Legal change will allow man wanted in US to challenge extradition

A legal amendment will allow a Maltese man wanted in the US over cybercrime charges to appeal proceedings despite having first consented to the extradition. 

The legal change put forward by the government was recently approved in parliament with consensus from the Opposition. 

Daniel Joe Meli was arrested in February 2024 by the Maltese police following an extradition request by the US. Meli allegedly sold and trained criminals in the use of Warzone, a remote access trojan software that bypasses security systems and remotely accesses computers without the victims’ knowledge. 

Earlier this year, in an interview with MaltaToday, Meli’s parents appealed to the authorities to intervene in the case. The family had found out that their son’s consent to the extradition meant he could face a lifetime in an American prison, a far cry from what Meli’s lawyer had told him when advising him to agree to extradition. 

The key change in the law allows individuals who had previously agreed to be extradited before the law came into effect to have a second chance to challenge their extradition. 

They can do this by filing an application with the Court of Criminal Appeal within 15 days of the amendment coming into force. The application allows them to formally withdraw their consent and contest the extradition request through the legal processes already outlined in the Extradition Act. 

During the appeal process, all deadlines related to the extradition proceedings are put on hold. If the Court of Criminal Appeal approves the individual's request, the case returns to the original court. 

The individual then gets another opportunity to declare whether they agree to the extradition, as if it were the first time the matter was being addressed in court. Once the case is back in the original court, all deadlines and procedures regarding the person's arrest and extradition restart. 

The amendment also states that when someone first appears before the court regarding extradition, they must be informed of their right to consent and the implications of doing so. The court must explain the legal ramifications of consenting to extradition, provide a reasonable time for consideration, and ensure the consent given is truly voluntary and informed. 

In their interview with MaltaToday last August, the Meli family had noted that their first lawyer had advised Meli to accept the extradition, giving the family the impression that he could face a maximum of five years’ imprisonment in the United States by co-operating with prosecutors. 

Meli’s parents had said they immediately regretted having taken on the lawyer’s recommendation, once they learnt that their son could face a maximum of 45 years in an American jail. 

A few days later, Meli appealed the court’s decision that green-lighted his extradition to the United States. 

The defendant argued that no attempt had been made to verify whether he had been medically stable and capable of understanding the implication of the extradition he was consenting to, “despite his long history of mental health problems and medical substance abuse.” 

Meli had landed in hot water after he was accused by US prosecutors that he had allegedly sold malware to cybercriminals. He was caught after allegedly selling malware to an FBI online covert employee from Georgia. From then onwards, the FBI was tracking his operations, one of several in a global anti-cybercrime investigation that spread as far as Australia. 

Separately, another man, Prince Onyeoziri Odinakachi from Nigeria, who was believed to be Meli’s partner, was arrested in Nigeria, also on 7 February. He is alleged to have provided online customer support to individuals who purchased and used the Warzone malware from June 2019. 

The Nigerian authorities, however refused an extradition request and tried Odinakachi locally. He was sentenced to seven years in prison, which he will serve in his home country.