Cybercrime tests Kenya’s extradition system as US seeks suspects

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

Kenya’s extradition system is facing a test as three citizens battle extradition to the United States over allegations of defrauding American institutions through cybercrime schemes, including “business email compromise”.

At the centre of the recent case is Francis Mobisa Asanyo, who challenged the extradition process, arguing that Kenya cannot surrender people to foreign countries without a valid, formally ratified and domestically operative extradition arrangement.

The petition followed his arrest in February 2026 after a US Interpol red notice.

The United States also wants the transfer of his co-accused, Peter Omari and Elvis Obaigwa, after a Nairobi magistrate approved their extradition, although the process has since been halted following an appeal.

The trio is wanted in the United States to face charges of conspiring to hack computers, commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and aiding and abetting those offences.

The magistrate’s ruling followed investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations’ Financial Investigations Unit (FIU), undertaken pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from United States law enforcement authorities.

The case is the latest in a series of extradition disputes handled by Kenyan courts since 2020, involving allegations ranging from wildlife trafficking, corruption, financial fraud and murder to narco-terrorism and cybercrime.

Justice David Mburu dismissed Mr Asanyo’s constitutional petition challenging the intended foreign trial, finding that the Director of Public Prosecutions had the authority to commence proceedings and that the Magistrate’s Court was the proper forum for deciding whether he should be surrendered.

The ruling did not determine whether Mr Asanyo committed the alleged offences or order his transfer to the United States. The judge said the pending extradition proceedings would determine whether statutory requirements for surrender had been met.

The legal dispute began after the US requested the extradition of six Kenyans over a suspected multi-million-dollar fraud scheme.

Investigators said the suspects ran an online fraud scheme using fake email accounts and internet addresses that looked like those of genuine institutions.

They allegedly used the emails to pose as officials from universities, government agencies and other organisations. This enabled them to trick victims into sending money to accounts controlled by the suspects instead of the intended recipients.

Investigators further alleged that the money was first sent to bank accounts held by people in the United States who acted as intermediaries. The funds were then transferred to Kenya and other countries.

The alleged scheme is known as Business Email Compromise, in which criminals use fake or compromised email accounts to trick people into making payments. US authorities estimate that the scheme caused losses of more than Sh96 million, leading a federal grand jury in Virginia to issue arrest warrants for the suspects.

The Solicitor-General forwarded the extradition requests to the DPP on February 26, 2026, leading to the subsequent court process.

Mr Asanyo challenged the extradition, arguing that Kenya and the US had no valid, ratified and domestically operative extradition treaty. He questioned reliance on a 1931 treaty between the United States and Britain that was extended to Kenya in 1935.

He argued that independent Kenya had never ratified that arrangement and that it could not support extradition under Article 2(6) of the Constitution, which provides that any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under the Constitution.

He also challenged the evidence supplied by the US and argued that the alleged offences were committed while he was in Kenya.

The State rejected those claims. The DPP said it acted under the Constitution and the Extradition (Contiguous and Foreign Countries) Act, and that Mr Asanyo could raise his objections before the extradition court.

Justice Mburu agreed that the DPP had the legal authority to institute the proceedings. He said the Solicitor-General could forward foreign extradition requests to the DPP and that both offices must work within the law and Constitution.

“The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution is an Independent office distinct from the Attorney General’s office,” the judge said, adding that the DPP has the mandate to “institute and authorize extradition proceedings”.

The judge said the Magistrate’s Court must determine whether the alleged offences qualify for extradition, whether there is sufficient evidence and whether surrender should occur.

“I therefore find that extradition proceedings, which have been instituted in the Magistrate’s Court, are valid,” Justice Mburu said.

The petition and the pending appeal follow several recent Kenyan extradition disputes involving suspects wanted abroad and people Kenya seeks from foreign jurisdictions.

In 2024, Kenyan authorities handled the case of Kevin Adam Kinyanjui Kangethe, who was wanted in Massachusetts over the alleged murder of Margaret Mbitu.

Kangethe escaped from police custody in Nairobi while awaiting extradition, prompting a manhunt and fresh detention orders. He was later extradited to the United States to face the murder charge.

Another active case involves Robert James Purkiss, a former British soldier wanted in Kenya over the 2012 murder of hairdresser Agnes Wanjiru in Nanyuki.

Kenyan prosecutors began extradition proceedings in 2025 after a court issued an arrest warrant for Mr Purkiss. He is fighting the intended extradition in UK courts.

In October 2025, the High Court recorded that the DPP had asked the Attorney-General to transmit Kenya’s request to British authorities.

Extradition to US

Kenya has also extradited suspects to the United States in cases involving crimes beyond cybercrime.

In 2021, Kenyan authorities extradited Mansur Mohamed Surur to the US over alleged trafficking of rhino horn and elephant ivory, money laundering and heroin distribution.

US prosecutors said the wildlife conspiracy involved about 190 kilograms of rhino horn and 10 tonnes of elephant ivory. Two other Kenyan nationals in that investigation, Badru Abdul Aziz Saleh and Abdi Hussein Ahmed, were also later extradited to the US.

More recently, a Kenyan named John Muriuki was arrested in Malaysia at the US request and extradited to America in 2025 over a business email compromise scheme.

The US Justice Department said the scheme caused more than $12 million in losses and involved forged invoices, contracts and wire-transfer instructions. He was sentenced in March 2026 to 23 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Mr Asanyo’s case arose from a wider US investigation into alleged business email compromise and vendor account compromise schemes. The US was seeking six Kenyans in the wider case, saying the alleged fraud targeted US government entities and academic institutions.

Investigators alleged that the suspects registered internet domains resembling legitimate companies, created fraudulent email accounts and used social engineering to redirect payments to accounts controlled by the alleged network.

Mr Asanyo, Mr Omari and Mr Obaigwa were arrested in a joint operation involving the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Interpol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The alleged scheme targeted US state and local government entities from at least April 2019 and involved US-based money mules who allegedly received funds before sending proceeds to Kenya.

The US indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Virginia on November 15, 2023, with arrest warrants issued the same day. The three were accused of conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and related offences.

Justice Mburu rejected Mr Asanyo’s claim that the extradition proceedings were discriminatory or violated his right to a fair hearing.

“Merely feeling threatened or inconvenienced by investigations, criminal proceedings and court attendance is not sufficient reason to claim lack of fair hearing,” the court said.

On the alleged offences being committed from Kenya, the court declined to decide the issue at the constitutional stage. The State had argued that the place where an offence was committed and whether a statutory bar applied were matters for the extradition court.

The DCI, Interpol and FBI cooperation reported in the initial proceedings shows that the investigation crossed Kenyan and US law enforcement systems.

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.