The High Court has ordered a Ukrainian man committed to prison while he awaits the Minister for Justice’s decision on his extradition to the United States, where he is wanted to face trial on two conspiracy charges relating to alleged ransomware attacks.
In a judgment delivered on 4 February 2025, Mr Justice David Keane ruled that the statutory requirements for committal under section 29 of the Extradition Act 1965 had been met. The order is not itself an order for extradition: it commits the respondent pending the Minister’s decision.
The US indictment alleges that the respondent conspired with others to deploy Conti ransomware against a government entity and two businesses in Tennessee between 2020 and at least June 2022. The prosecution alleges two victims paid about $634,000 in cryptocurrency. Those claims have not been determined at trial.
The court reviewed evidence submitted in support of the request, including material from US investigators describing data found in the respondent’s Google account and cryptocurrency payments they attributed to a Conti conspirator. The judge found that the extradition request was supported by the documents required under Irish law, and that the alleged conduct met the tests of correspondence with Irish offences and minimum seriousness.
The respondent, who represented himself during part of the proceedings, raised objections based on family life, the risk of being returned from the US to Ukraine, US sentencing procedures, prison conditions and alleged abuse of process. The judge rejected the family-life objection, finding the evidence did not reach the high threshold required to make extradition incompatible with Ireland’s obligations. He also rejected the refoulement objection after considering information supplied by US authorities about procedures available to raise fears of torture or other ill-treatment before removal.
The judge rejected the argument that US sentencing procedures created a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice, applying an earlier Court of Appeal decision concerning the same general issue. The prison-conditions objection was not pursued for lack of evidence about where the respondent would be held.
On abuse of process, the respondent alleged, among other things, that authorities had targeted him because of his legal work and had mishandled his arrest and the search of his home. Garda affidavits denied ill-treatment and described the searches and seizure of items. The judge said he could not resolve the conflict between the respondent’s account and the Garda evidence, but found the respondent’s assertions insufficient to establish improper conduct or require further inquiry. He also found the political-offence and related statutory objections had not been established.
The court therefore ordered the respondent committed under section 29(1), to await the Minister’s order concerning extradition.