Hyuk Kee Yoo v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-6184 (CS) |
| Parties | HYUK KEE YOO, a/k/a “KEITH YOO, ” Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
HYUK KEE YOO, a/k/a “KEITH YOO, ” Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 21-CV-6184 (CS)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
November 1, 2021
Paul Shechtman
Bracewell LLP
New York, New York
Shawn Naunton
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
New York, New York
Counsel for Petitioner
Derek Wikstrom
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
White Plains, New York
Counsel for Respondent
OPINION & ORDER
CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court is the petition of Yoo Hyuk Kee (“Yoo” or “Petitioner”) for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy's July 2, 2021 Order, (Ext. Dkt. No. 39 (the “Extradition Order”)), [1] certifying Petitioner as extraditable pursuant to the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America (the “United States” or “Government”) and the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), signed on
June 9, 1998 and entered into force on December 20, 1999. Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea, K.-U.S., June 9, 1998, T.I.A.S. No. 12, 962 (the “Treaty”).
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
On May 8, 2014, after Petitioner was charged with seven counts of embezzlement, a judge of the Incheon District Court in Korea issued a warrant for his arrest. (Ext. Dkt. No. 2 ¶¶ 4-5.) Petitioner is located in the United States, and on May 28, 2014, the Korean government sent its first diplomatic note seeking his extradition. (Ext. Dkt. No. 2-1 ¶¶ 3, 6.) Over the next several years the Korean government made a number of supplemental submissions. (Id.) The Government filed a complaint on February 27, 2020, seeking a warrant for Petitioner's arrest under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (the “Extradition Statute”) and the Treaty. (Ext. Dkt. No. 2); see In re Extradition of Hyuk Kee Yoo, No. 20-MJ-2252, 2021 WL 2784836, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2021).[2] The Extradition Court issued the arrest warrant on July 22, 2020, and ordered Petitioner detained without bail. In re Extradition of Hyuk Kee Yoo, 2021 WL 2784836, at *1. Petitioner's counsel moved to dismiss the Government's complaint on October 5, 2020; the Government filed a brief in support of extradition on December 8, 2020; and Petitioner filed his reply on December 21, 2020. Id. On January 7, 2021, the Government made a supplemental submission, to which Petitioner replied on January 25, 2021. Id.
The Extradition Court held an evidentiary hearing on March 3, 2021. Id. at *1-2. At the hearing, the Extradition Court admitted four exhibits submitted by the Government, without
objection from Petitioner, and admitted nine of his proffered seventy-one exhibits, reserving decision on whether to admit the remaining sixty-two. (Ext. Dkt. No. 38.) Petitioner's exhibits to which the Government did not object were English translations of excerpts of transcripts of witness interviews conducted by Korean prosecutors. (Id.); see In re Extradition of Hyuk Kee Yoo, 2021 WL 2784836, at *2.[3] The Korean government had submitted English summaries of these interviews but had not included direct translations of the transcripts. In re Extradition of Hyuk Kee Yoo, 2021 WL 2784836 at *11 n.16.
On July 2, 2021, the Extradition Court issued the eighty-page Extradition Order, ruling on the admissibility of all outstanding evidence and certifying Petitioner as extraditable pursuant to the Treaty. Id. at *1.
B. The Republic of Korea's Allegations
Petitioner is the son of a prominent religious and business leader in Korea, Yoo Byeong-eun. Id. at *2. Petitioner took over his father's church as de facto leader in 2010 and is also involved in the family businesses. Id. Petitioner's family controls I-One-I Holdings (“I-One-I”), which holds a controlling interest in a number of affiliated corporate entities (the “Affiliated Entities”). Id. The charges against Petitioner stem from three categories of alleged schemes to embezzle money from several of these entities: “(1) pretextual and fraudulent trademark licensing agreements with the Companies; (2) pretextual and fraudulent agreements for business consulting services with the Companies; and (3) a scheme to cause the Companies to make advance payments in support of a photography exhibition by Yoo's father at inflated values.” Id. Korea alleges that, at Petitioner's direction, certain co-conspirator Chief Executive Officers
(“CEOs”) of the Affiliated Entities entered into contracts and arranged for payments from the Affiliated Entities to Petitioner or his private company Key Solutions. Id.
