Yahoo Finance Mike Lynch faces imminent US extradition order after legal defeat
Priti Patel has been ordered to make a decision within 48 hours on extraditing Mike Lynch, the alleged Autonomy fraudster, to the US after he lost a legal attempt to delay the ruling.
On Wednesday morning Mr Justice Swift dismissed a legal attempt to extend the Home Secretary’s deadline for approving the British businessman’s extradition until March.
The ruling is a blow to the Autonomy founder’s chances of fighting extradition to the US, where he could face a decades-long prison sentence if found guilty.
Mr Lynch, 56, is wanted on 17 counts of fraud over the $11bn (£8bn) sale of the former FTSE 100 software company Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard in 2011.
The US claims Mr Lynch and other Autonomy directors fraudulently inflated the company’s value before the sale. Mr Lynch denies the claims.
A judge ordered Mr Lynch’s extradition in July, but the ruling is yet to be signed off by the Home Secretary.
Ms Patel has been asked to postpone her decision until March, by which time a key legal ruling that could alter Mr Lynch’s fate will have been issued.
The parties are awaiting a verdict in a $5bn UK civil fraud claim against Mr Lynch brought by H-P, which is expected in the coming weeks.
The outcome of the civil case is one of the few avenues Ms Patel may have had to reject the US attempt to extradite Mr Lynch. It could also bolster Mr Lynch’s appeal against extradition.
Wednesday’s ruling means the Home Secretary now has 48 hours to make a decision.
She may choose to reject extradition on a rare legal ground known as specialty, or can take the unusual step of letting the judgment lapse.
Should Ms Patel approve his extradition, Mr Lynch will have 14 days to appeal last summer’s ruling, which could mean a final decision taking another year.
Mr Lynch’s legal team had claimed that a lower court had incorrectly rejected Ms Patel’s attempt to extend her decision.
However, Mr Justice Swift wrote in his judgment: “I am entirely satisfied this was a conclusion he was entitled to reach. It was permissible for the judge to require a better explanation be provided and, in the meantime, refuse the Secretary of State’s application.”
