Statement on behalf of Dr Mike Lynch from his lawyers Christopher Morvillo and Reid Weingarten
Mike Lynch has submitted himself for arrest, a formality required as part of the extradition process initiated by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
This case has wider implications for British business. The US claims concern alleged conduct in the UK. Dr Lynch is a British citizen who ran a British company listed on the London Stock Exchange, governed by English law and UK accounting standards. This extradition request reflects yet another example of the DOJ's attempts to exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-US conduct. The forum bar in the UK Extradition Act was enacted by the UK Parliament to protect British citizens from such a scenario.
Dr Lynch vigorously rejects all the allegations against him and is determined to continue to fight these charges.
Since Hewlett-Packard (HP) first raised these allegations more than seven years ago, Dr Lynch has steadfastly denied them and has worked hard to properly respond and set the record straight. The UK Serous Fraud Office previously investigated and did not pursue the allegations. Dr Lynch has now answered HP’s claims in the appropriate forum, the High Court in London, where he attended court every day of the 10-month trial. During that trial, Dr Lynch testified about all of these allegations for more than 20 days. He has not hidden, nor has he shied away from defending his conduct. Having patiently and diligently defended the case in England for several years, he awaits the civil trial judgment. The US DOJ should not have commenced extradition proceedings prior to the judgment of the English High Court.
Alex Bailin QC, said in court:
Dr. Lynch categorically denies all the allegations against him and will be resisting extradition on the basis of the forum bar. These matters concern a British citizen, UK-based conduct, a UK listed plc, culminating in a UK civil trial in which judgment is pending – these matters unquestionably belong here in the UK. The forum bar exists to provide real protection against this interventionist type of action and this, we will say, is a paradigm forum bar case.
I can also say that the superseding indictment, reaching back and spanning almost a decade, is breathtakingly broad. The jurisdictional claim here is unwarranted and immediately raises questions about whether this court's process is being abused and issues of dual criminality.