In re Extradition of Yoo
| Decision Date | 02 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20 Mag. 2252 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF HYUK KEE YOO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
CERTIFICATATION OF EXTRADITABILITY AND OF COMMITMENT
In this action, the United States Government (the “Government”), acting at the request of the Government of the Republic of Korea, seeks a certification that Hyuk Kee Yoo (“Yoo”) is extraditable pursuant to the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America (the “United States” or the “Government”) and the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), signed on June 9, 1998 and entered into force on December 20, 1999 (the “Treaty”). 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, S. TREATY DOC. No. 106-2 [hereinafter “Extradition Treaty”]. Yoo opposes extradition, arguing that (1) there is insufficient evidence for a finding of probable cause; and (2) it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the extradition request demonstrates probable cause and satisfies the relevant requirements. Furthermore, the Court lacks authority to determine whether this prosecution is time-barred, as that inquiry is a discretionary matter reserved for the Secretary of State. Accordingly, the Court certifies that Yoo is extraditable pursuant to the Treaty.
On or about February 27, 2020, the Government filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) requesting the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Yoo pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and the Treaty, and attaching various documents submitted by Korea in support of its extradition request. (Docket No. 2). The Court issued an arrest warrant, and the Government arrested Yoo on or about July 22, 2020. During the initial presentment, at which Yoo appeared with counsel, the Court ordered that Yoo be detained without bail pending the outcome of the proceeding, and set a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. On October 5, 2020, counsel for Yoo moved to dismiss on the grounds that Yoo is not extraditable (Docket Nos. 17, 18), and after being granted a six-week extension, [1] on December 8, 2020, the Government filed a brief in support of extradition attaching additional materials to supplement Korea's extradition request, (Docket Nos. 27, 27-1, 27-2). On December 21, 2020, counsel for Yoo filed a brief in reply. (Docket No. 30). On January 7, 2021, the Government submitted further supplemental materials from the Republic of Korea in support of its request for extradition, (Docket Nos. 31, 31-1), and counsel for Yoo filed a response to that submission on January 25, 2021, (Docket Nos. 34, 34-1, 34-2).
On March 3, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184. (See March 3, 2021 Minute Entry). At the hearing, the Government submitted the following documentary evidence, which the Government had previously provided to the Court:
Counsel for Yoo submitted seventy-one additional exhibits, which they had also previously provided to the Court. (See Docket No. 38). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3190, the Court admitted the Government's exhibits into evidence, with no objection from Yoo, as well as Defense Exhibits 5 and 8 through 15, with no objection from the Government. However, the Government objected to admission into evidence of the remainder of Yoo's exhibits, and the Court reserved ruling on that issue. (Id.). The Court also heard argument from the Government and counsel for Yoo for and against extradition.
The Complaint summarizes the allegations underlying Korea's charges against Yoo as follows. Yoo is the son of Byung Eyn Yoo, the prominent founder and former leader of a religious group in Korea called the Evangelical Baptist Church (the “Church”). (Docket Nos. 2 ¶ 6a; 2-3 at 21, EX-YOO-00099).[2] Yoo became the de facto leader of the Church in 2010. (Docket No. 2 ¶ 6a). Yoo's family collectively controls a company called I-One-I Holdings (“I-One-I”), which in turn holds a controlling interest in a No. of commercial entities. (Docket Nos. 2 ¶ 1.6b; 2-4 at 21-25, EX-YOO-S1-00021-25; see also Docket No. 2-8 at 4-5, EX-YOO-S5-00004-5). Between January 2008 and March 2014, Yoo leveraged his family's power as business and religious leaders in Korea to take the assets of a No. of these entities (the “Companies”). (Docket No. 2 ¶¶ 6-7).
