United States v. Raza Bokhari
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12709
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Bokhari is a U.S.–Pakistani dual citizen who lived in Wisconsin until 2001, then moved to Pakistan and allegedly directed an E-Rate fraud scheme with his brothers totaling about $1.2 million.
- An eight-count superseding indictment was returned in 2004 charging mail fraud, money laundering, and related offenses; Haider and Qasim Bokhari pleaded guilty and were sentenced to over five years.
- The United States sought Bokhari’s extradition from Pakistan in 2005; Pakistan declined to extradite following a Pakistani magistrate’s finding that U.S. evidence did not establish a prima facie case.
- In 2009 the U.S. secured an Interpol red notice; Bokhari has remained in Pakistan, avoiding travel to the United States.
- In 2013 Bokhari moved to dismiss the indictment and quash the arrest warrant on two grounds: lack of probable cause based on the Pakistani ruling (comity) and a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim; the district court denied the motion without prejudice under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
- The district court’s denial prompted Bokhari’s interlocutory appeal; the Seventh Circuit dismisses part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and proceeds to consider the comity issue on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper as to the speedy-trial claim | Bokhari argues for collateral-order or practical-finality review. | Government contends MacDonald bars interlocutory review of speedy-trial denials. | Speedy-trial issue dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the comity claim is reviewable as a collateral-order ruling | Bokhari seeks dismissal based on foreign-court decision undermining indictment. | Government contends comity does not foreclose indictment and is not collateral-estoppel preclusion. | Comity claim reviewable; district court’s denial affirmed on merits. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine | Bokhari challenges applicability of fugitive status given his residence in Pakistan. | Government defends district court’s use of the doctrine to deny relief. | Court reaches merits of comity claim; does not resolve fugitive-status question. |
| Whether mandamus jurisdiction is appropriate | Bokhari seeks mandamus if appellate jurisdiction lacking on other claims. | Government argues mandamus inappropriate given MacDonald and post-trial options. | Mandamus not warranted for speedy-trial claim; comity issue already jurisdictionally addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) (collateral-order-like inquiry requires finality to review non-final orders)
- Travis v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1993) (practical finality doctrine in collateral review)
- Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970) (fugitive disentitlement context; district court discretion)
- United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850 (1978) (speedy-trial denial not reviewable on collateral-order grounds before trial)
- Kashamu v. United States, 656 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2011) ( collateral-order review of foreign extradition denial; comity considerations with preclusion limits)
- Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014) (grand-jury probable cause and its inviolability)