evaluated that it would be more difficult to obtain extradition with this national register address, and this in itself creates a basis for custody pursuant to section 762(1)(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Under tab 42 there is a letter of 14 August 1999 probably from Poul largensen to "KLAP", and it contains instructions on :how to avoid the obligation to give evidence. After that letter there is another lener headed "LG heading forwards" dealing with plans of leaving Denmark. At the same time it must be considered that it is a question of an organisation -with considerable funds abroad. On this background there are certain reasons for assuming that the defendant will avoid criminal prosecution. It must also be ~sumed that it is only realistically possible to apprehend the defendant if Qe is not infonned of decision to issue a warrant for arrest and a custodial order. The defendant has access to taking up residence in Tvind' s properties and srups all over the globe, and Tvind owns property in a number of countries with which Denmark as no extradition agreements, Zimbabwe, among others It is also submitted that the conditions in section 762( 1 )( 3) are fulfilled . It follows from the Case Summary that Tvind is co nstructed as a hierarchic organisatlon, which is managed by the defendant y{ogens Amdi Pedersen. The persons also charged or under suspicion are a 27 number of the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen's close subordinates who receive instructions from him and who must be assumed to be unconditionally loyal to him. The police have leamed that in the time after the search meetings were held abroad where a number of the defendants including the defendant Mogcns Amdi Pedersen have been present. probably to coordinate the reaction to the police search on 2S April 200 1. Furthermore the police have learned that the defendanu have subsequently attempted systematically to influence witnesses in the case as it is descnbed in the report produced under tab 42. It appears from this that a number probably all - members of the Teacher Group who have contributed to the Foundation were in the time after the search contacted and asked to sign a statement according to which they should declare themselves in agreement that the funds of the Foundation had been distributed the way they were. The defendant Poul Jergensen., among others, via a solicitor in New Zealand, has contacted Hans la Cour Andersen. who is a central witness, and whom the police have earlier wanted to interrogate in court . The solicitor in question has warned him that an action for slander would be brought against the witness., claiming damages etc. as a consequence of the statements about the activity in the Foundation which the witness has made on TV and to the police. Reference is also made to the information in this report from which it appears also that the Tvind management consistently decides how the members of the Teacher Group are to make statemenu to the authorities in other situations. It is difficult to..teU whether the attempt to influence the witness Hans la Cour Andersen is a punisbable offence, because the relevant rules of law in New Zealand are not known, but it is known now that the defendant Poul J"rgenscn is very much a minor character, and there is no doubt that the defendant Mogens Amdi. Pedersen is the major power factor in the organisation. On the background sated there are certain grounds for assuming that the defendant Mogens Amdi Pedersen wiU obstruct the course of justice by influencing others . 28 .. -t:l...- The counsel for the defence protested against pre-trial custody, alleging that many exhibiu have been reviewed, but that this review shows that the suspicion the Prosecutor relies on in support of the now modified charges is not sufficiently supponed. At least there should be a suspicion that it is more probable that the defendant will be convicted than that he will be a.cquitted, and in the present case it is most likely that the defendant will be acquitted . One or the charges concern complicity, in the Prosecutor's opinion, to tax fraud on the part of the individual contributors, and in any case this is a very thin charge. A Foundation actually existed., and contributions into the Foundation were approved as contributions entitling to tax deduction. Under these circumstances it is not tax fraud to use the rules and the approved Foundation actually in existence, and regardless of the outcome of the case otherwise the contributors must be entitled to the tax deductions in their tax returns. It is quite unlikely to assume that it should be possible to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that the defendant may have assisted in drawing up some documents for this pUl1'ose. A charge has now been brought for embezzlement. and this involves that the Prosecutor must establish that the defendant has obtained a personal gain of funds from the Foundation, and a charge on such a basis will not hold. Firstly it has not at all been made plausible that the funds of the Foundation have been misused. It is a case of very broad purposes, and it is not decisive that research in a narrow sense has been carried out in IF AS . It appears from clause 2 in the IFAS articles, which have been produced under tab 35, that it is not a matter of research in the· everyday sense, and in the hearing of the case it has actually been brought out that the funds stated have