United States v. Bokhari, 993 F. Supp. 2d 936

Raza Bokhari, a U.S. citizen who lived and worked in the Eastern District of Wisconsin for years, was indicted in 2004 for fraud involving the federal E‑Rate program; his two brothers pled guilty.
Bokhari returned to Pakistan and has lived there since; the U.S. pursued but ultimately abandoned effective extradition after a Pakistani inquiry magistrate found no prima facie case and Pakistan largely stopped authorizing extraditions.
The U.S. filed an Interpol Red Notice (with administrative delay issues), but Bokhari has not left Pakistan since indictment.
Bokhari moved to dismiss the indictment and to quash the arrest warrant; Magistrate Judge Goodstein recommended denying the motion on the merits, relying on In re Hijazi.
The district court applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, concluding Bokhari constructively fled by remaining in Pakistan and opposing extradition, and denied the motion without prejudice under that doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine bars adjudication of Bokhari's pretrial motion	Bokhari: not a fugitive because he was abroad when indicted, has done what was legally required, and thus Hijazi requires the court to decide the motion on the merits	Government: Bokhari constructively fled by remaining in Pakistan and opposing extradition; he should not get court resources while insulating himself from enforcement	Court: Fugitive disentitlement applies; motion denied without prejudice under the doctrine
Whether In re Hijazi compels decision on the merits here	Bokhari: Hijazi prevents invocation of disentitlement because defendant was abroad and not avoiding a U.S. forum	Government: Hijazi is factually distinguishable (Hijazi never had U.S. ties and surrendered to local authorities)	Court: Hijazi is distinguishable; cannot compel ruling here
Effect of failed/abandoned extradition and Red Notice on discretion to apply disentitlement	Bokhari: procedural failures and Pakistan’s refusal to extradite make adjudication necessary	Government: Failed extradition and Red Notice do not negate constructive flight or the reciprocal obligations underlying disentitlement	Court: Such failures do not prevent application of the doctrine; reciprocal enforceability concern supports denial

Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (principle that escape/disentitlement may bar appellate review)
In re Hijazi, 589 F.3d 401 (7th Cir.) (foreign defendant not constructively fleeing; merits review appropriate)
United States v. Eng, 951 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.) (constructive flight may be inferred from failure to surrender)
United States v. Catino, 735 F.2d 718 (2d Cir.) (same; failure to return can constitute fleeing)
United States v. Kashamu, 656 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Ill.) (application of fugitive disentitlement to pretrial criminal matters)
Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727 (7th Cir.) (reciprocal obligations and enforceability factor in disentitlement decisions)
Gutierrez-Almazan v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 956 (7th Cir.) (describing disentitlement as a discretionary device)