LONDON, UK — An Israeli private investigator wanted by U.S. law enforcement for allegedly orchestrating an illegal “hacking-for-hire” operation on behalf of oil and gas major ExxonMobil can be extradited to the U.S., a judge in London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled on Wednesday.

Amit Forlit is charged with three offences by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), consisting of “conspiracy to commit computer hacking, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud.” The offences carry maximum sentences of five, 20 and 20 years’ imprisonment, respectively. If found guilty, Forlit faces a potential 45 years in prison.

Handing down the decision made by District Judge John McGarva, a judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court told Forlit his arguments against extradition had been rejected and the ruling would be referred to the UK Secretary of State after which Forlit will have the option to lodge an appeal with the High Court.

U. S. federal prosecutors contend that, between 2013 and 2018, Forlit was paid $16 million by a Washington D.C. lobbying firm to carry out cyberattacks and hacking aimed at discrediting individuals or groups working to bring climate litigation against the U.S. oil giant Exxon. In a startling disclosure, Forlit’s defense named ExxonMobil and the lobbying firm DCI Group as the clients of Forlit’s alleged intelligence-gathering activities, according to official court papers filed in January.

Both Exxon and DCI have denied any involvement in the hacking operation and, in a deposition made public in 2022, Forlit, who did not agree to be cross-examined during the extradition proceedings, declared he had “never commissioned hacking and never paid for hacking.”

Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the non-profits Forlit is alleged to have targeted, said that the judge’s decision represented “a positive step toward actually getting a full picture of the hacking operation – who hired him and to what end.” 

“This is stage one,” Forlit’s solicitor, Edward Grange, partner at the London law firm Corker Binning, told reporters outside the courtroom.
 
 “We came to the court today knowing that whatever the decision we’re going to the High Court. We’re at the beginning of a long road.” Grange indicated that, pending the Secretary of State’s certification, that road could include appeals at the UK High Court, the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

‘Straightforward Criminal Allegations’

Throughout the six-day-long extradition hearing attended by DeSmog, defense lawyer Rachel Scott KC argued that Forlit should not be sent to the U.S. on the grounds that his arrest was part of a politically-motivated campaign against Exxon conducted by environmentalists and the U.S. Democratic party.

Other grounds against Forlit’s extradition submitted by the defense included the allegedly unsafe conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, where he is likely to be held awaiting trial under the jurisdiction of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Scott called the conditions at MDC “disgusting” and “inhuman,” arguing that they are unsafe and do not meet the standards required by the UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003.

Prosecutor Adam Payter, acting for the U.S. authorities on behalf of the UK Crown Prosecution Services, dismissed the claim that the charges against Forlit are politically motivated. Payter told the court Forlit had presented “no evidence” that he had been arrested on the basis of “a politicized campaign.” Instead, Forlit was wanted “for straight-forward criminal allegations that he orchestrated the hacking of persons for money,” stated Payter, emphasizing that the charges of “wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit computer hacking” are “not political offenses or political in character.” 

Forlit is accused of conducting hacking operations against 128 targets.

Regarding the conditions at MDC Brooklyn, Payter submitted evidence from the U.S. authorities that conditions at the detention facility had improved over the past year following recommendations made to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

Summing up, Payter argued that the defense had failed to meet the necessary burden of proof to prevent Forlit’s extradition. Forlit’s arrest was in the “strong public interest,” Payter told the court and “it would be an affront to justice to discharge him.”

In his written judgment, Judge McGarva’s decision stated that “there is clearly good evidence against Mr Forlit of a crime as opposed to political activity” and that the defense had “not proved the request was probably politically motivated.” There was, he said, “strong evidence that the [extradition] request is a simple criminal request and not a political gesture.”

With regards to prison conditions, the judge stated that Forlit had “failed to produce evidence capable of showing a substantial likelihood” that the standards required by the UK-US Extradition Treaty would be breached during his detention by U.S. authorities.

’Climate Change Denial and Obfuscation’

Throughout the hearing, the opposing legal teams clashed over the admissibility of evidence. The defense had hoped to use expert testimony from Scott Walter, president of a conservative U.S. think tank, to support its theory that Forlit’s arrest and charges are part of a politically motivated campaign.

The prosecution, however, argued that Walter had no relevant experience qualifying him as an ‘expert’ on the subject and presented the court with evidence that Walter’s group, the Capital Research Center, has not only publicly professed scepticism over climate science but also received funding in the past from Exxon – a conflict-of-interest not disclosed by the defense. Accepting the prosecution’s arguments, Judge McGarva ruled Walter’s statement inadmissible.

Nevertheless, the judge agreed to consider an appendix of “open-source” evidence collated by Walter despite the prosecution’s objection that this contained a report published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) another conservative think tank historically funded by ExxonMobil whose members, Payter said, have also “engaged in climate change denial and obfuscation.”

Between 1997 and 2006, official filings show that CEI received $2.1 million from ExxonMobil. Since 2013, CEI has additionally accepted over $4 million from Donors Trust (DT) – a not-for-profit company that receives funds from anonymous donors and in turn distributes them to a network of aligned organizations. DT has been described as the “dark money ATM of the conservative movement.”

DCI Group, the public affairs and lobbying firm alleged to have commissioned Forlit’s illegal hacking operation, also has links to CEI. According to CEI’s website, its current president and CEO is Kent Lassman who was formerly a vice president at DCI during the period the lobbying firm is alleged to have initially hired Forlit. Over his eight-year tenure at DCI, Lassman helped the firm’s clients avoid legal challenges. There has been no suggestion that Lassman worked with Forlit over this period.

Last month, a report by the Wall Street Journal based on documents filed by U.S. federal prosecutors named Justin Peterson as the DCI “managing partner” who allegedly commissioned Forlit to “operationalize the research on bad guys.” The documents viewed by the Journal have not been made public.

Responding in a post on X, Peterson stated that he did not commission any hacking.

In his official judgment, Judge McGarva stated that there is “evidence of Mr Forlit meeting with the Washington based lobbying agency” on 3rd November 2015 and that “there are emails between Mr Forlit and DC lobbying group and monies were paid by DC lobbying group to Mr Forlit for his actions.”

Said Mulvey, “It’s important for the full facts of the case to be aired and for Forlit to face justice so that those who were behind the operation can be brought into the light and potentially brought to justice.”

The Secretary of State has two months to certify the request. Following his notification of this decision, Forlit will have 14 days to lodge an appeal.