Today’s post is by guest author Yamila Borsanyi, BS Candidate at Florida State University, 2027

Today’s post details the subsequent steps taken by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) and relevant National Central Bureaus (NCBs) following a successful Red Notice deletion, in addition to some restorative steps that the former Red Notice subject may wish to take. 

Implementation and Notification of Decision

When a Red Notice deletion request is approved, the CCF typically implements the decision by ensuring deletion of the subject’s data from INTERPOL’s databases and notifying INTERPOL member countries to do the same. Despite the widespread notification, some individuals may still be stopped by airport or border control officials due to a National Central Bureau failing to promptly update its database. It is recommended that the individual obtain and travel with official documentation confirming the deletion of data by the CCF. 

Mitigate Media Defamation

Following a deleted Red Notice, former Red Notice subjects may seek the removal of inflammatory articles in light of their updated status. Often, individuals subject to Red Notices are politically exposed, which can result in significant reputational damage through state-run media publications during the course of an investigation. In these circumstances, Estlund Law often guides clients through the process of consulting risk management databases and media outlets to ensure their profiles are updated accordingly. 

Restore Access to Financial Accounts

Following the issuance of a Red Notice, bank accounts and financial assets can be affected through account closure as banks routinely screen against sanctions lists, commercial databases, and domestic court orders. After the Red Notice is removed, a former Red Notice subject may need to contact her bank’s compliance department to provide assurances of the legality of their banking activity. . 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

On Friday, July 24, 12:00- 1:30 PM EDT, Michelle Estlund will be joining fellow panelists to discuss the challenges faced by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), in addition to

  • Recently proposed and adopted amendments to the CCF Statute and Operating Rules
  • The launch of the new CCF web portal for the submission of individual requests
  • Other reforms that INTERPOL has carried out in the past year as well as INTERPOL’s engagement with civil society in this regard,
  • The INTERPOL Silver Notice pilot program
  • The work of INTERPOL’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force and its participation in the prevention of abuse of INTERPOL’s channels
  • Media coverage of INTERPOL’s notices and diffusions
  • The upcoming elections of the CCF members 
  • The CCF case law
  • Practitioners’ perspective on recent trends in the CCF jurisprudence, including countries whose use of INTERPOL’s channels appears to be challenged more often than others
  • Criminal charges behind Red Notices and diffusions, and how these trends differ from the previous years.

Moderating the event is Bruce Zagaris, Partner, Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP (USA), and panelists include:

  • Michelle Estlund, Founder and Principal Attorney, Estlund Law, PA, Florida
  • Ted R. Bromund, Founder and Principal, Bromund Expert Witness Services LLC
  • Teresa McHenry, Chairperson, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
  • Yaron Gottlieb, Director, Notices and Diffusions Task Force, Executive Directorate Legal Affairs, INTERPOL’s General Secretariat, France
  • Yuriy L. Nemets, Managing Member, NEMETS PLLC, Washington, DC

This seminar is open to all, and you can register to attend here.

Michelle Estlund will join fellow panelists for this webinar co-sponsored by the ABA International Law and Criminal Justice Sections.

The panel’s agenda will address:

• INTERPOL’s engagement with civil society.

• INTERPOL Silver Notice pilot program.

• INTERPOL’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force and its participation in the prevention of abuse of INTERPOL’s channels.

• Media coverage of INTERPOL’s notices and diffusions.

• Upcoming elections of CCF members.

• CCF case law.

• Practitioners’ perspective on recent trends in CCF jurisprudence, including countries whose use of INTERPOL’s channels appears tobe challenged more often than others.

• Criminal charges behind Red Notices and diffusions.

The participants are:

Moderator: Bruce Zagaris, Partner, Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP, District of Columbia.

Speakers:

Michelle Estlund, Founder and Principal Attorney, Estlund Law, PA, Florida.

Ted R. Bromund, Founder and Principal, Bromund Expert Witness Services LLC.

Teresa McHenry, Chairperson, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files.

Yaron Gottlieb, Director, Notices and Diffusions Taskforce, Executive Directorate Legal Affairs, INTERPOL’s General Secretariat, France.

Yuriy L. Nemets, Managing Member, NEMETS PLLC, Washington, DC.

This seminar is open to all, and you can register to attend here.

Our last post discussed a recent case in Nepal in which former prime minister Sher Bahadur, along with his wife, former foreign minister Arzu Rana Deuba, have been under investigation in an alleged money laundering scheme. Today we will address the potential methods countries use to extradite individuals after failure to obtain a Red Notice. 

Next steps following a Red Notice denial

Since the Red Notice request has been denied, there have been alleged reports of the Dueba couple staying in Hong Kong. Without access to INTERPOL’s tools though, Napoli authorities are left to search for the couple independently.

