13/04/2026
[In Legalbrief Today]
CONDUCT, NOT OFFENCE ELEMENTS, IS THE CORRECT TEST FOR DOUBLE CRIMINALITY IN SA–USA EXTRADITIONS
In Osagiede and Others v S, the Western Cape High Court (Sher J, with Bhoopchand AJ concurring) held that the conduct-based approach to double criminality applies to extraditions between South Africa and the United States under the USA–SA Extradition Treaty (in force 25 June 2001) and the Extradition Act 67 of 1962. Eight Nigerian nationals, resident in South Africa, faced extradition to the USA on charges of wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering (Title 18 USC ss 1028A, 1343, 1349, 1956(h)) arising from a 2011–2021 international fraud scheme involving romance scams, identity theft and the laundering of at least $17 million. After surveying case law from several international jurisdictions, the court concluded that article 2.3(a) of the Treaty, read with its object and purpose and the UN Model Treaty on Extradition, excludes an elements-based approach and requires that the totality of the offender's alleged acts and omissions be assessed. The court further set out the three-step inquiry (drawn from Ortmann v USA to be applied in treaty-based extradition enquiries under s 10 of the Extradition Act.
If the appellant’s conduct, had it occurred in South Africa, would constitute an offence punishable by at least one year's imprisonment, double criminality is established. The court did not approve of the 'substantially similar' offence test applied in Carolissen v DPP and DPP, Western Cape v Louie. The appellants' conduct, had it occurred in South Africa, would constitute common law fraud and contraventions of the Cybercrimes Act 10 of 2020 and the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 in South Africa, satisfying the treaty threshold.
The appeals of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth appellants against the Cape Town magistrate's order of 19 February 2024, holding them liable for extradition to the USA and committing them pending the Minister's decision, were dismissed.
Read the summary (subscribers only) or view the judgment.
Summary: https://bit.ly/48xRm4T
Judgment: https://bit.ly/4sood37
Stay informed with daily case law and legal news updates. Subscribe to Legalbrief: https://bit.ly/4229CQ7