Extradition Request

The basic legal grounds for extradition requests and international cooperation are as follows.

The Act on International Judicial Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters sets out the basic procedures for judicial assistance in criminal matters between the Republic of Korea and foreign countries.

Here, assistance is not limited to the mere transmittal of documents. It extends to a broad range of areas, including locating persons or property, collecting evidence, conducting search, seizure, and inspection, serving documents, assisting with testimony, and surrendering evidentiary items.

What matters most in practice is the principle of treaty precedence.

Under Article 3 of the Act on International Judicial Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, where the provisions of a treaty on assistance differ from domestic law, the treaty generally applies first.

In other words, where an extradition or mutual assistance treaty has been concluded with a particular country, one must look beyond the domestic statutory provisions alone and review the requirements, scope of offenses, procedures, documents to be submitted, and grounds for refusal set out in that treaty.

For this reason, experience in domestic criminal defense alone is not enough for an extradition request case.

The attorney handling the matter must understand domestic law, treaties, foreign criminal procedure, international human rights reasoning, diplomatic channels, and the practical workings of the investigative authorities all at once.

Our firm provides client-tailored legal solutions through its U.S.-law advisory foreign attorney (U.S.), its relationship with the U.S. local law firm SJKP, and its cooperative ties with law firms in various regions abroad.

The most basic requirement in extradition is the principle of dual criminality.

This means that conduct treated as a crime in the requesting country must also be recognized as a crime in the Republic of Korea.

For example, even where conduct is punished abroad as a serious crime, extradition may not be permitted if it does not satisfy the elements of an offense under domestic law.

The key question is whether the substantive nature of the conduct is subject to criminal punishment in both countries.

The criminal facts in the foreign request should therefore be analyzed against the structure of domestic law, with close attention to whether any portion fails to satisfy the elements of an offense.

Extradition is not permitted for every offense. A treaty or statute will ordinarily designate only offenses carrying at least a certain level of punishment as extraditable.

This reflects the view that operating an interstate surrender procedure even for minor offenses would be disproportionate.

One must therefore examine in concrete terms whether the offense for which extradition is requested meets the seriousness requirement for extraditable offenses, what statutory penalty actually applies, and whether some offenses meet the requirement while others do not.

An extradition request reaches the court after passing through diplomatic channels and review by the Ministry of Justice.

In this process, the lawfulness of the request, the completeness of the supporting materials, the accuracy of the translation, and the adequacy of supporting evidence such as an arrest warrant or judgment become important issues.

In practice, the materials submitted by the requesting country may appear complete in form yet, in fact, fail to specify the criminal facts adequately, omit a document required by the treaty, contain an inaccurate translation, or leave the purpose of the extradition unclear.

In such cases, the matter should be actively contested at the extradition review stage.

One traditional principle of international extradition law is the principle of non-extradition for political offenses.

This is because, for offenses closely tied to criticism of a regime or to political opposition activity, the possibility of political persecution disguised as a criminal proceeding cannot be ruled out.

Even where a matter appears to involve an ordinary criminal offense, one must analyze closely whether it has, in reality, been requested within the context of a political conflict.

A strong argument can be made that extradition should be refused where a fair trial cannot be had in the requesting country, or where there is a risk of torture, mistreatment, or discriminatory punishment.

This issue carries particular weight in cases involving countries that retain the death penalty, countries with significant political instability, or countries that have drawn international criticism over human rights.

Where a final judgment has already been rendered and the sentence served for the same criminal facts, whether domestically or abroad, extraditing the person to be punished again can raise the problem of double jeopardy.

In addition, where an investigation or trial for the same offense is already underway in the Republic of Korea, one should consider whether the domestic proceeding ought to take priority over extradition.

Extradition requests are no longer confined to the problem of individual fugitives.

In recent years, a growing number of cases have escalated into corporate matters involving multinational companies, foreign-invested companies, domestic companies with overseas branches, virtual asset operators, fintech companies, import and export companies, and defense and technology companies.

Extradition or cooperation issues may arise in the following representative situations.

• Embezzlement, breach of trust, and financial fraud arising abroad
• Investigations of multinational company personnel under the FCPA or the UK Bribery Act
• Technology leaks and trade secret infringement
• International hacking, ransomware, and personal data breaches
• Money laundering, fraud, and market manipulation involving virtual assets and cryptocurrencies
• Cross-border unfair trading and fair trade cases
• Violations of defense, pharmaceutical, medical, and environmental regulations

These situations call for a cross-border response strategy, and our firm assists clients using the strategies set out below.

When an extradition request becomes an issue, considerable criminal and regulatory risk is often already running within the company.

Beyond the extradition review itself, a company should therefore also prepare its domestic and foreign investigation strategy, internal investigation, preservation of materials, alignment of statements, regulatory response, and collaboration with foreign law firms.

An extradition case is a classic cross-border criminal matter in which several proceedings run at the same time, including cooperation requests from domestic and foreign investigative authorities, Interpol notices, search and seizure, demands for the production of materials, exit bans, corporate internal investigations, and responses to foreign regulators.

Through an international criminal and cross-border response task force in which specialists in criminal, international trade, finance, tax, and fair trade law work alongside its Digital Forensics Center, Daeryun Law Firm provides comprehensive legal services across the full range of extradition and international judicial cooperation cases.

For one-stop legal support across cross-border criminal risk, from extradition requests, international mutual legal assistance, and Interpol notices to foreign regulatory responses and internal investigations, you may book a consultation through the firm's 🔗criminal defense attorney consultation.