FBI’s visit and Ghana’s compliance: A win for international anti-crime cooperation
In recent days, the presence of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Ghana, collaborating with local authorities to facilitate the extradition of Ghanaian citizens implicated in romance scams, money laundering, and related crimes, has sparked debate.
In recent days, the presence of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Ghana, collaborating with local authorities to facilitate the extradition of Ghanaian citizens implicated in romance scams, money laundering, and related crimes, has sparked debate.
Some Ghanaians question whether the United States has the legal right or jurisdiction to pursue arrests on Ghanaian soil.
However, under international law, including the passive personality principle, and through bilateral agreements, the U.S. possesses a legitimate basis for jurisdiction over these crimes, and Ghana’s cooperation reflects its obligations under international and domestic legal frameworks.
This article explores the legal justification for U.S. jurisdiction, the applicability of the passive personality principle, and the reasons behind Ghana’s compliance through its Ministry of Interior and Ghana Police Service.
Understanding the crimes and their transnational nature
Romance scams and money laundering are transnational crimes that exploit digital platforms to target victims across borders. In the Ghanaian context, recent reports indicate that suspects, including high-profile individuals like Isaac Kofi Oduro Boateng (aka Kofi Boat), are accused of participating in a criminal syndicate known as “The Enterprise.”
This group allegedly orchestrated Business Email Compromise (BEC) and romance scams, defrauding U.S. victims of over $100 million between 2013 and 2023. These schemes typically involve perpetrators posing as romantic partners or business associates to manipulate victims into transferring funds, which are then laundered through complex networks of bank accounts, often spanning multiple jurisdictions.
The transnational nature of these crimes creates jurisdictional challenges, as perpetrators operate in one country (e.g., Ghana) while victims reside in another (e.g., the U.S.). International law provides mechanisms to address such issues, allowing states to assert jurisdiction based on various principles, including the passive personality principle, and to cooperate through extradition treaties.
Jurisdiction under international law: The passive personality principle
International law recognizes several bases for a state to exercise jurisdiction over criminal acts, including territoriality, nationality, universality, and the passive personality principle.
The passive personality principle allows a state to assert jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad when its nationals are victims, regardless of where the crime occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator.
This principle is particularly relevant to the Ghanaian extradition case, as the alleged crimes targeted U.S. citizens, causing significant financial harm within U.S. borders.
Under the passive personality principle, the U.S. has a legitimate interest in prosecuting individuals who harm its nationals, even if the criminal acts were orchestrated from Ghana. For example, romance scams often exploit vulnerable U.S. citizens, particularly the elderly, through false promises of love or investment opportunities. The resulting financial losses amounting to millions of dollars directly impact U.S. citizens and the U.S. economy, justifying U.S. jurisdiction. U.S. law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3184, further supports this by allowing extradition for crimes committed against U.S. nationals abroad, even in the absence of a treaty, provided certain conditions are met.
The passive personality principle is increasingly accepted in international law, particularly for crimes with significant cross-border impact, such as cybercrime and fraud. While some states historically viewed this principle with skepticism due to concerns over sovereignty, its application has gained traction in cases involving terrorism, trafficking, and financial crimes.
The U.S. reliance on this principle aligns with global trends, as states seek to protect their citizens from transnational
criminal networks.
U.S. Jurisdiction under domestic and international law
Beyond the passive personality principle, U.S. jurisdiction is grounded in domestic law and international agreements.
The crimes in question, wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy are federal offenses under U.S. law (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § § 1343, 1956, 1957). These statutes apply extraterritorially when the conduct causes harm within the U.S. or involves U.S. financial systems.
For instance, funds from romance scams were allegedly transferred to U.S. bank accounts controlled by the syndicate, implicating U.S. financial institutions and triggering federal jurisdiction.
The U.S. also invokes jurisdiction based on the effects doctrine, a corollary to the passive personality principle, which allows prosecution of foreign nationals whose actions produce substantial effects within the U.S. The $100 million in losses suffered by U.S. victims constitutes a significant effect, justifying U.S. legal action.
Additionally, the U.S. and Ghana are bound by international obligations to combat transnational organized crime, including money laundering. Both countries are members of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which sets global standards for anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT).
Ghana’s Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2008 (Act 749), criminalizes money laundering and mandates cooperation with foreign authorities, aligning with FATF recommendations. This shared commitment facilitates U.S.-Ghana collaboration in
investigating and prosecuting such crimes.