actually been spent on a number of projects. On the existing foundation it is impossible with self-assurance to maintain that this is not research in tbe required sense, because research may . also b~ the activity of finding new methods, creating new jobs, etc., in the New World by exploiting new principles in a new way. The object of the Foundation is abo an object in the nature of a general, public utility, and this does not necessarily have to involve research in the old-fashioned sense, nor' is there certainly any bas.is for assuming that in a criminal case tbe Prosecutor will be able to set aside the objects followed as objects that do not fulfi1 the articles of the Foundation. In the last resort the name is not the deciding factor, nor is it deciding who tbe persons are who have influenced the implementation of the projects. It is decisive, however, that the projects have been kept within the objects in the articles. and it cannot be disproved that this has ' been the case The possibility of a profit in the long term does not make allocation unlawful, because the aim is that hopefully the projects s~ou)d become self-sustaining. In the loog term earnings are not contrary to the objects of the Foundation, nor is it contrary to the objects of the Foundation that a community of interests exists between the Tvind organisation and the organisations that have received the amounts, nor is it cont rary to the objects that a number of persons act within both frameworks . 29 r A&- . ----../ Nor is there anything wrong in the possibility that money from the funds may have been loaned. The fact to be established is that ultimately the money has not been spent on objects outside the articles of the Foundation. This is also quite clearly expressed in the legal opinion on the CODCept of public utility in tax law produced by the counsel for the defence. In that respect there is no proof that some amounts have been spent OD a flat or a personal account for some individuals, when at the same time it is known that this involves an organisation which according to the Prosecutor himself has assets amounting to thousands of millions. These free assets may be placed in objects outside the articles of the Foundation, ifit is just dODe in a responsible manner, and therefore the decisive factor is the general application of the amounts granted. When it has been established that the objects pursued are within the framework of the articles, it is not a matter of tax fraud, either, and thereby there is no probable cause to suspect that the defendant is guilty of any of the counts he is charged with. Even if the Court should find that the suspicion should provide cause for custody, there ace no such specific causes for assuming that the defendant will evade prosecutioD that this can constitute the required basis for custody. It is an established fact that for 10 - 20 years the defendant has bad no permanent residence in Denmark, and it must therefore remain a puzzle why suddenly the defendant must be considered to be a person who will evade prosecution just because he has cbanged his national register address, which presumably would be easiest to do to an EU country. Nor are there specific reasons to assume that the defendant intends to obstruct prosecution. The defendant has hardly been part of the plans of legal action in New Zealand, and there is nothing unreasonable in relying on legal remedies in connection with acc~satioDs from other persons, and likewise to correspond about this. Incicientaily, ' a long time has passed where all the defendants have been able to communicate freely with each other, and if at any time there might have been any cause for assuming that the defendant would decisively influence others, it is certainly not today. Furthermore, the other defendants will ·still be at large, and as for preventing the defendants from communication in the case, it will not be greatly important to take the defendant into custody. The Prosecutor stated that the Prosecutor agrees that the legal opioion given is to be understood in the sense that the fuW application of the funds is the decisive issue in the case, but exactly according to thIS statement the Prosecutor has demonstrated that this final application of the funds has not been in accordance with the articles of the Foundation. The Prosecutor also agrees that a Foundation may well loan money, but that the problem arises 's hen the mon.ey is not spent on the purposes for which tax deductions are ::lbtained. Actording to the condition for pre-trial custody pursuant to sect!on 762( 1)( 1) of the Danish Admjnistration of Justice Act it must be ccnsidered that the defendant has not in any way reacted as a consequence of approaches in ;:;onnection with the case, not even as a consequence of approaches from his own counsel. The important issue in connection with section 762( 1)(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act is that in cor.nection with the events in New Zealand a signal has been sent to all 30 .