A Kenyan wanted in the USA over claims of money laundering got a reprieve after a court stopped the process on Tuesday, May 16.
It was a reprieve for Abdulrahman Imraan Juma, who was to be extradited to the USA after the court of appeal temporarily stayed the decision of the High Court pending his appeal.
Juma is alleged to be part of an international gang that conspires to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft by targeting unsuspecting business people who need loans.
The charges, filed against him in the US District Court for the Central District of California, state that he faces up to 61 counts of money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
Documents filed by the prosecution in Nairobi show that Juma and his accomplices targeted business people based in the US and Qatar and hoodwinked them that they could offer loans worth millions of dollars.
The fugitive is said to have worked with Nigerian influencer Ramon Abbas – also known as Hushpuppi – to defraud a Qatari school founder.
The High Court had allowed his extradition.
But the Court of Appeal stayed the order.
“The applicant having satisfied the two threshold requirements under rule 5 (2) (b) of this Court’s rules, the Notice of motion dated 9th December 2022 is merited and is allowed,” ruled the Court of Appeal.
The court further noted that in case the applicant’s extradition is imminent and were it to happen, the pending appeal will be overtaken by events, and would be rendered nugatory in the event that it were to succeed.
Juma moved to the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of the execution arguing that that he learned the judge treated the matter before him as a revision, whereas it was a substantive appeal.
He further argued that the judge did not appreciate that the trial court adopted a procedure 8 on submissions which was not legally tenable during trial and denied him his rights to a fair trial which was in violation of his constitutional right.
“The judge did not consider the contention that the extradition bundle did not even have the extradition request without which, the extradition proceedings were irregular, that the judge misdirected himself in failing to have regard to the very clear and explicit provisions of section 7 of the Extradition (Contiguous and Foreign Countries) Act, Cap 76 which sets out the proper procedures to be followed, but which were not adhered to,” he argued.
[inline_related_posts title=”You Might Be Interested In” title_align=”left” style=”list” number=”3″ align=”none” ids=”” by=”categories” orderby=”rand” order=”DESC” hide_thumb=”no” thumb_right=”no” views=”no” date=”yes” grid_columns=”2″ post_type=”” tax=””]
