Bankman-Fried has standing to object to Counts 9, 10, 12 and 13 as violating the rule of specialty and thus requiring dismissal.

Sam Bankman-Fried's extradition was granted solely on the first seven counts referenced in the Diplomatic Note.

After Bankman-Fried was brought to the United States, the Government obtained two superseding indictments against him.

Following the Magistrate’s hearing, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a Warrant of Surrender for Mr. Bankman-Fried.

The Bahamian Magistrate committed Bankman-Fried to custody for extradition in accordance with the simplified extradition procedure.

The Government has not indicated whether it has in its possession communications between the Bahamas and any other U.S. government agency.

The Government may only prosecute Mr. Bankman-Fried for Counts 9, 10 and 13 if it follows the procedure for obtaining the Bahamas’s consent.

The bank fraud, unlicensed money transmitting, and FCPA conspiracy charges violate the rule of specialty.

Individual defendants have standing to assert extradition treaty violations.

If Bankman-Fried is denied standing to raise this issue, the only way the Bahamas can vindicate its rights is by running an objection up the chain.

The Bahamas has indicated that it “would object” to the addition of new charges following extradition in Sam Bankman-Fried's case.

Supreme Court precedent supports Bankman-Fried’s standing to raise objections based on the rule of specialty.