{"id":563013,"date":"2026-04-15T00:41:43","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:41:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T00:41:43","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:41:43","slug":"srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/","title":{"rendered":"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

FORDHAM J: Considering bail afresh 1. I have been persuaded by Mr Hawkes that it is appropriate for the High Court to consider bail afresh in this case, notwithstanding that this is now the third time that the High Court has been asked to grant bail in this extradition case. I take the view that I took in Ratajeski v Poland [2024] EWHC 1359 (Admin) at \u00a74, that there is no jurisdictional bar and that the Court needs to address on a case-specific basis whether it is improper to keep trying to obtain extradition bail from different High Court judges. Mr Hawkes was right to confront the point. Mr Squibbs for the Respondent, very fairly, does not seek to argue that there is anything improper or abusive about this third application. I record that Dove J refused bail in this case on 12 August 2025 for reasons that he set out in a judgment: see [2025] EWHC 2566 (Admin). My reasons will also be in a judgment. I am authorising the use by the Court of voice-recognition software for the purposes of providing an approved written judgment to the parties. Although not contained in a published judgment, I have seen a note of the reasons which Sweeting J gave for his refusal of bail in this case. That was on 23 October 2025. The generosity of Mr Squibbs, in not taking any point, was borne out of his recognition that when bail was last before Westminster Magistrates Court, for what I think was the sixth time in that Court, on 12 February 2026 the District Judge was prepared to accept on that occasion that there been a \u201cchange in circumstances\u201d. He looked at bail afresh, although he refused it. Outcome 2. That, in fact, is exactly what I am going to do. I cannot accept the submission of Mr Hawkes that there is a \u201cnegligible flight risk\u201d. I do not accept his submission that bail can be justified on the grounds of giving \u201cthe benefit of the doubt\u201d. I am quite satisfied that the presumption in favour of the grant of bail, which arises because this is an accusation Extradition Arrest Warrant case, has been displaced. My assessment of the risks, based on all of the written and oral submissions and the 531 pages of materials that have been put before this Court for a bail application, is that there are substantial grounds for believing that the Applicant would fail to surrender, if he were released today by my order granting him bail, notwithstanding all of the proposed bail conditions that have been put forward in writing, and notwithstanding the new idea that was added orally by Mr Hawkes of a non-binding notification to the Indian High Commission asking that no travel document be issued to the Applicant. Incidents of 18\/19 February 2025 3. The incidents that are at the heart of the extradition case are said by the Portuguese authorities, in their case against the Applicant, to have taken place on the 18 and 19 of February 2025. There is a factual overlap between what they allege and what the Applicant accepts. But there are very significant respects in which what they allege is strenuously denied by him. Mr Hawkes accepts that what I must do as a bail judge assessing risk is at least to accept that the Portuguese prosecution case against him is what the Portuguese authorities describe. I am sure he is right about that. I am not deciding facts, when I assess risk on a bail application, and I am certainly not deciding any question of criminal guilt. Nor, for that matter, am I deciding any substantive issue that may be raised when the extradition merits in this case come to be decided by the Westminster Magistrates\u2019 Court, at what is currently scheduled to be a May 2026 hearing. 4. There was a \u201cmedium term note\u201d which belong to someone called Eddison Filho. It is said to have been worth $487m. There was to be a transaction for a transfer of it. The Applicant\u2019s company \u2013 Citax \u2013 was to gain in relation to that transfer a commission to the tune of $34m. The Applicant and Citax were tricked, it is said by him and indeed by the Portuguese authorities, by someone called Armando Taveres. Taveres was a securities broker who, it is said, put forward fake documents which led to catastrophic losses from the perspective of the Applicant. The Applicant travelled to Porto. He went to the house of Taveres in Viseu. He then came back to the UK. All of what I have said so far is an indication of core aspects which appear, on the face of it, to be common ground between the Portuguese authorities and the Applicant. 5. The Portuguese authorities allege \u2013 as being what I am accepting for today is their case against the Applicant \u2013 the following. As the \u201cmain instigator\u201d and \u201cmastermind\u201d, the Applicant travelled to Porto, in the light of the serious losses he faced by reason of the conduct of Taveres the broker. Acting with associates and having recruited debt collectors, he went to the house of Taveres. At the house, there were threats and assaults, the brandishing of a knife, and the emptying of a safe. One feature of the case alleged against the Applicant is that, during the period at the house of Taveres, when threats were being made, a video link was set up with Brazil where was where family members of Taveres were located. That was done in association with the threats which were being made. Then \u2013 when, as it turns out, Taveres was stalling and trying to alert the authorities \u2013 Taveres was taken to a hotel near his bank, and then the next day taken to the bank itself to get hold of bitcoin. At the bank is where Taveres was able to raise the alert. The authorities intervened to rescue him. The relevant offences of which the Applicant is accused are twofold. Aggravated robbery, with a Portuguese range of 3 to 15 years of imprisonment on conviction. And kidnapping, with a Portuguese range on conviction of 2 years to 8 years of imprisonment. 