-.../ witnesses that it com if anyone saY' too much, and the witness Hans 1a Cour Andenen has I clear impression that the defendant puts pressure on him. One may imagine that this creates a pressure on other witnesses of importance in the case. The counsel for the defendant declared that the indications concerning the spending of some specific amounts of the large funds is not sufficient probable cause. The defendant bas not behaved differently in relation to the many years where he has SbuMed publicity, and this cannot be the basis of an assumption that he intends to evade prosecution. It has in no way been demonstrated that the defendant is the one who is pulling all the strings, and no cbarge bas even been brought against Kirsten Larsen. who in the Prosecutor's opinion should equally be a leading character, and it might as well be she who is pulling the strings. Therefore the request for pre-trial custody should not be allowed. The Court reserved the question of custody until an order is made on 18 December 2001 at 10.00 am. The Court reserved the question of search for the order to be made on 8 January 2002 at 10.00 am. The case was suspended. The Court adjourned at 16.00 pm. L0Vbjerg Nielsen. This is certified to be a true copy of the transcript. The Court in Wngubing, 18 December 2001 On behalf of the Judge : Signature] Grete Melskov Head cleric - 31 ...J The 'Ad.uaiitrarioll of Jultic:e Act Sectioa 29. The Coun may order that a c.oun session is held behind closed doors (private baring){ 1]. i) if called mr out of considerations for order and discipline in the court room [21, ii) if called for out of eousiderations for the government's re1atioDi to forcian powers or if otherwise called for out of special coDiidcratiODS for these [3], or iii) if the hearing of the cue at • public session of the Court will inilict unnecessary indignity of myoPe [4J. including the case that evidence shaD be made on trade secrets. 2. (5] In criminal cases the Court may decide that the doors shall be closed i) if the accused (the penon chqed) is below 11 years orage (61 ii) ifpublic hearing must be usumed to eadqcr anyone's safety [7), or iii) if public hearina must be a.ssumed decisively to prevent the evidence of the ccue 3. 4. (8). At court sessions the doon can be closed punuant to IUbsectioa 2 CUi) only in a. court of6tst appeal, and only ifit must be assumed that I1Ao other penons than the person or persons charged in the case em later be charged, and that very special considecatiora require the closing of tlla doon. 'The proceedings of the trial shall be entered into the rc:cordJ of the Coun in such detail that 11 the passing of sentence the public can be given & renderics oftb. trial to the extent that the purpose of the closing of the doors is not forfeited. It cannot be decided to close the doo!'1 ifis iufficient to apply the rules on prohibition of reporting or publication of names, d . seaions 30 and 31, or on excluding individual persons from attending. c;f. section 28b(9J. 32 1 DENMARK EXTRADITION 25 UST 1 293; TIAS 7864 TREATY SIGNED AT COPENHAGEN JUNE 22, 1972 (SD). RATIFICATION ADVISED BY THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MARCH 29, 1974; RATIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA APRIL 17, 1974; RATIFIED BY DENMARK JUNE 10, 1974 ; RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT WASHINGTON JULY 1, 1974; PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JULY 18, 1974. ENTERED INTO FORCE JULY 31, 1974 (ElF ). BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION CONSIDERING THAT: THE TREATY ON EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK WAS SIGNED AT COPENHAGEN ON JUNE 22, 1972, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH TREATY IS HERETO ANNEXED; THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY ITS RE SOLUT I ON OF MARCH 29, 1974, TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCURRING THEREIN, GAVE ITS ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY; THE TREATY WAS RATIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON APRIL 17, 1974, IN PURSUANCE OF THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, AND HAS BEEN DULY RATIFIED ON THE PART OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK; THE RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION WERE EXCHANGED AT WASHINGTON ON JULY 1, 1974; IT IS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 21 OF THE TREATY THAT THE 'TREATY SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON THE THIRTIETH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE EXCHANGE OF INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION; NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROCLAIM AND MAKE PUBLIC THE TREATY TO THE END THAT IT SHALL BE OBSERVED AND FULFILLED WITH GOOD FAITH ON AND AFTER JULY 31, 1974 BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BY THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE SIGNED THIS' PROCLAMATION AND CAUSED THE SEAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO BE AFFIXED. DONE AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON THIS EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR AND OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE ONE HUNDRED NINETY-NINTH. (SEAL ) RICHARD NIXON BY THE PRESIDENT: HENRY A. KISSINGER SECRETARY OF STATE EXHIBIT G 33 1 TREATY ON EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK, DESIRING TO MAKE MORE EFFECTIVE THE COOPERATION OF THE TWO COUNTRIES FOR THE RECIPROCAL EXTRADITION OF OFFENDERS , AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE 1 EACH CONTRACTING STATE AGREES TO EXTRADITE TO THE OTHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS TREATY, PERSONS FOUND IN ITS TERRITORY WHO HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF ANY OF THE OFFENSES MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 3 COMMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHER OR OUTSIDE THEREOF UNDER THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4. ARTICLE 2 THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THI S TREATY, EXTRADITE A PERSON CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 3 ONLY WHEN BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST: 1. THE LAW OF THE REQUESTING STATE, IN FORCE WHEN THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED, PROVIDES A POSSIBLE PENALTY OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR; AND 2. THE LAW IN FORCE IN THE REQUESTED STATE G~NERALLY PROVIDES A POSSIBLE PENALTY OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF THE OFFENSE WERE COMMITTED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTED STATE. WHEN THE PERSON SOUGHT HAS BEEN SENTENCED IN THE REQUE STING STATE, THE DETENTION IMPOSED MUST HAVE BEEN FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS. ARTICLE 3 EXTRADITION SHALL BE GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 2, FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES: 1. MURDER; COMMIT MURDER. VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER; 2. AGGRAVATED INJURY OR ASSAULT; CAUSE GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO INJURING WITH INTENT TO 3. UNLAWFUL THROWING OR APPLICATION OF ANY CORROSIVE OR INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES UPON THE PERSON OF ANOTHER . 34 2 4. RAPE; INDECENT ASSAULT; SODOMY ACCOMPANIED BY USE OF FORCE OR THREAT; SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH OR UPON CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE SPECIFIED BY THE LAWS OF BOTH THE REQUESTING AND REQUESTED STATES. 5. UNLAWFUL ABORTION. 6. PROCURATION; INCITING OR ASSISTING A PERSON UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE TO CARRY ON SEXUAL IMMORALITY AS A PROFESSION; CONTRIBUTING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY OF A PERSON UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE OR AT THE TIME IGNORANT OF THE PURPOSE IN ORDER THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL CARRY ON SEXUAL IMMORALITY AS A PROFESSION ABROAD OR SHALL BE USED FOR SUCH IMMORAL PURPOSE; PROMOTING OF SEXUAL IMMORALITY BY ACTING AS AN INTERMEDIARY PROFITING FROM THE REPEATEDLY OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAIN; ACTIVITIES OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON SEXUAL IMMORALITY AS A PROFESSION. 7. KIDNAPPING; IMPRISONMENT. 8. ROBBERY; 9. BURGLARY. CHILD STEALING; ABDUCTION; FALSE ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB. 10. LARCENY. 11. EMBEZZLEMENT. 12. OBTAINING PROPERTY, MONEY OR VALUABLE SECURITIES: BY FALSE PRETENSES OR BY THREAT OF FORCE, BY DEFRAUDING ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY, THE PUBLIC OR ANY PERSON BY DECEIT, FALSEHOOD, USE OF THE MAILS OR OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION IN CONNECTION WITH SCHEMES INTENDED TO DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD, OR BY ANY OTHER FRAUDULENT MEANS. 13. BRIBERY, INCLUDING SOLICITING, OFFERING AND ACCEPTING. 14. EXTORTION. 15. RECEIVING OR TRANSPORTING ANY MONEY, VALUABLE SECURITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED. 16. FRAUD BY A BAILEE, BANKER, AGENT, FACTOR, TRUSTEE, EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR OR BY A DIRECTOR OR OFFICER OF ANY COMPANY. 17. AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS RELATING TO COUNTERFEITING OR FORGERY. 35 3 18. FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE A COURT OR TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR OFFICIAL, INCLUDING UNDER UNITED STATES LAW PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. 19. ARSON. 20. AN OFFENSE AGAINST ANY LAW RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF PERSONS FROM: A SHORTAGE OF DRINKING WATER; POISONED, CONTAMINATED, UNSAFE OR UNWHOLESOME DRINKING WATER, SUBSTANCES OR PRODUCTS. 21. ANY ACT DONE WITH INTENT TO ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF ANY PERSON TRAVELING UPON A RAILWAY, OR IN ANY AIRCRAFT OR VESSEL OR BUS OR OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, OR ANY ACT WHICH IMPAIRS THE SAFE OPERATION OF SUCH MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. 22. PIRACY; MUTINY OR REVOLT ON BOARD AN AIRCRAFT AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMANDER OF SUCH AIRCRAFT; ANY SEIZURE OR EXERCISE OF CONTROL, BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR THREAT OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OF AN AIRCRAFT. 23. AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS RELATING TO DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. 24. A. OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS RELATING TO IMPORTATION, EXPORTATION OR TRANSIT OF GOODS, ARTICLES, OR MERCHANDISE. B. OFFENSES RELATING TO WILLFUL EVASION OF TAXES AND DUTIES. C. OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS OF FUNDS. 25. AN OFFENSE RELATING TO BANKRUPTCY LAW. 26. AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS RELATIVE TO NARCOTIC DRUGS, CANNABIS SATIVA L, PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS, COCAINE AND ITS DERIVATIVES, AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS AND CHEMICALS. 