"The investigation led by the services of the border police since summer 2018, allowed to bring out a network of alien immigration, led by Iraqis, who assured, against cost, the transport to various regions of FRANCE then transport in hidden trucks, heading to GREAT BRITAIN, migrants who do not have papers in order to access the British territory. This network appeals to numerous smugglers who take in charge the migrants, against remuneration, their transport and their dissimulation in these vehicles mainly on highway rest areas. The substantial income brought by this activity to the network, considering the individual cost of this service for every illegal alien, sum for the period of the facts several dozens of million Euro. A organisational logistics particularly elaborated has been brought into light during the surveillances, using several vehicles, to numerous smugglers using discrete ways of communication and to illegal money laundering financial schemes. Hashem Saleh BAZLAH appears to have a central role as well on the national territory as in other European countries. The offenses continued from August 1, 2018 to January 21, 2020 in Le Mans, in Chatellerault, on the French national territory as well as within the European Union."
"- Assistance to unauthorised entry, transit or residence of a foreigner on the territory of a state party to the protocol against the smuggling of migrants, with an organised gang, committed in LE MANS and on the French national territory and also within the European Union between the 1 st of August 2018 and the 21 st of January 2020 … - human slave with an organised gang (transport, transfer, accommodation or hosting in housing conditions contrary to human dignity) committed in LE MANS and on French territory and also within the European Union between the 1 st of August 2018 and the 21 st of January 2020 … - criminal association for the preparation of crime and offences by 10 years imprisonment committed in LE MANS and on French national territory and also within the European Union between the 1 st of August 2018 and the 21 st of January 2020"
"During the numerous observations carried out during the investigation, Hashem BAZLAH was regularly seen on the camp of the rue du chemin aux boeufs in Le Mans, a place for grouping together of migrants and for accommodation in unhealthy and precarious conditions. Among these migrants, there are also children. This area is to keep them waiting before they are taken to the motorway service areas located nearby. On6 January 2020 at 22h39, Hashem BAZLAH was seen coming out the squat located at Passage aux Boeufs in the city of LE MANS. This squat is used as a waiting area for illegal migrants who want to get on to the lorries. He takes the driver's seat in the Audi A6 vehicle registered HK 56 DWZ. Abdallah REKAN, appearing among the most implicated persons in the smuggling network, gets on the vehicle along with two other persons likely to be smugglers. They are heading to the A 28 motorway. A few minutes before, the observations make it possible to see the boarding of eight migrants on a vehicle which came back empty two hours later, suggesting that they have been put on to lorries. On8 January 2020 Hashem BAZLAH was seen driving the same Audi A6 vehicle registered HK 56 DWZ with REBEN on the motorway service area of Bosgouët when they were driving between the locality «Le Chemin aux Boeufs» (illegal waiting area of migrants waiting to get on a lorry) and the Netherlands. On9 January 2020 , the Audi A6 registered HK 56 DWZ mentioned above was spotted in a hotel «Bastion Hotel» of the town Vlaardingen (Netherlands). The vehicle was previously equipped with a geo-location system (marker) by the French investigation services. A second vehicle BMW RX 14 VHJ belonging to the same group of persons was also present. Hashlem BAZLAH was controlled driving this vehicle Audi A6 registered HK 56 DWZ in Vlaardingen (Netherlands). The driver of this second vehicle BMW RX 14 VHJ is Mohammed Ahmed QARAMAN. Two persons went on board, these persons had occupied hotel bedrooms where were found forged Romanian ID documents, a residence permit issued by the air and border police of Dunkerque (France) and an Iraqi passport."
"20. The RP's primary submission is that the EAW is entirely deficient in relation to section 2(4)(c). There is no conduct attributable to the RP on the face of the EAW relating to any of the offences that the RP is sought for. The JA do not concede the point but do not argue that the particulars in the EAW are sufficient. 21. Considered in isolation the EAW is insufficient to satisfy section 2(4)(c). There is no information on the RP's purported role within the enterprise. The EAW is wholly deficient. … 24. The actions attributed to the RP in the FI do not amount to any criminal activity unless viewed in the context of further incriminating evidence. Without such evidence, the RP's actions amount to nothing of significance. … 26. I do not find on the information contained in the EAW or FI that any criminal activity is described. I accept that it is not for this court to decide on whether the charges are likely to succeed in the requesting state, however, there must be some evidential basis for making the assertions that the RP's actions amount to some criminal activity. In my view, on the evidence before me, no such evidential basis exists. 27. The particulars of what is alleged are not sufficiently clear and there is ample ambiguity such that the RP would not be able to properly invoke the principle of specialty on his surrender."
"particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence and any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute the offence"
"(1) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence; (2) the time and (3) the place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence; and (4) any provision of law under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence"
"(1) Peter von der PAHLEN is urgently suspected of having committed the offence of severe and professional fraud according to ss. 146, 147/3, 148, 2nd case Austrian Criminal Code by being the director of DR LIVINGSTON & FEUKER LTD in the period between25/10/2003 and30/12/2003 , first as a managing director according to trade law and then as an actual director. In this capacity acting with fraudulent intention as of the year 2003 in Lower Austria, Vienna and Styris, intending to enrich himself unlawfully through the behaviour of the deceived persons and to receive a continuous income by repeatedly committing frauds a) by deceiving various persons willing to buy a house pretending to sell single family houses thus making them pay advance payments, b) by deceiving various companies on facts, that is by pretending to arrange for building contracts, delivery of materials and making professional construction works seducing them act in a way that damaged them on their property to a total amount exceeding€50,000 . (2) Moreover, Peter von der PAHLEN is urgently suspected of having committed the crime of dishonest dealings according to s. 153/1 and /2 Austrian Criminal Code by having misused his authorization to dispose of foreign property in the period until October 2003 in Gänserndorf and Mistelbach acting as a director of DR LIVINGSTON & FEUKER LTD and as of25/10/2003 acting in his capacity as a managing director and authorized signatory of DRAGON Bau GmbH, by taking unjustified money from the business account of DRAGON Bau Gmbh at the ERSTE BANK in 2130 Mistelbach in favour of My Home Is My Castle Limited, Clifford Administration Limited and Paris London Limited, or had intended to take it, thus causing a damage to DRAGON Bau Gmbh exceeding€50,000 . (3) Moreover, Peter von der PAHLEN is urgently suspected of having committed the crime of faked bankruptcy according to s. 156/1 and /2 Austrian Criminal Code by having taken the payments for works from some customers in the period until October 2003 in Gänserndorf and Mistelbach acting as a director of Dr LIVINGSTON & FEUKER LTD and as of25/10/2003 acting in his capacity as a managing director and authorized signatory of DRAGON Bau GmbH, and then invoicing the DRAGON Bau GmbH partially with claims of suppliers from these works, thus pretending non existing liabilities of DRAGON Bau GmbH, and by doing so fictitiously reducing the property of the DRAGON Bau GmbH, that is at least having reduced the satisfaction of creditors, thus causing a damage exceeding€50,000 ."
"The warrant relates to in total… 1… offence. One of these individuals is Sanjay DHAR (DOB24/08/1964 in Delhi) who operates within the United Kingdom. The Dutch investigation has identified that Singh has provided loans to DHAR via his wife's UK Bank account. DHAR has been identified as using a variety of mobile telephones and is regularly in contact with Singh. Furthermore indications from the Dutch investigation are that Sanjay DHAR received funds within the United Kingdom that were paid to suspected drug traffickers in the Netherlands by Singh. On the 5th of May 2011 Singh and DHAR were identified as being in a telephone conversation discussing a sum of money of 40,000 Euros. Surveillance by the Dutch National Crime Squad on the16 May 2011 identified that DHAR was meeting with another of Singh's associates, previously arrested with 112,400 Euros. DHAR was identified in telephone contact with Singh shortly after his arrest, during which the cash and seizure were discussed. In addition DHAR made reference to having viewed paperwork from the seizure. The nature of the conversation concerns the rectifying the loss of cash by splitting the amount into smaller amounts. The Dutch investigation believes that DHAR is a key figure in Singh's illegal money laundering activities and is suspected of being part of the money laundering conspiracy within the Netherlands."