Specifically, Yoo conspired with the chief executive officers (“CEOs”) of the Companies to enter into sham contracts through which Yoo embezzled millions of dollars from the Companies to the detriment of their shareholders. (Id. ¶ 6). To do so, Yoo used his stature in the Church, his connection with his father, and the overlapping leadership structure between the Companies and I-One-I to cause the executives to enter into contracts for fraudulent goods or services in exchange for payments to him or his private company, Key Solutions. (Id. ¶¶ 6c-e; see also Docket No. 2-3 at 21, EX-YOO-00099). A No. of executives of the various Companies with whom Yoo conspired are officers or directors of I-One-I, including Park Seung-il, who was a Director of I-One-I as well as Chonhaiji Co., Ltd., (“Chonhaiji”), and an auditor of Ahae. (Docket Nos. 2 ¶ 6c; 2-8 at 7, EX-YOO-S5-00007). In addition, a No. of these executives, as well as employees and shareholders of each Company, are followers of the Church. (Docket No. 2 ¶ 6c). Yoo and his co-conspirators' embezzlement schemes took three forms: (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. ¶ 6e).
Through these schemes, Yoo defrauded the Companies of over KRW 29 billion, causing their shareholders' investments to suffer because Yoo was plundering the assets of the companies in which they held an interest. (Id. ¶ 6g). The details of these schemes, which make up seven counts of embezzlement, are described as follows. (See generally Id. ¶ 7a-g).
In or around January 2008, Yoo conspired with Byeon Gi-chun, the CEO of Chonhaiji, to sign a contract requiring Chonhaiji to pay Yoo 1% to 5% of its revenue using the company's existing corporate name, which Yoo registered as a trademark even though the name had no brand value. (Docket Nos. 2 ¶ 7a; 2-3 at 5, 9, EX-YOO-00083, 87). The payments under the contract were trademark royalty payments “in name only, ” and “actually” were “a means to embezzle money from [Chonhaiji].” (Docket No. 2 ¶ 7a) (internal quotation marks omitted). The payments continued until June 2010, totaling approximately KRW 1, 235, 426, 711. (Id.).
In or around January 2009, Yoo conspired with Lee Jae-yeong, the CEO of Ahae Co. Ltd. (“Ahae”), to enter into a “sham” trademark licensing agreement requiring Ahae to pay .8% to 1.6% of its monthly revenue to Yoo in royalty payments for a trademark Yoo had previously registered. (Docket No. 2 ¶ 7b; see also Docket No. 2-3 at 5, 8-9, EX-YOO-00083, 86-87). However, Ahae had already been using the mark for approximately ten years before Yoo registered it and demanded the fee. (See Docket No. 2 ¶ 7b). Moreover, the fee amount was not based on “common market pricing” and was “unilaterally” set by Yoo. (Id.). The payments, which continued until December 2013, amounted to approximately KRW 5, 346, 311, 045 in total. (Id.).
Also in or around January 2009, Yoo conspired with Lee Ho-seop, the CEO of Onnara Shopping Co., Ltd. (“Onnara Shopping”), [3] to sign an Exclusive License Contract (the “Exclusive License Contract”), which required the company to pay Yoo a percentage of its revenue as “purported compensation” for using its existing name, which Yoo registered as a trademark. (Docket Nos. 2 ¶ 7c; 2-3 at 23, EX-YOO-00101; 2-4 at 30, EX-YOO-S1-00030). Again, Yoo unilaterally set the fee amount. (Docket No. 2 ¶ 7c). Moreover, these payments were not in Onnara Shopping's financial interest, but rather, were “disguised as trademark royalties . . . to transfer . . . funds to Y[oo]'s family.” (Id.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Onnara Shopping made the payments until December 2011 and they amounted to approximately KRW 328, 436, 704. (Id.).
In or around March 2010, Yoo conspired with Go Chang-hwan, the CEO of Semo Co., Ltd. (“Semo”), to sign a Business Consulting Service Contract (the “Business Consulting Service Contract”) pursuant to which Key Solutions promised to provide Semo with risk management advice. (Docket Nos. 2 ¶ 7d; 2-3 at 21-22, EX-YOO-00099-100). The contract provided that in exchange, Semo would pay Key Solutions KRW 25, 000, 000 every month. (Docket No. 2 ¶ 7d). However, Key Solutions only provided business consulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial