Extradition from the UAE: the law, the grounds for refusal and the first 48 hours

The domestic basis is UAE Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters, issued on 31 October 2006. It sets out the conditions for surrender, how a request is examined, the powers of the court and the prosecution, and the list of grounds on which surrender is not permitted.

Bilateral treaties operate on top of it. With Russia there is one: the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates on Extradition was signed on 25 November 2014 and appears in the list of Russia’s international extradition treaties maintained by its Ministry of Justice.

An important correction to a common misconception: the absence of a treaty does not mean surrender is impossible. Law No. 39 applies where there is no specific treaty too — the matter is simply decided under the national procedure and on the basis of reciprocity.

The opposite misconception should also go. A treaty does not make surrender automatic. The law contains ten grounds on which surrender is not permitted at all, judicial review at two levels, and a separate requirement of ministerial approval before a decision can be executed.

Article 7 of the law sets three conditions, all of which can be checked against documents before you ever travel.

First: the offence for which surrender is sought must be punishable under the law of the requesting state by imprisonment of at least one year or a more severe penalty.

Second: the same act must constitute, in the territory of the UAE, an offence punishable by imprisonment of at least one year or more. This is dual criminality, and it is tested against Emirati law, not the law of the country that sent the request.

Third concerns those already convicted: where surrender is sought to enforce a sentence, the remaining period to be served must not be less than six months. A short remainder closes the matter.

One point is spelled out that people often hope for in vain. Article 7(4): in determining whether the act is a punishable offence under the laws of both states, it is of no effect that the offence is named or described differently or that its elements differ. What is compared is the substance of the conduct, not the wording of the provisions, and a mismatch of labels is not something to count on.

Article 8 adds a package rule: where a request covers several offences punishable under the laws of both states, surrender may be approved for all of them even if some fail the conditions — provided the conditions are met for at least one offence in the request.

Article 9 lists the cases in which surrender is not allowed. This is not judicial discretion and not a matter for negotiation — it is a prohibition. The list is worth knowing in full, because in any given case the ground that actually bites is usually not the one people think of first.

One: the requested person is a citizen of the State. Two: the law of the State confers jurisdiction over the offence on its own judicial authorities.

Three: the offence is a political crime or correlated to a political crime. Four: the offence is limited to offences against military obligations.

Five: significant grounds exist to believe that the request aims at prosecuting or punishing the person for reasons related to ethnic or religious affiliation, nationality or political opinions — or that the existence of any of these grounds would damage that person’s position.

Six: the person has already been subjected to investigation or trial in the State for the same offence. Seven: the person was previously tried for that offence, a judgment of acquittal or conviction was rendered, and the sentence has been fully served. Eight: an irrevocable judgment has been rendered by the State’s courts on that offence.

Nine: the criminal action has been terminated or the sentence is barred by limitation at the time the surrender request is submitted.

Ten: the person was or may be subjected in the requesting State to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or to a severe penalty disproportionate to the offence — or where the minimum guarantees laid down in the criminal procedure law are unavailable there.

The third and fifth grounds in Article 9 arise most often in cases involving people from Russia and the CIS, and they deserve separate treatment.

The political exception has an expressly drawn limit. The law lists what is not to be deemed political: terrorist crimes, war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression against the President of the State or any member of his family, his deputy, members of the Supreme Council or their family members, the Prime Minister, persons enjoying international protection, and crimes against the State’s facilities and basic interests.

The fifth ground is the most valuable, because it does not require proving that the conduct itself was political. It is enough that significant grounds exist to believe that a formally criminal request conceals persecution on ethnic, religious, national or political lines. The wording almost mirrors Article 3(2) of the European Convention on Extradition, and it is proved with the same documents: a dated chronology, decisions of other countries’ courts, asylum granted, materials linking the case to a commercial conflict.

Note the second half of the fifth paragraph: the ground is made out not only where persecution is the aim, but also where the existence of such circumstances would damage the person’s position. That is broader than proving the motive behind the request, and in a number of cases it is this part that does the work.

The fourth ground — offences against military obligations — covers draft evasion and failure to report for mobilisation, provided the charge is limited to that and carries no ordinary-law count alongside it.

This ground deserves its own section, because it is framed more broadly than in most comparable statutes and because in modern cases it often decides the outcome.

Surrender is not permitted where the person was or may be subjected in the requesting State to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. Here Emirati law tracks the international standard: Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture expressly prohibits extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of torture, and requires account to be taken of any consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that State.

But the law goes further and names two more situations. A severe penalty disproportionate to the offence is a ground in its own right, requiring no proof of a torture risk. And the unavailability of the minimum guarantees laid down in the criminal procedure law — an argument about the quality of the process rather than about conditions of detention.