After a failed Red Notice request, a country has other options to obtain the accused individual, including:

  • Renewing the Red Notice request after gathering the missing information requested by INTERPOL to ‘fill in the gaps,’ and re-submit the Red Notice request.
  • Communicate the charges between countries and try to initiate extradition proceedings without INTERPOL’s involvement.
  • Attempt to convince the country where the subject is located to initiate deportation (removal) proceedings. While not technically an extradition proceedings, we often see member countries attempt to influence deportation or removal proceedings for wanted persons, particularly where the two countries do not have an extradition treaty.

The reason so many countries seek INTERPOL’s assistance in extradition matters is because locating a wanted person is much more likely when INTERPOL’s tools are available: they aid in detecting a person’s presence when any border crossing or law enforcement interaction occurs. Thus, while it is possible to achieve extradition without INTERPOL’s involvement, it is more challenging to locate and identify the person absent the use of INTERPOL’s tools.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

My last post discussed a recent case in Nepal in which former prime minister Sher Bahadur, along with his wife, former foreign minister Arzu Rana Deuba, have been under investigation in an alleged money laundering scheme. Today’s post will address the potential methods countries use to extradite individuals after failure to obtain a Red Notice. 

Next steps following a Red Notice denial

Since Nepal’s Red Notice request has been denied, there have been alleged reports of the Dueba couple staying in Hong Kong. Without access to INTERPOL’s tools though, Nepali authorities are left to search for the couple independently. Authorities can rectify their failed request if they gather the specific charges and the current stage of the investigation INTERPOL requested, and resubmit the request for review. Barring that, after a failed Red Notice request, countries use other means of recapturing or returning the accused individual to the jurisdiction:

  • Communicating charges between countries to organize extradition without the help of INTERPOL;
  • Initiating deportation or removal proceedings;
  • Utilizing diplomatic channels, without the existence of a treaty.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A recent case in Nepal provides an example of how Red Notices should be requested, and why they are sometimes denied. A Red Notice may only be released once INTERPOL’s rules are satisfied. Countries must provide sufficient information before INTERPOL’s General Secretariat will approve and circulate a Red Notice.

Nepal’s former prime minister Sher Bahadur, along with his wife, former foreign minister Arzu Rana Deuba, have been under investigation in an alleged money laundering scheme, and local authorities requested Red Notices for each of them.

In this case, Nepali officials were denied a notice against Mr. and Mrs. Deuba, reportedly because the offense remains proven and the money laundering probe appears to have been initiated in a single step. The General Secretariat did not find that the legal threshold for a Red Notice had been met, and sought details on the specific charges and the current stage of the investigation.

The couple reportedly has warrants out for their arrest and have been placed on a fugitive list. Since the denied request, there have been alleged reports of the Dueba couple staying in Hong Kong. Without access to INTERPOL’s tools, though, Nepali authorities are left to search for the couple independently. They can rectify their failed request if they gather the specific charges and the current stage of the investigation INTERPOL requested, and resubmit the request for review. 

Our next post will further delve into how a country may engage in extradition without a Red Notice. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Our post today details the ins and outs of Red Notice Blocking for individuals attempting to remove their INTERPOL Red Notices. 

Removing a person’s name from INTERPOL’s wanted list and its website

One of the primary concerns of most Red Notice subjects is obviously having their names removed from INTERPOL’s wanted list. As that process takes time, it often happens that individuals request their data be blocked, often referred to as suspension, in INTERPOL’s databases so that their information is inaccessible while their cases are being studied by the CCF.

The majority of INTERPOL’s Red Notices are unpublished, but when they are published on INTERPOL’s websites, clients certainly want to ensure they are removed from the website as well as the database. 

Individuals with Red Notices are often unable to travel, have difficulty banking, and experience reputational damage and lost business opportunities. If an individual believes his or her Red Notice to be politically motivated or includes fabricated information, or is otherwise invalid, they can request that it be corrected or removed.  Evidence to validate a claim that a Red Notice or diffusion is required to support requests for correction and/or deletion of personal data, and for that data to be blocked while the CCF studies the case.

Notification of blocking or suspension

When the CCF’s initial review of a removal request generates a sufficient level of concern that a case may involve violations of its rules, the CCF will block the data (whether it is a Red Notice or diffusion) during the time that it is studying the case. No rule requires INTERPOL to notify people if their notice is blocked- sometimes the CCF notifies the subject that the data has been blocked, and sometimes it does not acknowledge the blocking until after the case has been resolved.

It has been my experience that blocking often precedes removal, though not in every case. A decision by the CCF to block a mnotice is generally a positive sign, as it suggests the Commission has identified a potential issue or inconsistency warranting further review. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Miami, Florida, U.S.A. – Estlund Law has successfully obtained the removal of two Red Notices requested against our clients by the People’s Republic of China.

The clients’ Red Notices were issued in 2017 after the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s government accused them of pyramid selling activities. One client was accused of organizing a pyramid scheme in relation to his business, which included multiple operations in multiple countries. The other client, a family member of the business owner, was included in the Red Notice despite having no involvement in the company.

