Last month, I had the pleasure of presenting at a panel seminar along with several colleagues from the public and private sectors, listed here.

The program, presented by the ABA National Security Committee and International Law Section program, was entitled, “Latest Developments in INTERPOL’s Fight Against Transnational Repression.” The link to the program video is here.

My discussion of the following topics is found at the times listed below:

  • 45:10: CCF response times
  • 48:55, Child Custody matters related to INTERPOL (Yellow and Red Notices)
  • 55:34, NCB issues- what an NCB won’t do, who data belongs to, and NCB officials being bribed
  • 1:32:18: NGOs providing information and assisting Red Notice subjects
  • 1:32:52: Green notices and their current use for varying types of crimes

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Our last post addressed the likely  confirmation of Brazil’s Valdecy Urquiza as INTERPOL’s next Secretary General. Today’s post will focus on the possible implications of Mr. Urquiza holding this position. 

If Mr. Urquiza is elected, he will be INTERPOL’s first leader from a developing country. The organization has never had a Secretary General who did not hail from Europe or the United States. Mr. Urquiza’s candidacy points to a future with a potentially more diverse, expansive perspective for INTERPOL. In his statement regarding his recommendation for the position, he reportedly highlighted his “… plans to strengthen Interpol as ‘an absolutely necessary platform for police work in the world’ and avoid the agency being used for political ends.”

However, Brazil’s history of corruption is concerning. Transparency International scores Brazil at 104 out of 180 countries, and 54% of citizens thought corruption has increased in the last year. Naturally, the worry in the INTERPOL realm is that a relatively high level of corruption carries a possibility of invalid arrests and the resulting Red Notices. We have seen such a correlation with other INTERPOL member countries, and that worry may be valid in this situation based on the available evidence.

Human Rights Watch has called for protection of voting and speech rights in Brazil in the last several years. The Reuters Institute has reported that journalists have been arrested for reporting the news. Moreover, recent news coverage of Brazil’s “expanding wave of grave human rights abuses in Brazil- social media bans, political prosecutions, jailing opposition on spurious charges, thinly veiled censorhip laws” led to a congressional hearing in the U.S., at which multiple individuals testified about the growing censorship and politically motivated prosecutions, and Red Notices, against journalists. The testifying witnesses included:

Not all the testimony (all found here in transcript form) was critical of the government. Witness Fabio de Sa e Silva, Professor of Brazilian Studies, University of Oklahoma. Professor Sa e Silva testified that there was not a crisis of democracy in Brazil, and that the Brazilian judiciary was acting in accordance with its interpretation of applicable law. He characterized the country as one with a “vibrant democracy.”

Certainly, Mr. Urquiza will have a broad fund of experiences and observations from which to draw in running the international organization. His experience in positions such as Director of International Cooperation at the Brazilian Federal Police will help him navigate INTERPOL, an organization that has its own struggles with abuse and corruption. 

The President of INTERPOL, Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi, who has also faced accusations of human rights abuse, publicly supported Mr. Urquiza:

 “Mr. Urquiza impressed the Executive Committee with his experience, vision, and commitment to international policing. He brings significant experience of policing, as a senior police officer in Brazil, a former member of INTERPOL staff, and as INTERPOL’s Vice President for the Americas.”

Valdecy Urquiza will almost certainly become INTERPOL’s next Secretary General. It will be interesting to see how he tackles the ongoing issues within the organization, and how his leadership compares with that of outgoing Secretary General Jürgen Stock. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

(photo credit: INTERPOL/Associated Press)

As described by INTERPOL, the candidacy of Valdecy Urquiza will be submitted to INTERPOL’s  General Assembly for endorsement during its meeting later this year in Glasgow, Scotland. If endorsed by a majority of INTERPOL’s 196 member countries, he will assume office at the end of the term of the current Secretary General – Mr. Jürgen Stock of Germany – on 7 November 2024.

If elected, Mr. Urquiza will hold the position for 5 years. As the Secretary General, Mr. Urquiza will be:

  • Head of the General Secretariat 
  • INTERPOL’s principal spokesperson
  • Facilitator of INTERPOL’s budget and General Assembly decisions

The process of selecting the next Secretary General began in July 2023 with a call for candidates sent to all INTERPOL member countries. (We discussed the candidates and their backgrounds in our most recent series.) The Executive Committee reviewed all applications during its session in March 2024 and drew up a shortlist of candidates. The Executive Committee interviewed the shortlisted candidates at its session in June 2024, after which it made its recommendation.

INTERPOL’s executive committee has already selected Mr. Urquiza as its proposed Secretary General. His candidacy will be determined by a simple majority vote of the delegates at INTERPOL’s next General Assembly. 

Our next post will consider the possible implications of Mr. Urquiza’s candidacy.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A presentation of the National Security Committee and Criminal Justice Section
Committee on International Criminal Law

_______________________________________________

On July 22, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT, Michelle Estlund will be joining fellow panelists in a discussion about the latest developments in INTERPOL’s efforts aimed at curbing transnational repression and abuse of its systems. (See registration information below.)

Panelists will discuss:

  • The latest developments in INTERPOL’s application of its rules aimed at protecting the rights of victims of abuse by INTERPOL member states
  • Recent INTERPOL “case law” and other relevant disclosures (e.g. preemptive requests, presumption of innocence, child custody)
  • Challenges that INTERPOL faces in its attempts to convince member countries to cooperate in the organization’s fight against the abuse of its resources
  • Upcoming elections of the INTERPOL Secretary General, one of the most significant posts that plays a key role in addressing government abuse of the organization’s channels
  • The democratic countries’ attempts to avoid involvement in INTERPOL abuse committed by autocracies

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

  • Theodore R Bromund, Senior Research Fellow, Anglo-American Relations, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.)
  • Michelle A Estlund, Founder and Principal Attorney of Estlund Law, P.A. (Miami, Florida)
  • Yaron Gottlieb, Director, Head of the Notices and Diffusions Task Force, Executive Directorate, Legal Affairs, INTERPOL (Lyon, France)
  • Yuriy Nemets, Managing Member, Nemets PLLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Wayne H Salzgaber, Director of INTERPOL Washington (2016-2020)

You can register for this event at: https://www.americanbar.org/events-cle/mtg/web/443708465/ 

This series has examined the structure of INTERPOL’s various bodies and the responsibilities that each body holds.