27. AN OFFENSE RELATING TO THE: A. SPREADING OF FALSE INTELLIGENCE LIKELY TO AFFECT THE PRICES OF COMMODITIES, VALUABLE SECURITIES OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR INTERESTS; OR B. MAKING OF INCORRECT OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF SUCH COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS AS JOINT- STOCK COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OR SIMILAR UNDERTAKINGS THROUGH CHANNELS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, IN REPORTS, IN STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS OR IN DECLARATIONS TO THE GENERAL MEETING OR ANY PROPER OFFICIAL OF A COMPANY, IN NOTIFICATIONS TO, OR REGISTRATION WITH, ANY COMMISSION, AGENCY OR OFFICER HAVING SUPERVISORY OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER 36 4 CORPORATIONS, JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMMERC IAL UNDERTAKINGS OR IN ANY INVITATION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THOSE COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS OR TO THE SUBSCRIPTION OF SHARES. 28. UNLAWFUL ABUSE OF OFFICIAL AUTHORITY WHICH RESULTS GRIEVOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEPRIVATION OF THE LIFE, LIBERTY PROPERTY OF ANY PERSON. EXTRADITION SHALL ALSO BE GRANTED ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT, OR PARTICIPATION ANY OF THE OFFENSES MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE. IN OR FOR IN, EXTRADITION SHALL ALSO BE GRANTED FOR ANY OFFENSE OF WHICH ONE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED OFFENSES IS THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENT, WHEN, FOR PURPOSES OF GRANTING FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, SUCH ELEMENTS AS TRANSPORTING, TRANSPORTATION, THE USE OF THE MAILS OR INTERSTATE FACILITIES MAY ALSO BE ELEMENTS OF THE SPECIFIC OFFENSE. UPON RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION, SUCH REQUEST MAY BE DENIED BY THE APPROPRIATE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN THE REQUESTED STATE IF THAT AUTHORITY CONSIDERS THAT THE COURTS IN THE REQUESTED STATE WOULD NOT IMPOSE A SENTENCE OF DETENTION EXCEEDING FOUR MONTHS FOR THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH EXTRADITION HAS BEEN REQUESTED. ARTICLE 4 A REFERENCE IN THIS TREATY TO THE TERRITORY OF A CONTRACTING STATE IS A REFERENCE TO ALL THE TERRITORY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THAT CONTRACTING STATE, INCLUDING AIRSPACE AND TERRITORIAL WATERS AND VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN ' THAT" CONTRACTING STATE IF ANY SUCH AIRCRAFT IS IN FLIGHT OR IF ANY SUCH VESS EL IS ON THE HIGH SEAS WHEN THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS TREATY AN AIRCRAFT SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN FLIGHT FROM THE MOMENT WHEN POWER IS APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKE-OFF UNTIL THE MOMENT WHEN THE LANDING RUN ENDS. WHEN THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH EXTRADITION HAS BEEN REQUESTED HAS BEEN COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTING STATE, THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF DENMARK, AS APPROPRIATE, SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT EXTRADITION IF THE LAWS OF THE REQUESTED STATE PROVIDE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF SUCH AN OFFENSE COMMITTED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES . ARTICLE 5 THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE BOUND TO DELIVER UP ITS OWN NATIONALS AND DENMARK SHALL NOT BE BOUND TO DELIVER UP NATIONALS OF DENMARK, FINLAND, ICELAND, NORWAY OR SWEDEN, BUT THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL, IF NOT PREVENTED BY THE 37 5 LAWS OF THAT STATE, EXTRADITE SUCH NATIONALS IF, DISCRETION, IT BE DEEMED PROPER TO DO SO. IN ITS IF EXTRADITION IS NOT GRANTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL SUBMIT THE CASE TO ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSECUTION. ARTICLE 6 EXTRADITION SHALL BE GRANTED ONLY IF THE EVIDENCE BE FOUND SUFFICIENT, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE PLACE WHERE THE PERSON SOUGHT SHALL BE FOUND, EITHER TO JUSTIFY HIS COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL IF THE OFFENSE OF WHICH HE IS ACCUSED HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN THAT PLACE OR TO PROVE THAT HE IS THE IDENTICAL PERSON CONVICTED BY THE COURTS OF THE REQUESTING STATE. IN THE CASE OF A REQUEST MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK, THE DANISH AUTHORITIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH DANISH EXTRADITION LAW, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT OF A PERSON PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED. EXTRADITION MAY BE REFUSED IF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS FOUND TO BE INSUFFICIENT. ARTICLE 7 EXTRADITION SHALL NOT BE GRANTED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: 1 . WHEN THE PERSON WHOSE SURRENDER IS SOU9HT LS BEING PROCEEDED AGAINST OR HAS BEEN TRIED AND DISCHARGED OR PUNISHED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTED STATE FOR THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HIS EXTRADITION IS REQUESTED. IF THE CHARGE AGAINST A PERSON SOUGHT IN DENMARK HAS BEEN WAIVED, EXTRADITION MAY BE GRANTED ONLY IF THE CONDITIONS OF APPLICABLE DANISH LAW PERMIT. 2. WHEN THE PERSON WHOSE SURRENDER IS SOUGHT HAS BEEN TRIED AND ACQUITTED OR HAS UNDERGONE HIS PUNISHMENT IN A THIRD STATE FOR THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HIS EXTRADITION IS REQUESTED. 