Beraru v Bucharest Court: Extradition appeal dismissed on dual criminality grounds

The High Court has dismissed an appeal against an extradition order in Iulian Beraru v Bucharest Court – First Criminal Division Romania [2025] EWHC 2770 (Admin), finding that alleged offences involving an organised crime group trafficking women for sexual exploitation satisfied the dual criminality requirements under the Extradition Act 2023.

The Romanian authorities sought Beraru's extradition on an accusation warrant issued under the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement. The charges comprised supporting an organised crime group, human trafficking, and pandering contrary to Romanian criminal law. The conduct alleged occurred between 2012 and 2022, with Beraru accused of supporting a criminal organisation that trafficked women, primarily from Romania to the UK, for sexual exploitation through prostitution.

Specific allegations included recruiting and accommodating a victim, Adela Georgiana Man, in London in 2020, forcing her into prostitution through manipulation and obtaining financial gain. The further information revealed an eight-member organised crime group operating across Romania and the UK, with proceeds laundered through Romanian and UK bank accounts.

The dual criminality challenge

Beraru's principal ground of appeal concerned whether the alleged offences constituted extra-territorial offences under UK law, as required by section 64(4) of the Extradition Act 2023. Since all alleged conduct occurred in the UK, the critical question was whether equivalent conduct would constitute an extra-territorial offence under UK law in corresponding circumstances.

Mr Justice Foxton applied the Supreme Court's guidance in El-Khouri v United States of America [2025] UKSC 3, which clarified that section 64(4) requires constructing a "mirror image" whereby conduct occurring outside the requesting state must be transposed to having occurred outside the UK.

Multiple routes to dual criminality

The court found the dual criminality requirement satisfied through several alternative legal frameworks. First, the allegations disclosed conspiracy to control prostitution for gain contrary to section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, satisfying the extra-territorial requirements under section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The warrant and further information demonstrated an agreed course of conduct involving acts intended to occur outside Romania, with parties undertaking actions in Romania pursuant to the agreement.

Secondly, the conduct amounted to conspiracy to traffic human beings for sexual exploitation under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (and previously section 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003). The court emphasised that Beraru's participation in an organised crime group formed for human trafficking purposes was sufficient, even without direct evidence that he personally facilitated travel from Romania.

The court also found the allegations capable of constituting conspiracy to facilitate use of criminal property under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, given the laundering of prostitution proceeds through bank accounts in both jurisdictions.

Applying Andreas Kodos v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania [2010] EWHC 897 (Admin), Mr Justice Foxton rejected the argument that focus should be limited to Beraru's specific acts. The proper approach required examining the criminal purpose of the organised crime group to which he allegedly subscribed, rather than isolating individual actions.

Additional grounds refused

Permission was granted for a proportionality ground based on remote participation in Romanian proceedings but was dismissed. The Romanian courts had specifically considered and rejected revoking the warrant despite Beraru's video conference attendance. The court also refused permission for an abuse of process ground, finding no inconsistency in the Romanian authorities pursuing extradition whilst allowing interim remote participation during the appeal process.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.