That makes a lot of sense.

Extradition treaties aren’t the only thing to watch out for. Plenty of countries without them will happily fall over and hand someone wanted over.

Extradition treaty mainly just lets some foreign country start a process in local courts to hand someone over.

You need to butter up a place with adversarial relations.

Or go somewhere with ironclad constitutional protections against extradition. And even then, e.g. France only has those for its own citizens and may still prosecute you locally for your crimes abroad.

Why would they need go to a country subject to treaties. Unrecognized territories like transnistria (weev!),rojava,Somaliland,Ambazonia, western Sahara, Palestine (before invasion), fractions of Myanmar, idlib, rebel held congo fractions, etc. Basically no diplomatic relations and they will likely not eject someone seen locally as supporting their cause.

In any unrecognized territory, you risk becoming a pawn in exchange for a prisoner release. And pray that the unrecognized territory continues to exist as is.

There's no riskless path remaining after you've defrauded billions of dollars. Iirc the white girl who bombed the subway in london is thought to be still hiding in such a territory like two decades later.

He doesn't speak the language, had a highly recognizable face and is perceived to have money. Sounds like a recipe for a bad time in the rougher places of the world.

Not sure I'd want to live in Ambazonia but they speak English and would likely not have many that recognize his face. It also would have been easily accessible by yacht transatlantic from the Bahamas into a difficult to patrol estuary. But this is all pure fantasy, I understand why he didn't do that.