The principle of double criminality holds that an act is not extraditable unless it constitutes a crime in both the requesting and requested countries. Most treaties prevent an overly restrictive application of the principle by acknowledging that extraditable crimes may be categorized or defined differently by the contracting countries. CCE is not primarily directed at substantial 'profits' from illicit drug activity in a highly organized 'business.' As the crime is not recognized as punishable in foreign countries, it cannot satisfy the double criminality principle and hence cannot be an extraditable offense. The analysis is applicable when extradition is sought in RICO charges but is more difficult in the face of the Ontario Supreme Court ruling in Re Sudar and the United States. The court held that a RICO offense was extraditable even though Canadian law does not recognize the offense. The Sudar ruling is erroneous, because it confuses the racketeering acts underlying a RICO offense with the pattern and enterprise elements that make the offense distinct from the racketeering acts. Because RICO is unknown to foreign law, if the United States seeks the extradition of an alleged drug offender for a RICO offense, the requested country should not grant the warrant. Fifty-nine footnotes are provided.