"80. For my part, I have not found the resolution of this ground of appeal an easy one. The court at this stage of the appeal is not concerned with whether the conduct alleged amounts to the specified offence in Dutch law but simply with whether sufficient particulars have been given for the appellant to understand the nature and extent of his alleged offence role and participation in the alleged which go beyond the omnibus description set out in the final sentence of the particulars ('key role in Singh's money laundering activities… being part of the money laundering conspiracy within the Netherlands'). I have had in these circumstances considerable sympathy with the submissions made by Mr Stansfeld, in particular given the need to avoid requiring such particularity as would satisfy a civil pleading and to have in mind the objects of conciseness and simplicity. Ultimately however I have been persuaded by Mr Farrell's submissions on the issue of clarity and ambiguity. 81. The Appellant is entitled in my judgment to sufficient particulars to enable him to understand how the case is being put against him on critical allegations without that understanding being obscured by the fog of vagueness or ambiguity. The respondent has chosen in the EAW to make what in my judgment, looking at the particulars as a whole, is a critical allegation in the conduct alleged to amount to the offence of money laundering, namely the appellant 'received funds within the United Kingdom that were paid to suspected drug traffickers in the Netherlands by Singh'. The appellant's understanding of that allegation must be wholly disabled in my judgment by the ambiguity to which Mr Farrell referred and which is discussed above, and the lack of clarity of what it is the appellant is supposed to have done in this regard. Whether the funds were received by the appellant before or after they were paid to the suspected drug traffickers, how he is said to have received them and from whom, and the role if any which the appellant is supposed to have played in facilitating that payment, must be of considerable importance to any understanding of the role the appellant is supposed to have played in the alleged conspiracy."
"It is clear from box (e) of the warrant that the appellant is accused of knowingly concealing, possessing or transferring property obtained by crime and, in broader terms, laundering the proceeds of crime. One would expect, therefore, the particulars of the offence to identify the property in question, to describe in general terms how it was obtained by crime, how the appellant became aware of that and what he did in relation to it."
"Although I accept that the warrant need not contain highly detailed information of the kind that one might expect to find in a civil pleading, it must contain enough information to enable the requested person to understand with a reasonable degree of certainty the substance of the allegations against him, namely, what he is said to have done, when and where, and also, in a case where knowledge of particular matters is an essential ingredient of the offence, sufficient information to enable him to understand why it is said that he had the necessary knowledge."
"Certainly, where involvement in a conspiracy is alleged, it is not necessary to include any great detail as to the precise acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. But, as a general proposition, it seems to me that a warrant ought to indicate, at least in brief terms, what is alleged to have constituted the involvement or the participation of the individual in question. It seems to me that, prima facie, simply to say there was a conspiracy and he conspired with others is to do whatever the end result of the offence is, is likely not to be sufficient."
"None of this means that extradition can properly be achieved on the basis of a 'bit of paper'. In our view, there must be a document in the prescribed form, presented as an EAW, and setting out to address the information required by the Act. An otherwise blank document containing the name of a requested person, even if in the form of an EAW, will properly be dismissed as insufficient without more ado. The system of mutual respect and co-operation between states does not mean that the English court should set about requesting all the required information in the face of a wholly deficient warrant. Article 15(2) of the Framework Decision expressly concerns itself with 'supplementary' information, and can properly be implemented with that description in mind. That will of course include resolution of any ambiguity in the information provided. It will include filling 'lacunae'. The question in a given case whether the court is faced with lacunae or a wholesale failure to provide the necessary particulars can only be decided on the specific facts."
"At all stages, the principal responsibility for the provision of information required by an EAW lies on the state requesting extradition. That responsibility is not transferred to the English court considering extradition. Nothing in the Framework Decision or the Act carries any different implication. Nor is the requesting judicial authority relieved of that responsibility because the RP fails to raise the point."
"was alleged to be the organiser of a criminal gang engaged in France in the unlawful acquiring, possessing, transferring and transporting and weapons and ammunition (broad details of which were provided – including a submachine gun) with a view to their sale in England to drug dealing groups and other delinquents. This was not… an impermissibly broad omnibus description."
"There is a particularly high level of mutual trust, confidence and respect between states which are parties to the Framework Decision. The object of the EAW process is to remove the complexity and potential for delay in extradition between such states. There is consequently no requirement for full and exhaustive particularisation, the appropriate level of particularisation being dependent upon the circumstances of the specific case. In assessing whether a description is adequate, the EAW should be considered as a whole. However, sufficient circumstances must be set out to enable the requested person and the requested state (i) to identify the offence with which the requested person is charged; (ii) to understand, with a reasonable certainty, the substance of the allegations against the requested person and in particular when and where the offence is said to have been committed, and what he is said to have done; (iii) to perform a transposition exercise, when dual criminality is in issue; and (iv) to determine whether any compulsory or optional barriers to extradition apply. Where a request for extradition is made in respect of more than one offence, each offence must be adequately particularised."
"Read together, as a single set of information, the conduct of the respondent around the Le Mans camp, whilst the migrants were put onto lorries, then leaving the area with other organisers in separate cars – the two lorries returning empty two hours later, gives a very clear picture of what is alleged against him."
"The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."