The practical value of those two formulations is considerable. They give something to stand on where a claim of torture cannot be proved but where one can show, for instance, that the punishment is disproportionate to an economic offence, or that procedural guarantees are systematically absent in a particular category of case.

This has to be proved with documents rather than description: reports by international organisations tied to your category of case and region; decisions of other states’ courts refusing surrender on similar charges; data on the sentences imposed under the provision you are charged under.

A large share of the notices originating from the UAE grew not out of fraud but out of cheques. For years, issuing a cheque without sufficient funds carried criminal liability in the Emirates, while cheques were used as ordinary security for leases, loans and commercial deals. A businessperson who left the country with an outstanding cheque acquired a criminal case almost automatically.

That changed at the start of 2022. Amendments to the Commercial Transactions Law, in force from 2 January 2022, decriminalised the issuing of a cheque without sufficient funds as such. An unpaid cheque became an executory instrument: the holder applies directly to the execution judge, bypassing the criminal process. The bank must also release whatever part of the sum is in the account rather than bouncing the instrument in full.

Criminal liability was retained for specific bad-faith conduct: closing the account or withdrawing all the funds before issuing the cheque or before it is presented for payment, and instructing the bank not to pay a cheque without lawful reason.

For challenging data held by INTERPOL this matters directly, and the confirmation here is first-rate. The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, in its 2024 annual report, names outright people wanted on the sole basis of unfunded cheques with no link to fraud — as a case where the data do not comply with a clear rule or practice of INTERPOL. Such cases are decided even between the Commission’s sessions.

The practical conclusion: an old UAE cheque case is among the strongest grounds for a deletion request that exist. But it works only where the materials show there is no link to fraud and the charge has not been recast as an ordinary-law offence.

This is the fastest and the most important part of the procedure.

Article 15: in cases of urgency the Public Prosecutor or a delegate may, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by a foreign judicial authority, order the provisional arrest of the person sought pending receipt of the surrender request. Detention does not preclude release on a personal or financial guarantee. Release does not preclude re-arrest once the request arrives.

Article 16: once the request is received, the prosecutor may order arrest for fear of escape if the person is not already detained, and may — of his own motion or on application — order release on a guarantee.

Article 17 sets the window around which the whole defence is built. The detained person must be brought before the competent Public Prosecution within forty-eight hours of arrest. The prosecution must inform them of the reason for the arrest, the content of the surrender request, and the evidence and documents relating to it. Their statements are recorded, and they have the right to have a lawyer present when those statements are heard.

From this follows the only genuinely practical piece of travel advice for the UAE: have a local lawyer’s contact before you fly, not after you are detained. Forty-eight hours does not accommodate finding counsel from custody in a foreign country in an unfamiliar language.

Article 21 offers a reassuring rule too: refusal of surrender leads to the immediate release of the person, even if the decision says nothing about it.

The request is made in writing through the diplomatic channel and referred to the competent Department, and all information and documents must be translated into Arabic and officially ratified by the competent authorities (Article 11). The request must be accompanied by: the name and description of the person sought, photographs if they exist and any other information helping to establish identity, nationality and place of domicile; a copy of the legal provision applicable to the offence and the penalty prescribed in the requesting State; an official copy of the investigation statement and the arrest warrant issued by the competent foreign judicial authority, where the person is under investigation; and an official copy of the judgment of conviction stating the offence, the acts attributed to the person and the penalty imposed, together with confirmation that the judgment is enforceable, where the person has been convicted.

The competent Department verifies that the formal requirements are met and refers the request to the Public Prosecutor; if the information and documents are insufficient to decide, it may ask the requesting State for clarification or further material within a fixed period (Article 12).

Surrender is impossible without a decision of the competent court that it is permissible (Article 13). The single exception is a decision of the Minister on the proposal of the Public Prosecutor, where there is only one requesting State and the person has consented to surrender in writing; the law separately requires the consent to set out their personal details, the details of the case, and confirmation that it is given freely and with knowledge of the consequences (Article 14).

The prosecutor refers the request to the court within fifteen days of examining it, with a written memorandum and all supporting documents (Article 18). The court hears the matter in closed session in the presence of the prosecution, the person and their lawyer, and decides after hearing both sides (Article 19). The decision on the permissibility of surrender must be reasoned (Article 20).

The decision may be challenged by the prosecutor and by the person before the competent court of appeal; the period is thirty days from delivery where the decision was given in the parties’ presence, or from notification where it was given in their absence (Article 22). The appeal hearing is fixed for no later than ten days after the challenge is lodged (Article 23).

A decision permitting surrender cannot be executed until it becomes irrevocable (Article 24), and not without the Minister’s approval (Article 26). So between the request and an actual handover stand a prosecutorial check, two judicial instances and a political decision.

The law limits the final stage as well, and it is worth knowing in advance — this is where some cases end.