3. WHEN THE PROSECUTION OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE HAS BECOME BARRED BY LAPSE OF TIME ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF EITHER OF THE CONTRACTING STATES. 4. IF THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HIS EXTRADITION IS REQUESTED IS A POLITICAL OFFENSE OR AN OFFENSE CONNECTED WITH A POLITICAL OFFENSE, OR IF THE REQUESTED STATE HAS REASON TO ASSUME THAT THE REQUISITION FOR HIS SURRENDER HAS, IN FACT, BEEN MADE WITH A VIEW TO TRY OR PUNISH HIM FOR A POLITICAL OFFENSE OR AN OFFENSE CONNECTED WITH A POLITICAL OFFENSE . IF ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER A CASE COMES WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH, IT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE REQUESTED STATE. 38 6 5. IF IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVING PARTICULAR REGARD TO THE AGE, HEALTH OR OTHER PERSONAL CONDITIONS OF THE PERSON CONCERNED, THE REQUESTED STATE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT EXTRADITION WILL BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATIONS. 6. IN RESPECT OF A MILITARY OFFENSE. EXTRADITION MAY BE REFUSED ON ANY OTHER GROUND WHICH IS SPECIFIED BY THE LAW OF THE REQUESTED STATE. ARTICLE 8 WHEN THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE EXTRADITION IS REQUESTED IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH UNDER THE LAWS OF THE REQUESTING STATE AND THE LAWS OF THE REQUESTED STATE DO NOT PERMIT SUCH PUNISHMENT FOR THAT OFFENSE, EXTRADITION MAY BE REFUSED UNLESS THE REQUESTING STATE PROVIDES SUCH ASSURANCES AS THE REQUESTED STATE CONSIDERS SUFFICIENT THAT THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED, OR, IF IMPOSED, SHALL NOT BE EXECUTED. ARTICLE 9 WHEN THE PERSON WHOSE EXTRADITION IS REQUESTED IS BEING PROCEEDED AGAINST OR IS LAWFULLY DETAINED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTED STATE FOR AN OFFENSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH EXTRADITION HAS BEEN REQUESTED, THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTRADITE HIM MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FULL EXECUTION OF ANY PUNISHMENT HE MAY BE OR MAY HAVE BEEN AWARDED. ARTICLE 10 THE DETERMINATION THAT EXTRADITION BASED UPON THE REQUEST THEREFOR SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE REQUESTED STATE AND THE PERSON WHOSE EXTRADITION IS SOUGHT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE SUCH REMEDIES AND RECOURSES AS ARE PROVIDED BY SUCH LAW. ARTICLE 11 THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION SHALL BE MADE THROUGH THE DIPLOMATIC THE REQUEST SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A DESCRIPTION OF CHANNEL. THE PERSON SOUGHT, INFORMATION AS TO HIS NATIONALITY AND RESIDENCE IF AVAILABLE, A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TEXT OF THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE REQUESTING STATE INCLUDING THE LAW DEFINING THE OFFENSE, THE LAW PRESCRIBING THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSE, AND A STATEMENT THAT THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE HAVE NOT BEEN BARRED BY LAPSE OF TIME. WHEN THE REQUEST RELATES TO A PERSON WHO HAS NOT YET BEEN CONVICTED OR HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND NOT YET SENTENCED, IT MUST ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUED BY A JUDGE OR 39 '--.--1 7 OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE REQUESTING STATE AND BY SUCH EVIDENCE AS, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE REQUESTED STATE, WOULD JUSTIFY HIS ARREST AND COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL IF THE OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED THERE, INCLUDING EVIDENCE PROVING THE PERSON REQUESTED IS THE PERSON TO WHOM THE WARRANT OF ARREST REFERS. WHEN THE REQUEST RELATES TO A PERSON ALREADY CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, IT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST HIM IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTING STATE, BY A STATEMENT SHOWING HOW MUCH OF THE SENTENCE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED, AND BY EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE PERSON REQUESTED IS THE PERSON TO WHOM THE SENTENCE REFERS. THE WARRANT OF ARREST AND DEPOSITION OR OTHER EVIDENCE, GIVEN UNDER OATH, AND THE JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONVICTION AS WELL AS ANY SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE DEMANDED BY THE DANISH AUTHORITIES UNDER ARTICLE 6 PARAGRAPH 2, OR CERTIFIED COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS, SHALL BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION WHEN, IN THE CASE OF A REQUEST EMANATING FROM DENMARK, THEY BEAR THE SIGNATURE OR ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THE ATTESTATION OF A JUDGE, MAGISTRATE OR OTHER OFFICIAL OR ARE AUTHENTICATED BY THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND, IN ANY CASE, ARE CERTIFIED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES IN DENMARK, OR WHEN, IN THE CASE OF A REQUEST EMANATING FROM THE UNITED STATES, THEY ARE SIGNED BY OR CERTIFIED BY A JUDGE, MAGISTRATE OR OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AND THEY ARE SEALED BY THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. ANY DEPOSITION OR OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN UNDER OATH BUT WHICH OTHERWISE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS A DEPOSITION OR EVIDENCE GIVEN UNDER OATH WHEN THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT THE PERSON, PRIOR TO DEPOSING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF THE REQUESTING STATE, WAS INFORMED BY THOSE AUTHORITIES OF THE PENAL SANCT IONS TO WHICH HE WOULD BE SUBJECT IN THE CASE OF FALSE OR INCOMPLETE STATEMENTS . THE REQUESTED STATE MAY REQUIRE THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION BE TRANSLATED INTO THE LANGUAGE OF THE REQUESTED STATE. ARTICLE 12 IN CASE OF URGENCY A CONTRACTING STATE MAY APPLY FOR THE PROVISIONAL ARREST OF THE PERSON SOUGHT PENDING THE PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION THROUGH THE DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL. THIS APPLICATION MAY BE MADE EITHER THROUGH THE DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL OR DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE AND THE DANISH MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. THE APPLICATION SHALL CONTAIN A DESCRIPTI ON OF THE PERSON SOUGHT, AN INDICATION OF INTENTION TO REQUEST THE EXTRADITION OF THE PERSON SOUGHT AND 40 8 A STATEMENT OF THE EXISTENCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST OR, IF CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST THAT PERSON, AND SUCH FURTHER INFORMATION, IF ANY, AS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY THE ISSUE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST HAD THE OFFENSE BEEN COMMITTED, OR THE PERSON SOUGHT BEEN CONVICTED, IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTED STATE. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH AN APPLICATION THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO SECURE THE ARREST OF THE PERSON CLAIMED. A PERSON ARRESTED UPON SUCH AN APPLICATION MAY BE SET AT LIBERTY UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HIS ARREST IF A REQUEST FOR HIS EXTRADITION ACCOMPANIED BY THE DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 11 SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. THE REQUESTING STATE MAY REQUEST, SPECIFYING THE REASONS THEREFOR, AN EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF DETENTION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY DAYS, AND THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF DETENTION. THE RELEASE FROM CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO EXTRADITING THE PERSON SOUGHT IF THE REQUEST IS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED. ARTICLE 13 IF THE REQUESTED STATE REQUIRES ~~DITIONAL EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION TO ENABLE IT TO DECIDE ON THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION, SUCH EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO IT WITHIN SUCH TIME AS THAT STATE SHALL REQUIRE. , . IF THE PERSON SOUGHT IS UNDER ARREST AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION SUBMITTED AS AFORESAID IS NOT SUFFICIENT, OR IF SUCH EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE REQUESTED STATE, HE SHALL BE DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY. SUCH DISCHARGE SHALL NOT BAR THE REQUESTING STATE FROM SUBMITTING ANOTHER REQUEST IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OFFENSE. ARTICLE 14 A PERSON EXTRADITED UNDER THE PRESENT TREATY SHALL NOT BE DETAINED, TRIED OR PUNISHED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTING STATE FOR AN OFFENSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH EXTRADITION HAS BEEN GRANTED NOR BE EXTRADITED BY THAT STATE TO A THIRD STATE UNLESS: 1. HE HAS LEFT THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTING STATE AFTER HIS EXTRADITION AND HAS VOLUNTARILY RETURNED TO IT; 2. HE HAS NOT LEFT THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTING STATE WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS AFTER BEING FREE TO DO SO; OR 41 9 3. THE REQUESTED STATE HAS CONSENTED TO HIS DETENTION, TRIAL, PUNISHMENT OR TO HIS EXTRADITION TO A THIRD STATE FOR AN OFFENSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH EXTRADITION WAS GRANTED. A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SET AT LIBERTY, SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES TO WHICH HIS STAY IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUESTING STATE MAY SUBJECT HIM. THESE STIPULATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO OFFENSES COMMITTED AFTER THE EXTRADITION. ARTICLE 15 A REQUESTED STATE UPON RECEIVING TWO OR MORE REQUESTS FOR THE EXTRADITION OF THE SAME PERSON EITHER FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, OR FOR DIFFERENT OFFENSES, SHALL DETERMINE TO WHICH OF THE REQUESTING STATES IT WILL EXTRADITE THE PERSON SOUGHT, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND PARTICULARLY THE POSSIBILITY OF A LATER EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE REQUESTING STATES, THE SERIOUSNESS OF EACH OFFENSE, THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED, THE NATIONALITY AND RESIDENCE OF THE PERSON SOUGHT, THE DATES UPON WHICH THE REQUESTS WERE RECEIVED AND THE PROVISIONS OF ANY EXTRADITION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE REQUESTED STATE AND THE OTHER REQUESTING STATE OR STATES. ARTICLE 16 THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL PROMPTLY COMMUNICATE TO THE REQUESTING STATE THROUGH THE DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL THE DECI?ION ON THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION, AND, IF GRANTED, THE PERIOD THE PERSON SOUGHT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION. IF THE EXTRADITION HAS BEEN GRANTED, THE