1. Trademark Schemes
Petitioner allegedly embezzled funds from three Affiliated Entities - Chonhaiji Co., Ltd. (“Chonhaiji”), Ahae Co. Ltd. (“Ahae”), and Onnara Shopping Co., Ltd. (“Onnara Shopping”) - through schemes in which he registered trademarks used by the entities and then conspired with the CEOs to sign licensing agreements so he would be paid for the marks' use at above-market rates. Id. at *3. Payments were made to Petitioner under these agreements from January 2008 until June 2010 (Chonhaiji), January 2009 until December 2013 (Ahae), and January 2009 until December 2011 (Onnara Shopping). Id.
2. Consulting Schemes
Korea also alleges that Petitioner embezzled funds from three of the Affiliated Entities - Semo Co., Ltd. (“Semo”), Moreal Design Inc. (“Moreal”), and Chonhaiji - through sham consulting agreements. Id. at *3-4. Petitioner allegedly conspired with the CEOs to cause these entities to enter into consulting contracts with Petitioner's private company, Key Solutions, by which Key Solutions was paid monthly consulting fees but either did not provide the services or provided only limited services. Id. Payments were made to Key Solutions or to Petitioner directly by Semo from March 2010 until March 2014, by Moreal from April 2010 until December 2013, and by Chonhaiji from February 2011 until November 2011. Id.
3. Photography Scheme
Finally, in or around 2013, Petitioner allegedly coerced Chonhaiji to provide its own money, and money transferred to it by several other Affiliated Entities, ostensibly as advance payments for investment in unspecified photographs taken by Petitioner's father, but the
payments allegedly greatly exceeded the value of any such photographs and much of the money was in fact used to fund an exhibition of his father's work at the Palace of Versailles. Id. at *4, 30.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An extradition court has the limited task of determining whether there is sufficient evidence “to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention.” 18 U.S.C. § 3184. If the court finds that the request falls within the treaty and satisfies the Extradition Statute, it must issue a certificate of extraditability to the Secretary of State, who makes the ultimate decision whether to extradite the individual. Id.
At an extradition hearing, the judicial officer's inquiry is confined to the following: whether a valid treaty exists; whether the crime charged is covered by the relevant treaty; and whether the evidence marshaled in support of the complaint for extradition is sufficient under the applicable standard of proof. An extradition hearing is not to be regarded as in the nature of a final trial by which the prisoner could be convicted or acquitted of the crime charged against him, and is not the occasion for an adjudication of guilt or innocence. Rather, it is essentially a preliminary examination to determine whether a case is made out which will justify the holding of the accused and his surrender to the demanding nation.
Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 154-55 (2d Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). Assuming that there is a valid treaty and the crimes charged fall within that treaty, the role of the extradition court is “in line with [a magistrate judge's] accustomed task of determining if there is probable cause to hold a defendant to answer for the commission of an offense.” Lo Duca v. United States, 93 F.3d 1100, 1104 (2d Cir. 1996) (cleaned up).
Review of a magistrate's determination that a person is extraditable is even more circumscribed. “Because extradition orders are regarded as preliminary determinations . . . they may only be reviewed by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Skaftouros, 667 F.3d at 157. Habeas review of an extradition order is confined to (1) “‘whether
the magistrate had jurisdiction, '” (2) “‘whether the offense charged is within the treaty'” and, (3) “‘whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.'” Id. (quoting Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925)). “Ultimately, ‘in order to merit habeas relief in a proceeding seeking collateral review of an extradition order, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is in custody in violation' of the statute authorizing extradition or the applicable extradition treaty.” Bisram v. United States, 777 Fed.Appx. 563, 565 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (quoting Skaftouros, 667 F.3d at 158). Thus, “collateral review of an international extradition order should begin with the presumption that both the order and the related custody of the fugitive are lawful.” Skaftouros, 667 F.3d at 158.
III. DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not challenge Magistrate Judge McCarthy's jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and Local Criminal Rule 59.1(b), nor does he dispute that the Treaty between the United States and Korea is in force. See In re Extradition of Hyuk Kee Yoo, 2021 WL 2784836, at *5. The Extradition Court also concluded that the embezzlement crimes satisfy the “dual criminality requirements” of the Treaty, id. at *6, and Petitioner does not contend otherwise. But Petitioner argues that he is being held in violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial