[gimmeThaBeet]

I think the part that makes it a little more unambiguous is that Renault and the French government definitely gave him much more of the benefit of the doubt, but ultimately decided it was untenable to act like he wasn't up to financial shenanigans. But at the same time, I think France has already said they wouldn't extradite him. That's where I think the thing goes muddy, that he really has French friends even if he also got ousted from the Renault side as well.

Part of me thinks there is a chance that maybe this kind of financial misdeed is not all too uncommon, and it may indeed be a case of "it's not a problem unless you're a problem." but given the scope of money and questionable expenses already tied to him, it doesn't seem like fabrication or embellishment is needed.

I feel like what I get from this story is, if you were looking to get Carlos Ghosn out, you didn't have too look too hard.

[mytailorisrich]

France does not extradite its own citizens. By saying that they wouldn't extradite him they have just repeated the legal position.

They must be relieved that he didn't fly to France as that would have been quite embarrassing for them. He probably calculated that he was safest in Lebanon, though.

[temac]

> France does not extradite its own citizens. By saying that they wouldn't extradite him they have just repeated the legal position.

Inconsequential nitpick: I'm not even sure this is a position formalized by anything, IIRC it is more like a tradition, although a very consistent one. But there have been a few exceptions, btw, like Aurore Martin extradited to Spain while Manuel Valls was the minister of interior, but this was in the context of a European arrest warrant (however, this was for a political issue, so it could have been easily blocked by the executive instead of authorized).

[himinlomax]

It's not just a tradition but more of a non-starter kind of thing as there is no process or framework in the first place. Countries that extradite their own citizens have jurisprudence, procedures and institutions to that effect.

European arrest warrants are different in that they operate under the idea of European citizenship, and that member countries have compatible and comparable legal frameworks. Also the ultimate authority is with the ECJ and ECHR, same as if the accused was tried locally.

> however, this was for a political issue, so it could have been easily blocked by the executive instead of authorized

As I understand it, the executive typically has the power to decide whether an (actual, international) extradition should go forward or not after the judiciary has decided that someone _can_ be extradited. After all, it's a matter of international relations.

But European arrest warrants are different, precisely because relations between member countries are not a matter of executive power. Instead, that authority lies in European institutions. In this case, either government would have had to refer to the ECJ if they did not agree.

[mytailorisrich]

It's actually French law, the exception being the European arrest warrant as you mention (and that only applies if the alleged offence is also an offence in France). Depending on the circumstances the person may face trial in France, though.

[greatpatton]

France honores EU arrest warrants, as requested by European treaties.