AUTHORITIES OF THE REQUESTING AND THE REQUESTED STATES SHALL AGREE UPON THE TIME AND PLACE OF SURRENDER OF THE PERSON SOUGHT. IF THE EXTRADITION HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTED, THE REQUESTED STATE MAY SET THE PERSON SOUGHT AT LIBERTY WITHIN SUCH TIME AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW OF THE REQUESTED STATE, AND THE REQUESTED STATE MAY SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSE TO EXTRADITE THAT PERSON FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. ARTICLE 17 TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW OF THE REQUESTED STATE AND SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES, WHICH SHALL BE DULY RESPECTED, ALL ARTICLES ACQUIRED AS A RESULT OF THE OFFENSE OR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED AS EVIDENCE SHALL, IF FOUND, BE SURRENDERED IF EXTRADITION IS GRANTED. SUBJECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLES SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE REQUESTING 42 10 STATE EVEN IF THE EXTRADITION , HAVING BEEN AGREED TO, CANNOT BE EFFECTED OWING TO THE DEATH OR ESCAPE OF THE PERSON SOUGHT. ARTICLE 18 THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORT THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF ONE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES A PERSON SURRENDERED TO THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE BY A THIRD STATE SHALL BE GRANTED ON REQUEST MADE THROUGH THE DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL, PROVIDED THAT CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT WHICH WOULD WARRANT EXTRADITION OF SUCH PERSON BY THE STATE OF TRANSIT AND REASONS OF PUBLIC ORDER ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE TRANSIT. THE STATE TO WHICH THE PERSON HAS BEEN EXTRADITED SHALL REIMBURSE THE STATE THROUGH WHOSE TERRITORY SUCH PERSON IS TRANSPORTED FOR ANY EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE LATTER IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSPORTATION. ARTICLE 19 EXPENSES RELATED TO THE TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PERSON SOUGHT SHALL BE PAID BY THE REQUESTING STATE. THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL OFFICERS OF THE REQUESTED STATE SHALL, BY ALL LEGAL MEANS WITHIN THEIR POWER, ASSIST THE OFFICERS OF THE REQUESTING STATE BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES. NO PECUNIARY CLAIM, ARISING OUT OF THE ARREST, DETENTION, EXAMINATION AND SURRENDER OF PERSONS SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS TREATY, SHALL BE MADE BY THE REQUESTED STATE AGAINST THE REQUESTING STATE. ARTICLE 20 THIS TREATY SHALL APPLY TO OFFENSES MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 3 COMMITTED BEFORE AS WELL AS AFTER THE DATE THIS TREATY ENTERS INTO FORCE, PROVIDED THAT NO EXTRADITION SHALL BE GRANTED FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED BEFORE THE DATE THIS TREATY ENTERS INTO FORCE WHICH WAS NOT AN OFFENSE UNDER THE LAWS OF BOTH STATES AT THE TIME OF ITS COMMISSION. . ARTICLE 21 THIS TREATY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION SHALL BE EXCHANGED AT WASHINGTON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS TREATY SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON THE THIRTIETH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE EXCHANGE OF INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION. IT MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER CONTRACTING STATE GIVING NOTICE OF TERMINATION TO THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE AT ANY TIME AND THE TERMINATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE. 43 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING DULY AUTHORIZED THERETO BY THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS, HAVE SIGNED THIS TREATY. DONE IN DUPLICATE, IN THE ENGLISH AND DANISH LANGUAGES, BOTH EQUALLY AUTHENTIC, AT COPENHAGEN THIS TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF JUNE, 1972. FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (SIGNATURE ) /1/ FOR THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK: (SIGNATURE ) /2/ (SEAL ) (SEAL ) /1/ FRED J. RUSSELL /2/ K. B. ANDERSEN 44 ' : l ! PAX • H / a! ' 02 - Certificate Wbe Attached to Documentary Evidence A.ceom:>a.nying Requisitions in the Uni1M StatRl; for ExtraditioL . AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVIa: -.£,?~~qen. I .. J.tu.rt A, r.rnstc1n Denmark, !,eb~iI.:l: _ll.!....~ a ... ad..., ._~u.clQL-_ .. _ _ _ ...... _ ot the Ul!.i ted States ot Amerioa a.t ._ _ ~panhaq~::.~k :._ hereby oertify ~t the a1UI."~ . .. ____ . __ papers, beinC .. -------.------ . proposed to be used upon an application tor the extradition !rom tba United statu ot . alle~ad Mogens Amdi Pedirrsen to have been oo~tted in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • ct arged with _ _ _ _ _ , are _-D~.lt.k...._ __ properly and lega.ll.y authenticated so as to ~nt1tle the. to be r. t:eived in e"f'1dence tor I!illilar purposes by the tribunals ot .__OeJ>aa.rk _ .___ .______ or _____ ._ .. _.._. ____._ . as required by th8 Act Congress ot A.up;t 3. 1682, In witness _hereof I hereunto sign .y name and cau •• _ _ _2,",1~stu. _ _ _ _ ~ ~ seal )! ortice ot ___ ?~~2002 (w-u._-> _____ ._ : .__AlIlb __ Cl_ss_i!l._do_r_ _ _ _ ", .. UfIIIoJ !it-. ., .4-_ ::i!Dts1l0IUlSpo" • v DI< 1216 Copenb~n Ie. F~ ~ l1\ternet http: . / www.j::n .dk 45 33 93 35 10 ",.. -r !jS 1 .. . ~ 45 , ! i . #>oJ •