If the requesting State has not taken over the person covered by a surrender decision within thirty days of notification, they shall be released, and surrender to that State is possible only under a fresh decision (Article 28).

If exceptional circumstances prevent surrender or receipt within that period, the requesting State is notified and the competent judicial authority fixes a final date for surrender. After that period the person is released, and surrender may no longer be requested for the same act or acts.

The same article sets an overall cap: in all cases the period of detention of the person sought may be increased to sixty days.

Article 10 deals with the reverse situation — where an investigation or trial for a different offence is running in the UAE itself. Surrender is then postponed until those proceedings end or the judgment becomes irrevocable, and where the person is convicted, until the sentence has been served. Temporary surrender is also possible: where the requesting State undertakes to return the person promptly after a decision in their case, or within a period set by the UAE which may not exceed six months from the date of surrender.

Article 29 makes execution of a surrender conditional on an undertaking by the requesting State: not to surrender the person to a third State, and not to charge, try, sentence or imprison them for offences and related acts predating the request other than those for which they were surrendered.

There are two exceptions. First, the person voluntarily remains in the territory of the State to which they were surrendered for more than thirty days after being notified that the proceedings requiring their presence have ended, or voluntarily returns after leaving. Second, the Minister’s approval — provided the requesting State submits a fresh request in the manner set out in Article 11, supported by a judicial record containing the person’s testimony and defence.

A request to surrender the person onward to a third State is examined by the competent court, applying this same law and the bilateral and multilateral agreements in force that do not conflict with the State’s constitutional principles (Article 30).

Why this matters in advance. Speciality turns the wording of the request into a ceiling on what the person can actually be tried for after handover. So the defence argues not only about whether surrender is permissible at all, but about its scope: the more narrowly the acts are framed, the less the requesting State is left with.

This law contains a provision that is almost never written about, and it changes the strategy entirely.

Article 25: a decision refusing surrender does not preclude a further decision permitting surrender on a new request from the same State and regarding the same offences — where new grounds have appeared that were not previously put before the competent court.

In other words, winning an extradition case does not close the subject. The requesting country can come back with new material, and the court will consider the request afresh.

From which follows something we repeat in every article, not to sell a service but because it is true: defending yourself where you live and challenging the data at INTERPOL are not alternatives but two halves of one job. While the record lives in the system it will keep generating detentions in third countries and fresh attempts, even after a win in the Emirates.

And conversely: a reasoned judicial decision refusing surrender — and Article 20 requires the decision to be reasoned — becomes independent confirmation for INTERPOL’s Commission that something about the prosecution does not hold. It is among the weightiest documents that can be attached to a deletion request.

Almost everything that works in this area works in advance. After an arrest the choice narrows to what can be done in forty-eight hours.

Establish whether there are any data at all. A request for access to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files is free: Article 30(3) of its Statute expressly prohibits any charge. But the deadline is four months from the date the request is declared admissible, and in 2024, 70 per cent of such requests took longer. Planning the check for the week before your flight is pointless.

Assess the specific charge against Article 7: is there an offence in Emirati law carrying a year or more, and where a sentence is being enforced, is more than six months left to serve? That is an analysis done on documents and does not require you to be in the country.

Prepare documents in the form in which they will be needed. Article 11 requires material accompanying a request to be translated into Arabic and officially ratified; the same logic applies on your side — a foreign court decision without a certified translation is not a document in an urgent situation.

Have a local lawyer’s contact in advance and know whom to call in the first hours. This is not over-caution: the forty-eight hours under Article 17 is the real period within which your statements will be taken.

And the simplest point. If there are no data in the system, the matter is closed and there is nothing to spend money on. On the Commission’s 2024 figures, 57 per cent of those who filed an access request turned out to have no data at all. Checking reassures more often than it confirms.

The UAE does not extradite anyone. It does. There is a federal law, a procedure, and bilateral treaties, including the treaty with Russia of 25 November 2014.

The UAE extradites everyone. Also untrue. Article 9 contains ten grounds on which surrender is not permitted at all, the decision is taken by a court, it can be appealed, and execution requires ministerial approval.

No treaty means nothing can happen. Law No. 39 applies without a specific treaty too, under the national procedure and on the basis of reciprocity.

Emirati citizenship will save you. Formally yes — the first paragraph of Article 9. In practice naturalisation in the Emirates is exceptionally rare, and no plan should rest on it.

A cheque case is forever. Since 2 January 2022 issuing a cheque without sufficient funds is not in itself a crime, and INTERPOL’s Commission expressly treats being wanted over an unfunded cheque with no link to fraud as a breach of a clear rule.

Winning the extradition case is enough. Article 25 permits a fresh decision on a new request from the same State where new grounds appear. While the data live in INTERPOL’s system, the story is not over.