The High Court has ordered Patrick Lee committed to prison to await an order from the Minister for Justice on his extradition to the United States, where he is wanted for trial on 51 charges. The order followed an extradition hearing under section 29 of the Extradition Act 1965. It does not itself direct his surrender to the United States.
The indictment alleges 29 counts of wire fraud, six counts of unlawful monetary transactions and 16 counts of aggravated identity theft. The allegations concern a mortgage fraud scheme involving properties in South Boston and Dorchester, Massachusetts, between about July 2005 and May 2007. The US evidence, as summarised in the judgment, alleges that Lee and others used straw buyers, false loan information and forged property appraisals to obtain mortgage loans. It alleges that lenders relied on that information, loans went unpaid and the properties were foreclosed. Lee denied committing fraud.
Lee challenged extradition on several grounds, including prison conditions, the US plea bargaining system, the reliability of evidence supporting the request, the territoriality bar in Irish law, the rule of specialty and whether the alleged offences had Irish-law equivalents. The court rejected all of his objections.
The court considered an earlier statement in the US supporting affidavit that Lee had left the country on 24 June 2007 after contact with law enforcement. US authorities later acknowledged that date was wrong: travel records showed Lee entered the United States on 24 June and left on 27 June. The court accepted the error had been explained and did not undermine the credibility of the extradition evidence.
On prison conditions and pre-trial detention, the court considered evidence from both sides, including a US official’s account of possible detention facilities and arrangements for healthcare and oversight. It concluded the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds to believe Lee faced a real risk of treatment breaching his fundamental rights. It also rejected his arguments about plea bargaining and the alleged territoriality bar.
For the correspondence requirement, the court found Irish-law equivalents in causing loss by deception for the wire fraud counts, money laundering for the monetary transaction counts, and forgery for the identity theft counts. It also found that each category met the statutory minimum penalty thresholds.
The court said Lee retained the right to appeal on a point of law and to seek bail in the context of an appeal. The judgment was delivered on 23 March 2015.