RUSSIAN VS. USA CRIMINAL CHARGE. A DIFFERENCE FEW PEOPLE KNOW. WRONGFUL RELIANCE ON FOREIGN CHARGE.

Why does the reliance of the United States officials on foreign charges especially from the post-Soviet Union countries damage the integrity of the U.S. reputation and legal system as a whole?

The key answer is the indictment procedure. In the United States, a prosecutor must present the charge to a grand jury and, often, a judge to demonstrate that there are substantial reasons to accuse a person of a crime.

During this process, the prosecutor must defend the legitimacy of the charge, supported by evidence, and the grand jury must find it credible enough to move forward. This critical step ensures that charges in the U.S. carry weight and accountability and the prosecutor can less likely proceed arbitrarily.

Nothing of the kind exists in a post-Soviet Union or similar regimes. For example, in Russia, an investigator alone - through nothing more than their signature - can formally charge someone. There is no grand jury, no independent review, and no requirement to justify the charge as credible or based on sufficient evidence. It’s essentially one individual’s unverified and arbitrary opinion that sets the process to move forward.

In other words, in the U.S. the charge represents the opinion that passed through the several checks and balances, safeguards and collective opinions of the independent jury while in Russia for example it is the opinion of one investigator. This sole investigator’s opinion even by Russian system is not conclusive but disputable. Therefore, when the U.S. Courts or enforcement officers give Red Notices or extradition requests made on the basis of charge from such countries as a reliable, credible, or probative, they give weight to the unverified sole opinion of an unknown unpresented foreign investigator without assessing its credibility, probativeness, or reliability, and whether he was corrupted at all.

This undermines the very principles of justice the U.S. officials including Judges are sworn to uphold. This is not just a failure of due process; it is an abdication of responsibility that damages the integrity of the U.S. legal and justice system.

Otherwise, what is the Western judicial system worth if any order from any corrupt foreign officer can carry legal weight and be taken as a reliable and probative document?