Romanian accountant sentenced to imprisonment for tax offences loses appeal against extradition

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] HCJAC 1
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lady Wise

Appellant Gheorghe Marcoci was subject to two outstanding sentences passed by different judges of Arad District Court in Romania dated 15 February 2018 and 16 December 2020, for eight years’ imprisonment and two years’ imprisonment respectively. He also argued that, as he had made an asylum application, the proceedings ought to be adjourned, and that new information had become available not presented to the sheriff during extradition proceedings.

The appeal was heard by Lord Doherty, Lady Wise, and Lord Armstrong. The appellant represented himself, while the lord advocate was represented by Stalker, advocate.

Visit from intelligence service

On 14 May 2018 the appellant, who worked as an accountant in Romania, moved to the UK. In evidence, he explained that he had around 160 clients, some of whom he described as persons of public standing or who had an important profile, and that he continued his practice remotely following his move to the UK with the firm operating in the name of his son.

The appellant further stated that he experienced regular difficulties with the Romanian tax authorities. He was arrested in 2016 and received a visit from the Romanian intelligence service, the SRI, who wanted information about his clients. After his first conviction, for which he initially received a postponed sentence of three years’ imprisonment, he fled Romania on the advice of his wife. European Arrest Warrants were issued seeking to enforce his two sentences in May and June of 2022.

Before the sheriff, the appellant argued that the prosecutions were politically motivated and brought by the Romanian authorities due to his uncompromising stance on client confidentiality. However, the sheriff did not accept there was evidence he had not been given a fair trial that met the high bar required not to grant extradition.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the sheriff erred in finding there had been no interference by the Romanian authorities. There had been a number of cases across Europe where requested persons had been discharged from extradition requests to Romania on the basis of non-compliance, where priority was not given to the rights of the individual. Additionally, appeal processes were ongoing which could result in his sentences being quashed, and the respondent’s insistence on extradition prior to the conclusion of those proceedings was oppressive.

Extraordinary remedies

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lady Wise observed: “Under reference to Van Der Kramer v Belgium (2013) and Janovic v Lithuania (2011) the sheriff recorded the well-established presumption that countries that are signatories to the ECHR will ensure that there are sufficient protections in place to allow those appearing before their courts to secure a fair trial. The issue was whether the evidence led by the appellant and his witness was adequate to persuade him that there had been oppressive conduct against the appellant by the state and/or unfair proceedings in Romania.”

She added: “The sheriff found the appellant’s evidence, claiming that the criminal prosecutions against him were politically motivated, unpersuasive. His general position on that was not supported by the evidence of his witness, who corroborated only his account of a single visit by a member of the SRI. As the sheriff put it, ‘There was simply no nexus between the visit from the SRI and the outcome of the two trials’.”

Considering the effect of the ongoing Romanian proceedings, Lady Wise said: “As counsel for the lord advocate pointed out, such ongoing proceedings are not listed as a bar to extradition in terms of section 11 of the 2003 Act. Some years have passed between the convictions and the recent applications. Those applications were not made until after these extradition proceedings were commenced and after ordinary appeal procedures had been exhausted and the sentences had become final. Revision and annulment are both extraordinary remedies granted only on very limited grounds.”

She concluded: “There is simply no support for the argument that the appellant will be denied a fair hearing in the ongoing appeal processes following extradition. Any period on remand pending their determination is a matter for the judicial authorities in Romania. We have concluded that the additional information about those proceedings does not engage the condition specified in section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.”

The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.