At first glance, the cooperation between the USA and the UAE appears to be a model of a strong strategic partnership. In this context, the existence of an extradition treaty seems like a logical element of legal interaction. However, upon closer analysis, it becomes evident that this document holds serious risks for American citizens. Due to the colossal differences in the legal systems of the two countries, the agreement could turn into a tool for prosecuting Americans for actions that are not considered crimes in their home country. Leading law firms regularly encounter such cases.
The principle of “double criminality” and its pitfalls
The fundamental principle of most extradition treaties is “double criminality.” This means that the act for which extradition is requested must be recognized as a crime under the laws of both countries. Formally UAE extradition treaty with US This principle is observed. However, the devil is in the details, namely — in the radically different interpretation of what exactly constitutes a crime, especially in the financial and social spheres. The main trap lies in the blurring of boundaries between civil and criminal law in the legislation of the UAE.
How do civil disputes become criminal offenses?
Many situations that in the USA would be resolved exclusively within the framework of civil proceedings can easily be criminalized in the Emirates. This creates grounds for abuse, where commercial disputes are intentionally shifted into the criminal domain. An unsecured check in the USA is a reason for a bank fine, while in the UAE, it can lead to a prison sentence. Breach of contract terms in America is grounds for a civil lawsuit, but in Dubai, it can be classified as the criminal offense of “breach of trust.” Even a sharp comment on social media, protected by freedom of speech in the USA, can become a reason for prosecution under defamation laws in the Emirates.
The role of the Interpol Red Notice in initiating the process
The process of prosecuting an American citizen often begins behind their back. A party from the UAE initiates a criminal case, based on which local authorities request Interpol to issue a red notice. From that moment, the American is entered into global search databases. They may not know about this until they are detained at an airport. The presence of a red notice serves as a catalyst for initiating the formal extradition procedure. This is why the first and most important step is to turn to an experienced Interpol red notice lawyer, who can challenge the legality of the notification itself even before the court hearings begin.
Features of considering extradition cases in U.S. courts
When a request for extradition from the UAE officially reaches the United States, the case is reviewed in an American federal court. And here, an unpleasant discovery awaits the American citizen. The court in the U.S. will not examine the case on its merits, meaning it will not determine whether the person is guilty. The role of the American court in the extradition process is narrow: it only checks whether the formal requirements of the treaty have been met. The judge will determine whether the principle of dual criminality has been observed. And it is precisely here that asymmetry becomes apparent: the court may find that an accusation of “fraud” due to an unpaid check formally corresponds to the elements of a crime under American law, even if in the U.S. this would never lead to criminal prosecution.
Asymmetric threat to American citizens
As a result, the extradition treaty, conceived as a symmetrical instrument of justice, in practice operates asymmetrically. It allows the UAE to project its much stricter legal norms onto U.S. citizens, who operate within a completely different legal culture. For Americans conducting business, working, or simply visiting the UAE, this means the need for heightened caution. Any financial or personal conflict can potentially escalate from a civil dispute into an international criminal case with the risk of arrest and extradition, emphasizing the absolute necessity of obtaining qualified legal advice at the slightest sign of serious disagreements.