6. The Applicant\u2019s case is this. He was, from the beginning to the end of the whole thing, the victim of Taveres, a serial fraudster. His overnight stay at the hotel in Portugal, and his flight to and back from Lisbon, had already been pre-booked, paid for in fact by Taveres. He attended at the house of Taveres because he was invited to go there, by Taveres. He arrived there only after meetings involving others had already been going for 3 hours. By the time he got there, the safe had already been opened. He did not observe Taveres having any injuries. The whole set of allegations has been falsified by Taveres. The Applicant was never at the hotel. He was never at the bank. He did not flee, but left Porto in exactly the way he would otherwise have left, on the same pre-booked return flight to the UK. In favour of bail 7. I recognise that there are features in favour of bail, very properly emphasised in writing and orally by Mr Hawkes. I am not going to repeat all of them. There is a presumption in favour of bail. The Applicant is an individual of good character. He has no previous convictions anywhere in the world. He is aged 57. I interpose that Mr Squibbs has, rightly in my judgment, accepted that I should put to one side an arrest that took place in 2012: nothing was pursued in relation to that and I see it as irrelevant to my task. The Applicant has been 27 years in the UK, including with the indefinite leave to remain here received in 2003. He has roots and ties here, together with his wife who works here as a psychologist. He has, and is at the beginning of, a process which enables him to resist extradition, with an incentive to do so, and with a hearing about to come up in May 2026 at the Westminster Magistrates\u2019 Court. He has every incentive to cooperate with that, and attend that Court, in order to make his defence to extradition. It is not being claimed that, under the applicable criminal standard of proof, he left Lisbon in February 2025 as a fugitive. These are allegations only. They are at \u2013 using the language of Mr Hawkes \u2013 an \u201cinchoate\u201d or \u201cenquiry\u201d stage. He is mounting \u2013 using the language of Mr Hawkes \u2013 a \u201crobust\u201d defence. Then there is his health, and the practical realities for him of being incarcerated in prison. There is what is said about his mental health, his severe loss of weight, his ADHD and his mental health deterioration. The mental health picture is supported by a report of Dr Bose dated 10 February 2026. Next, there is the seizure by the police of his passports. And there is the idea of alerting the India High Commission. There are the proposed bail conditions including an electronically monitored curfew and reporting restrictions, and the usual restrictions on travel documents or travel hubs. There are also two separate aspects of support and sacrifice, each to the tune of \u00a3100,000. One is a \u00a3100,000 surety from a business associate and friend. The other is a \u00a3100,000 pre-release cash sum from the Applicant\u2019s brother in Canada. But, having had regard to all the factors in favour of bail, I have reached the conclusion that I have already described, and these are my reasons. The prospect faced 8. The first key topic, as I see it, is about the prospect that the Applicant faces. There is the prospect, if extradited, of a trial in Portugal for these two serious offences. If he were to be convicted, they would attract very significant custodial sentences. Mr Squibbs is right to make the link between the prospect of lengthy incarceration, if convicted at trial in Portugal, and all of the points that are emphasised by Mr Hawkes about the experience and impacts of custody. This prospect, on the face of it and from the point of view of the assessment of risk, presents a strong incentive if possible to resist going to face that trial in Portugal. The Applicant\u2019s option, while he is remanded in custody, is to seek to avoid extradition using extradition due process. But if released by me on bail, he will then in my assessment have a second option, namely to seek to abscond. All in circumstances where he may very well perceive a fragility in his prospect of resisting extradition by means of the other alternative, extradition due process. Implications of the allegations 9. The next topic is the implications of the allegations that are made against the Applicant. I repeat that they are allegations. But the case against the Applicant is consonant with there being wealth, and access to wealth; and associates; and transnational activities, and travel. But also consonant with serious criminality involving considerable planning. It must, in my judgment, be a proper part of the Court\u2019s assessment of risk when looking at \u201csubstantial grounds\u201d for a \u201cbelief\u201d, to take account of those allegations, their nature and their implications. Circumstances 10. Then there is a third topic, which I put alongside the first two topics. It concerns the circumstances of the Applicant and of others. I have seen from the papers that the Applicant was declared bankrupt on 12 February 2025. I have read the entirety of his witness statement. But he was plainly operating and continuing to operate in an apparent world of wealth. As I have said, the anticipated commission for his company Citax from that transfer transaction relating to the medium term note was $34m. I have seen and considered all the evidence, including some evidence about the Applicant\u2019s wife\u2019s bank account in India. The amounts seen there present a contract. But it is right to recognise that there are sums amounting in aggregate to an equivalent of around \u00a352,000, being deposited into that account over a 3-day period in July 2025. Also, it is not unfair for the Respondent to have drawn this Court\u2019s attention to the following fact. On 18 September 2025, during one of the many bail applications in the Westminster Magistrates Court the Applicant\u2019s advocate told the Court that a pre-release cash security of \u00a325,000 was \u201call they can muster\u201d straining \u201cevery sinew\u201d, and yet on that same day the pre-release cash security being offered after lunch had gone up to \u00a350,000. I am very concerned that this is an Applicant who, considering the evidence, may very well have access to resources and associates, both of which would be in a position to support him. And I mean support him, not simply by way of amounts to seek to secure his release by me on bail, but also support him in taking the alternative to extradition due process, of resisting extradition by absconding. 11. Also, so far as the circumstances are concerned, there is this. On the evidence, the Applicant\u2019s is an apparent world of significant cross-border links, with several countries, and involving a large amount of travel. I say immediately the Mr Hawkes recognises that evidenced reality. He emphasises the Applicant\u2019s \u201clegitimate business travel\u201d. The reason, on the evidence, why the Applicant has three current passports is that the first two are said to be \u201cfull of entries\u201d by virtue of his extensive travel. In the documents before the Court is a schedule of his travels since the Applicant\u2019s bankruptcy on 12 February 2025 and prior to his arrest on 21 July 2025. It shows travel to Dubai, Doha and Bangkok. It shows two visits to India. India is significant in this case. The Applicant has Indian citizenship. His wife says in her evidence, which I have read, that she travels to India \u201cfrom time to time\u201d. She has a bank account there. She rents a property there, with a tenancy agreement dated January 2025. There are obvious ties and cross-border links to put alongside the concerns about associates and resources. Indeed, when the Applicant was arrested in these extradition proceedings in July 2025, it was at an airport, being about to fly to Amsterdam. Conclusion 12. Having carefully considered all the things that have been said and drawn to my attention, in writing and orally, and all of the evidence in the case, I have reached this clear conclusion. There are, in my assessment, substantial grounds to believe that the Applicant would fail to surrender, if I were to release him on bail, notwithstanding the bail conditions. The conditions are inadequate, in my assessment, to allay the Court\u2019s concerns. The bail presumption is decisively displaced. I refuse bail. And I will say no order as to costs, save that there be a detailed assessment of the Applicant\u2019s publicly funded costs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FORDHAM J: Considering bail afresh 1. I have been persuaded by Mr Hawkes that it is appropriate for the High Court to consider bail afresh in this case, notwithstanding that this is now the third time that the High Court has been asked to grant bail in this extradition case. I take the view that I took in Ratajeski v…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7649],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7650],"kji_keyword":[7875,8450,9748,9747,9749],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-563013","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-administrative-court","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-administratif","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-extradition","kji_keyword-hawkes","kji_keyword-taveres","kji_keyword-travel","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSrinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"FORDHAM J: Considering bail afresh 1. I have been persuaded by Mr Hawkes that it is appropriate for the High Court to consider bail afresh in this case, notwithstanding that this is now the third time that the High Court has been asked to grant bail in this extradition case. I take the view that I took in Ratajeski v...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"12 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\\\/\",\"name\":\"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T22:41:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal","og_description":"FORDHAM J: Considering bail afresh 1. I have been persuaded by Mr Hawkes that it is appropriate for the High Court to consider bail afresh in this case, notwithstanding that this is now the third time that the High Court has been asked to grant bail in this extradition case. I take the view that I took in Ratajeski v...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"12 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/","name":"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T22:41:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/srinivasan-solaraj-v-investigating-judge-prosecutor-generals-office-lisbon-portugal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General\u2019s Office Lisbon, Portugal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/563013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=563013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=563013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=563013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=563013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=563013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=563013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=563013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=563013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}