Manrique v. O'Keefe

Background

The Republic of Peru sought Alejandro Toledo Manrique’s extradition so that he could be prosecuted for his alleged role in a bribery scheme involving construction contracts for the Peru-Brazil Southern Interoceanic Highway. Peru requested extradition under the Peru-U.S. Extradition Treaty. After an extradition proceeding, the extradition court found probable cause to believe that Toledo committed collusion and money laundering and certified him for extradition. Toledo remained released on bail while challenging that certification.

Toledo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court proceeding that allows a person to challenge the legality of detention or custody. He argued that the treaty did not apply because Peru had not formally charged him and had not submitted an Order of Prosecution. He also challenged the extradition court’s exclusion of evidence and its probable-cause finding.

Treaty’s Charging Requirements

The treaty permits extradition of people whom the requesting country has “charged with, found guilty of, or sentenced for” an extraditable offense. For a person sought for prosecution, the treaty requires an arrest warrant or order, a copy of the charging document, and evidence sufficient to justify committing the person for trial if the offense had occurred in the United States.

The court rejected Toledo’s argument that “charged” means formally charged through a specific Peruvian document. Relying on the treaty’s text, structure, drafting history, and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that “charged” is used in a general sense meaning “accused” or “sought for prosecution.” The treaty therefore does not limit extradition to people who have received a formal Order of Prosecution.

The court also held that Peru satisfied the charging-document requirement. Peru submitted Prosecutor’s Decision Nos. 6 and 8 and an Acusacion Fiscal. Those documents identified the charges and summarized the evidence. The court interpreted “the charging document” as a category of documents rather than one specific document and held that the submitted materials qualified. The court concluded that the treaty did not require Peru to submit an Order of Prosecution.

Evidence and Probable Cause

The court explained that probable cause in an extradition proceeding is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The question was whether any evidence provided a reasonable basis to believe that Toledo committed the alleged crimes. The extradition court’s probable-cause determination had to be upheld if supported by any competent evidence in the record.

The extradition court had excluded Peru’s Effective Collaboration Agreement with Josef Maiman, a Nominee Agreement concerning control of certain companies, and portions of a deposition transcript. The court held that these materials mainly challenged Maiman’s credibility or contradicted Peru’s evidence. They did not completely negate probable cause, so the extradition court properly declined to consider them under the rules governing evidence in extradition proceedings.

The court found sufficient evidence supporting both charges. Testimony from Maiman and Jorge Henrique Simoes Barata implicated Toledo in negotiations concerning the bribery scheme and in efforts to help Odebrecht obtain highway contracts. Toledo also admitted receiving approximately $500,000 and described aspects of the movement of money to him and to property connected to his mother-in-law. The court held that this evidence provided a reasonable basis to infer that the elements of collusion and money laundering could be established.

The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether Toledo was guilty. A Peruvian court would evaluate his defenses, assess witness credibility, weigh the evidence, and decide whether the evidence was sufficient for conviction.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler denied Toledo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The order left the extradition certification in place; the opinion explained that the Secretary of State ultimately decides whether to surrender a person to the requesting country.