An American accused of an offense abroad usually arrives with the wrong question. The question is not what the foreign charge carries. It is which government has physical custody, which government wants it, and what instrument — if any — obliges the first to hand you to the second.
Those three facts drive almost everything that follows, and they are routinely confused.
Four different problems, often treated as one
Being charged abroad and being extradited are separate events. Either can happen without the other.
- You are abroad and that country charges you. You are already within its jurisdiction. There is nothing to extradite. You face its process, in its language, under its rules, with whatever right to counsel it provides — which in some systems attaches later than it would here.
- You are in the United States and a foreign government wants you. It has to ask. What it can ask for, and what the United States is obliged to do, is governed by a bilateral treaty and by the federal extradition statute.
- You are in a third country. The outcome turns on the treaty relationships of the country you are standing in, not on yours. People plan around the wrong pair of countries constantly.
- You are abroad and the United States charges you. This is the one clients do not anticipate.
A strategy built on the wrong one of these is worse than no strategy, because it consumes the window in which the right one could have been addressed.
American law travels
A recurring assumption is that conduct outside the United States is beyond the reach of United States prosecutors. For a meaningful set of federal offenses, it is not.
Some statutes say expressly that they apply to conduct abroad. Others are construed to reach foreign conduct where an element touches the United States — U.S. wires used as a core part of the scheme, a dollar-clearing transaction, a co-conspirator’s act here, a shipment destined for this country. In a conspiracy case the domestic hook can be supplied by someone other than the defendant.
The practical consequence is uncomfortable but worth stating plainly: conduct that was lawful, tolerated or unprosecuted where it occurred can still be indicted here. Compliance with local law is not a defense to a United States charge, and a foreign acquittal does not reliably bar one.
Ignoring a foreign proceeding
Declining to appear is sometimes presented as a strategy. It is better understood as a decision to let the record be built without you.
Many civil-law systems will try a defendant in absentia. The common assumption that this forfeits any later re-hearing is not reliable: some systems treat an in absentia conviction as provisional and give the defendant a right to a fresh trial on surrender or arrest. That is a reason to take the conviction seriously rather than to relax, because the sentence is live in the meantime and will be the basis of an extradition request, an Interpol notice, or an arrest on arrival at a border.
The rule varies by country and sometimes by offense. It is a question to answer before the trial date, not after.
A red notice is not a warrant
An Interpol red notice is a request circulated among member countries to locate and provisionally arrest someone pending extradition. It is not itself an arrest warrant, no country is obliged to act on it, and some decline as a matter of policy to arrest on a notice alone.
It is nevertheless disabling in ordinary life. It surfaces at borders, in banking and employment screening, and in visa processing. There is a published process for challenging a notice on the ground that it is politically motivated or otherwise non‑compliant, and that process runs on its own timetable, independent of the underlying case.
Consular access
A detained foreign national is generally entitled to have the consulate notified and to communicate with it. A United States consulate can visit, provide lists of local counsel, contact family, and monitor whether detention conditions and local process are what the host country says they are.
What it cannot do is represent you, pay for counsel, secure release, or obtain better treatment than local law provides. Clients frequently expect more of consular assistance than it delivers, and build around it accordingly.
What we do
We act as United States counsel for individuals and companies facing criminal exposure abroad, working alongside local counsel in the forum rather than in place of them. That means assessing United States exposure arising from the same conduct, contesting extradition where the request reaches this country, addressing red notices, and coordinating a single strategy across proceedings that would otherwise be run in isolation from one another.
Where the exposure is principally domestic — a federal indictment for conduct that happened overseas — the matter is handled as what it is: a federal white‑collar or drug case with an international fact pattern.
Questions we are asked
Can I be extradited from the United States for something that is not a crime here?
Generally not. Extradition treaties ordinarily require dual criminality — the conduct must be an offense in both countries. The test looks at the underlying conduct rather than at whether the offense carries the same name.
I am a United States citizen. Does that protect me?
Not by itself. Some countries refuse to extradite their own nationals; the United States generally does not maintain that position, and modern treaties often address nationality expressly.
The foreign case was dismissed. Is it over?
Not necessarily. A dismissal abroad does not resolve United States exposure arising from the same conduct, and in some systems a dismissal can be reopened.
Should I just stay out of that country?
That is a decision with a long tail. It constrains travel well beyond the country in question, because the request can be transmitted to others, and it does not run out quietly — limitation periods abroad vary, and in many countries they can be suspended while you are absent.
Do I need a lawyer here if I already have one there?
If there is any United States dimension — a domestic investigation, an extradition request directed here, assets or family here — then yes, and the two need to be coordinated. Foreign counsel will not be assessing your federal exposure, and a step that is sensible in the foreign case can create a problem in this one.
This page is general information about how these proceedings are structured. It is not legal advice, and the rules differ materially between countries. Results depend on the facts of each matter. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.