AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)

The true Annex B does indeed contain a more detailed consideration of the issues. It begins by listing the charges which are the subject of the Request and then summarising what is alleged against the Claimant in relation to RaidForums ([1]-[5] of Annex B). At [6] and [7] it notes the then position in those proceedings i.e. that an extradition order had been made on 28 July 2023 and was the subject of a pending appeal. At [8] it then states the following in relation to the Warrant:

“Meanwhile, Portugal has requested Santos Coelho for the same crime, over the same period of time. There he is charged with money laundering, tax fraud, and illegal access. .. All of the victims referenced in the request, either a person or a business, are based in the US. The request does, however, add that Santos Coelho received approximately €646,000 (approximately £552,000), from various sources, into his bank account in Portugal. The request notes that Santos Coelho has never been fiscally registered for engaging in any business activities in Portugal nor has he submitted any income-tax declarations.” (emphasis added)

Under the heading “Key points for consideration” Annex B deals, in turn, with each of the four matters which the Minister was required by section 179(3) to consider. So far as material to the Claimant’s grounds of challenge, at [10] it states the following:

“Relative seriousness of the offences concerned. As per the guidance (Annex A), the relative seriousness of the offences will usually determine which claims precedence.

Both offences concern identical offending. However, as recorded in the Portuguese request, all the victims are based in the US. But both requests note that there are purported victims based outside the US. Neither request provides further detail or specific figures. It is unknown if any victims were based in Portugal. The period of alleged offending is also the same. (underlining added)

In terms of monies involved, the Portuguese request asserts the equivalent of approximately £552,000 came into Santos Coelho’s (Portuguese) bank account, while the US request claims the Raid Forums website charged the equivalent of £379,000 for the stolen details. Thus, the requests are referring to different sums (personal versus collective) and the reasons behind the mismatch are unclear.

As such, with the information available and given the identical facts, we are unable to fairly determine which request is relatively more serious and we must consider whether the other matters are determinative.” (emphasis added)

In relation to the next statutory consideration, [10] went on to say the following:

“The place where each offence was committed or allegedly committed. Santos Coelho was residing permanently in Viseu, Portugal, at the time of the allegations. He is a Portuguese national and it can be reasonably argued that this is favourable to the request from his home country. However, the guidance invites us to consider the whereabouts of witnesses and location of any victims. In both requests, the stated victims are exclusively based in the US, but neither request provides further detail or specific figures for the purported victims. It is unknown whether any victims are based in Portugal. The witnesses, including law-enforcement officials, appear to be based entirely in the US in both requests. (The primary investigation, although international in scope, was led by the FBI and the US Secret Service.)

Thus, if prosecution were to proceed in Portugal, the transmission of evidence and attendance of witnesses could potentially cause issues, thereby vitiating the proper and fair administration of justice. This matter, then, weighs in favour of the US request.” (underlining added)

[11] of Annex B added, after dealing with each of the mandatory statutory considerations:

“We have also considered the fact that Santos Coelho has opposed extradition to the US and consented to his extradition to Portugal. In our view, this is a neutral point, and while we appreciate the benefit of the latter from a procedural perspective, in our view the proper emphasis should be ensuring the most just outcome and not the most convenient. This, then, is a neutral factor.”

In relation to the Additional Point (the argument that no other decision was open to the SSHD at the time of the decision) I note that [9] of Annex B said:

“Santos Coelho was arrested, by appointment, in respect of the Portuguese request on 6 March 2024 and appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on the same day, where he consented to his extradition to Portugal. The judge was not made aware of the US request and, accepting Santos Coelho’s consent, duly ordered extradition to Portugal. Under the Extradition Act 2003, the Order for Santos Coelho’s extradition to Portugal stands, and the Secretary of State may order deferral of one of the requests. The Home Office’s process for competing requests, it should be noted, was followed and operated appropriately in this case; there is no provision in the Act which permits the correction of such anomalous errors.” (emphasis)

I note that neither this passage nor the relevant parts of the Submission (referred to at [57], above) made clear what, precisely, the error and its consequences were. The Minister was also given the impression, in the Submission and Annex B, that nothing could be done about it.