As is common in private industries in China, as the business grew, the clients became the target of extortion efforts. Before the Red Notices were issued, they refused multiple offers of “business protection” in exchange for bribes by government officials and those holding close ties to the government. Authorities subsequently raided the business’s office without notice or cause, forced transfers from the company to the local “police bank account,” and fired employees from the company. Authorities controlling the media later released defamatory claims on the business and seized the clients’ assets. For a year after learning of the Red Notices, the clients paid a team of lawyers to try to fight the case in China until they were informed by a “middle man” that their fight was futile unless they paid millions in bribes, which they refused.

Prior to turning to Estlund Law, the clients attempted to remove their Red Notices with another law firm; those efforts were unsuccessful because the requests were not properly prepared. 

Michelle Estlund provided proof to INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) that the clients’ legitimate business included a lawful multi-level marketing program that operated exclusively in jurisdictions outside of China to remain compliant with the restrictions on multi-level marketing in China. She submitted proof of the unlawfulness of the PRC’s proceedings, its lack of respect towards the principles of human rights and its inability to provide a clear description of criminal involvement or purpose, and the political motivation of the criminal proceedings.

The CCF agreed with Estlund Law’s request and deleted both clients’ Red Notices from its databases.

They are now able to work, travel, bank, and live without the fear of being detained or targeted based on the Chinese Red Notices.

Our last post addressed how INTERPOL notices can be reissued using the case of Luis Guaman as an example. 

Mr. Guaman’s Case: Legal Conflict Between Jurisdictions

In Mr. Guaman’s case, after he fled to Ecuador, the U.S. obtained a Red Notice and requested his extradition to New York, where he is wanted for the murders of his wife and son. Ecuador refused to extradite Mr. Guaman to the United States and instead tried and sentenced him domestically. 

Red Notices are not indefinite and must be renewed every five years. Because the U.S. does not recognize the Ecuadorian proceedings as resolving the charges pending in New York, U.S. authorities continue to consider the case active and the arrest warrant valid. In other words, Ecuador views the matter as resolved under its domestic law, while the United States continues to treat it as an open case.

To maintain the notice, the requesting country must revalidate the warrant every five years and confirm that the request remains legally justified. In this case, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office renewed the warrant to keep the notice active, and fifteen years after the murders, INTERPOL has confirmed that Guaman remains listed as wanted.

Our clients sometimes question whether a Red Notice can still be acted upon after 5 years, and this case illustrates the fact that they can. The requesting member country must simply request the renewal and provide assurance that the notice’s purpose is still valid.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today’s post serves to show how INTERPOL notices can be re-issued, utilizing a recent case to highlight the implications in a real-life scenario. 

What are Red Notices?

Red Notices are requests to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. Red Notices are based on an arrest warrant or court order issued by the judicial authorities in the requesting country. Member countries apply their own laws in deciding whether to arrest a person in response to a Red Notice “hit.”

What is the difference between a Red Notice and an arrest warrant?

One of the most significant distinctions between a Red Notice and an arrest warrant is the that a Red Notice does not mandate INTERPOL’s member countries to take action. Once a Red Notice subject is encountered by law enforcement authorities in INTERPOL’s member countries, they may choose not to act on the Red Notice, or to question the subject, or to detain him briefly, or to move toward extradition proceedings. On the other hand, an arrest warrant is an official document issued by a judge or magistrate that requires law enforcement officers to arrest someone accused of a crime.

When do countries renew Red Notices?

Countries typically renew Red Notices when a case remains active and the individual is still wanted, to keep the alert current in INTERPOL’s system and encourage international cooperation. Red Notices are not indefinite and must be renewed every five years. To maintain the notice, the requesting country must revalidate the warrant every five years and confirm that the request remains legally justified. Our clients sometimes question whether a Red Notice can still be acted upon after 5 years- they can, and they merely need to be renewed with reassurance that their purpose is still valid.

Example of a renewed Red Notice

 One example of this is the case of Luis Guaman, for whom the US still has an active Red Notice issued, an Ecuadorian man for whom authorities originally obtained an arrest warrant for in 2011. He is wanted for the murders of his wife and son. Their bodies were found the day prior to Mr. Guaman flying from JFK Airport in New York to Ecuador. After an arrest warrant was issued, a copy of the warrant was hand-delivered to Ecuadorian embassy officials in Boston. Ecuador refused to extradite Mr. Guaman to the United States, citing its constitution’s prohibition on extraditing its own citizens. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz strongly objected and urged then-Secretary of State and other national lawmakers to press Ecuador to return Mr. Guaman for prosecution in Massachusetts, where he would have faced life in prison without parole if convicted. In Ecuador, he faced a maximum sentence of 16 to 25 years.

Despite US officials’ objections, an Ecuadorian court conducted a two-day trial in 2012, found Mr. Guaman guilty, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

Our next post will detail the specifics of a member country renewing a Notice.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.