EMBASSY ENGAGES THAI OFFICIALS ON SECOND BOUT

C O N F I D E N T I A L BANGKOK 000276 SIPDIS L/LEI FOR K. WILSON AND A. RUBENSTEIN DOJ/OIA FOR M. WARLOW E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/02/2020 TAGS: CJAN PGOV PREL TH SUBJECT: EMBASSY ENGAGES THAI OFFICIALS ON SECOND BOUT INDICTMENT REF: STATE 6901 Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission James F. Entwistle, Reasons 1.4( b) and (d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Per reftel request, we briefed officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on January 27 and Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on February 1 about the existence of a second, sealed indictment and USG plans to submit an additional extradition request for Viktor Bout. The Thai officials expressed appreciation for the advance notice. The MFA representatives noted that the second indictment would form the basis of a separate treaty request which should not affect the pending appeal of the first extradition case involving Bout. Expressing no opinion on its merits, the Thai prosecutors recommended that the USG formally proceed with the extradition request to allow the OAG to conduct a legal analysis of issues such as double jeopardy and dual criminality, and saw no legal bar to a successive request. Given the absence of Thai objections, we should move ahead with the second extradition request as soon as circumstances permit. End Summary. ¶2. (C) On January 27, DCM and DOJ Attach advised Director-General Chirachai Punkrasin of the MFA's Department of American and South Pacific Affairs and Deputy Director-General Ittiporn Boonpracong of the MFA's Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs about the nature of the second, sealed indictment against Viktor Bout and USG plans to submit an additional request for his extradition. DG Chirachai inquired as to whether the new charges were purely criminal or also political (presumably a reference to the FARC, which the judge in the first case erroneously decided was a political group),and was told that they were the former. DDG Ittiporn opined that this indictment would be treated as a completely separate matter under the extradition treaty, and that a second extradition request should not affect the timing or status of the pending appeal relating to our first extradition request. (Note: On August 26, 2009, the RTG appealed the lower court's decision denying the USG's extradition request for Bout on charges that he conspired to kill U.S. nationals and officers; acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles; and provide material support to the FARC.) Both officials indicated that timing and other procedural matters would be best addressed by the OAG, and DCM assured them we would raise them in our upcoming meeting. ¶3. (C) On February 1, DOJ Attach raised these issues with Director-General Sirisak Tiyaphan of the OAG's International Affairs Department and Public Prosecutor Sopon Kasemiboonchai, the lead prosecutor on the Bout extradition case. DG Sirisak expressed appreciation for the advance notice and stated that the OAG would need to review the written request to determine whether it raised any legal issues such as double jeopardy or dual criminality. After consulting with one another, the prosecutors recommended that the USG proceed with a second extradition request to allow the OAG to formally analyze these legal questions, adding that the U.S. could facilitate the OAG's review by providing additional information about the second indictment prior to the formal submission. DG Sirisak also asked how we would react if the Court of Appeals issued a decision in the first case while the second request was pending, and was told that the USG would need to evaluate any decision before responding. Finally, Prosecutor Sopon shared his view that, although this appears to be the first time the OAG has considered the issue of successive extradition requests, there would be no legal bar to it. ¶4. (C) Given the absence of RTG objection about the second extradition request, we should proceed as soon as case circumstances permit. JOHN