Extradition: Legal framework and bilateral cooperation
Extradition is the process by which one state surrenders an individual to another state for prosecution or punishment. It is governed by treaties, domestic laws, and international principles.
The U.S. and Ghana have a longstanding extradition treaty, which provides the legal basis for the current operation. Ghana’s Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), further enables cooperation with foreign states, including the U.S., to arrest and extradite individuals wanted for crimes abroad.
The extradition process begins with a formal request from the U.S., typically conveyed through diplomatic channels (e.g., the U.S. Embassy in Accra). The request must demonstrate that the offense is extraditable under the treaty, that there is probable cause, and that the evidence supports the charges. In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York indicted the suspects in May 2023 for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering, providing the
legal foundation for the extradition request.
Ghana’s compliance is evident in the actions of its Ministry of Interior and Ghana Police Service.
On March 18, 2025, Ghana’s Minister of the Interior, Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka, signed an arrest warrant, authorizing the detention of the suspects. The Ghana Police Service, in coordination with Interpol and the FBI, executed the arrests on June 13, 2025. This joint operation underscores Ghana’s adherence to its extradition treaty obligations and its commitment to combat transnational crime.
The principle of aut dedere aut judicare (“extradite or prosecute”) also applies. Under international law, states are encouraged to either prosecute offenders within their jurisdiction or extradite them to a state willing to do so. Ghana’s decision to extradite rather than prosecute locally may reflect the complexity of the case, the U.S.’s stronger evidentiary position, or the desire to maintain robust bilateral relations.
Ghana’s cooperation: Legal and policy considerations
Ghana’s active participation in the investigation and extradition process is driven by legal, diplomatic, and policy considerations. First, Ghana is legally obligated under its extradition treaty with the U.S. and its domestic Extradition Act to assist in such cases. Failure to comply could strain diplomatic relations and undermine Ghana’s reputation as a cooperative partner in global law enforcement.
Second, Ghana has a vested interest in combating cybercrime and money laundering, which harm its international standing. Romance scams, locally known as “sakawa,” have been a persistent issue, tarnishing Ghana’s image as a hub for cybercrime. By cooperating with the FBI, Ghana signals its commitment to addressing these crimes and aligning with global Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism standards.
Third, the Ministry of Interior and Ghana Police Service’s involvement reflects Ghana’s institutional capacity to handle transnational investigations. The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and Interpol’s Ghana unit have previously supported similar operations, demonstrating Ghana’s ability to coordinate with international partners.
Finally, Ghana’s cooperation may be influenced by mutual legal assistance frameworks. The U.S. and Ghana have a history of collaboration through the FBI’s Legal Attaché office in Accra, which facilitates evidence-sharing and joint investigations. This partnership enhances Ghana’s law enforcement capabilities while enabling the U.S. to pursue justice for its citizens.
Addressing public concerns: Sovereignty vs. Global Justice
Public skepticism about U.S. jurisdiction often stems from concerns over sovereignty. Critics argue that foreign intervention infringes on Ghana’s authority to handle its citizens’ crimes.
However, extradition does not violate sovereignty; it is a consensual process rooted in treaties and mutual respect for legal systems. Ghana’s voluntary cooperation with the FBI reflects a sovereign decision to uphold international obligations and protect global financial systems.
Moreover, the passive personality principle ensures that states can protect their citizens without overstepping jurisdictional boundaries. The U.S. is not asserting authority over Ghanaian territory but seeking to hold individuals accountable for harming U.S. nationals. Ghana’s compliance demonstrates a recognition that transnational crimes require collective action, transcending national borders.
Conclusion
The FBI’s operation in Ghana to extradite citizens involved in romance scams and money laundering is firmly grounded in international law, particularly the passive personality principle, which allows the U.S. to assert jurisdiction over crimes against its nationals. U.S. domestic laws, bilateral extradition treaties, and Ghana’s Extradition Act provide the legal framework for this cooperation. Ghana’s Ministry of Interior and Ghana Police Service are complying due to legal obligations, diplomatic considerations, and a shared interest in combating transnational crime.
Far from undermining sovereignty, this collaboration exemplifies how states can work together to address global challenges, ensuring justice for victims and upholding the rule of law.
By leveraging international legal principles and fostering cooperation, the U.S. and Ghana are sending a clear message: transnational criminals cannot evade justice by hiding behind borders.
This case serves as a precedent for future efforts to tackle cybercrime and protect vulnerable populations worldwide.
Writer’s email: Gilbertattipoe90@gmail.com / Graphic Online