One of those bodies, the CCF, is of primary concern to Red Notice subjects as it determines the outcome of requests for removal and correction. The CCF’s overall focus and direction is impacted by the Secretary General of the organization. Today’s post focuses on the importance of INTERPOL’s upcoming election as related to the Secretary General position. 

INTERPOL’s Secretary General position

The next Secretary General of INTERPOL will be determined this coming November. The Secretary General is the Organization’s chief official and is appointed for a five-year term in office, which can be renewed once for a second five-year term by the General Assembly. The second term of the current INTERPOL Secretary General, Jürgen Stock, will finish at the 92nd General Assembly in Glasgow, United Kingdom in November 2024.

The Secretary General is the most powerful INTERPOL position and is responsible for the General Secretariat, overseeing its day-to-day activities and ensuring that it implements the decisions of the General Assembly and Executive Committee. 

The call for candidates and election process

INTERPOL states that the process of selecting the next Secretary General officially began in July of 2023 with a call for candidates sent to all INTERPOL member countries. After that, during the first phase of the decision process, the Executive Committee reviewed all applications and drew up a shortlist of candidates. During the second phase, which took place during the second quarter of 2024, the Executive Committee interviewed shortlisted candidates. After the interviews, the Executive Committee selects a candidate to propose to INTERPOL’s General Assembly for appointment as Secretary General along with a report that attests to the integrity of the selection process and describes the successive stages that led to the Committee’s final choice, as well as the background of the proposed candidate. The General Assembly then determines INTERPOL’s next Secretary General based on a simple majority vote. 

Candidates for the Secretary General position

Candidates for INTERPOL’s next Secretary General Include: 

  • Mr. Stephen Kavanaugh
    • Country: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    • Current functions: INTERPOL Executive Director of Police Services
  • Mr. Mubita Nawa
    • Country: Republic of Zambia
    • Current functions: Director – Administration, Zambia Police Service
  • Mr. Faisal Shahkar 
    • Country: Islamic Republic of Pakistan
    • Current functions: United Nations Police Advisor & Head of UN Police Division
  • Mr. Valdecy Urquiza 
    • Country: Federative Republic of Brazil
    • Current functions: Director for International Cooperation, Brazilian Federal Police / INTERPOL Vice-President for the Americas

Throughout Jürgen Stock’s term, there have been some reforms in INTERPOL’s processes which have made the organization less vulnerable to abuse. The next election is especially significant, as the next Secretary General will be responsible for continuing to move the organization forward and building upon the existing improvements to INTERPOL’s systems. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The first post in this series discussed the roles of the different bodies within INTERPOL and how they work. Today’s post will detail how Red Notice subjects primarily interact with INTERPOL. 

Red Notice Law Journal has previously discussed the fact that Red Notice subjects’ main concern is the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL Files (CCF), as this is the body that considers requests for the removal and correction of data. The CCF is is responsible for complaints related to INTERPOL’s database system. It determines whether certain information, such as Red Notices, diffusions, and other types of notices, should be included in INTERPOL’s databases. The CCF may decide to delete the data, add an addendum to a Red Notice, or make other changes to notices. 

The CCF comprises seven members appointed for a five-year term. Members are appointed because of their expertise and allow the CCF to carry out its mission completely independently. They are generally lawyers with experience in data protection, international police matters, international criminal law, human rights, or senior judicial or prosecutorial roles.

Red Notice subjects will often submit requests to the CCF for 

  • Access to information potentially held by INTERPOL’s information system. The CCF will generally disclose the information requested pending a consultation with the data source. 
  • Correction/deletion of information potentially being processed in INTERPOL’s files. 
  • Revision of a previous decision made by the Commission. The CCF can review new, relevant information relating to an earlier decision if that information was submitted in a timely fashion and would have made a difference to the CCF’s consideration of the case.  

Our next post will discuss INTERPOL’s next election coming up in November 2024, and how this could affect INTERPOL notice subjects. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Moldova police have recently arrested officials who allegedly accepted bribes in an international conspiracy to allow criminals to bypass INTERPOL Red Notices. 

The officials are believed to have accepted bribes totaling several million U.S. dollars in exchange for offering criminals safe harbor in Moldova from Red Notices issued in their names, or for deleting the arrest warrants altogether.

Moldovan, French, and U.S. officials cooperated to organize the raids of dozens of locations to seek out and detain suspects. Reportedly,  evidence from the investigation showed that criminal groups with links in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries allegedly bribed individuals in exchange for help in removing Red Notices from INTERPOL’s database. In addition to arresting four officials tied to the bribery conspiracy, Moldovan police seized terabytes of data from laptops and mobile devices as part of the raids. Investigators believe that officials were paid millions of dollars in total to prevent notices from being issued regarding individuals taking refuge in Moldova or elsewhere. 

What this means for Red Notice subjects

Our clients have conveyed numerous experiences with law enforcement officials in corrupt INTERPOL member countries soliciting bribes to remove Red Notices; we know that this happens often. We also know that National Central Bureau (NCB) officials often falsely represent that Red Notices exist, and offer to remove those notices for a fee after showing “subjects” a copy of a fake Red Notice. The Moldova investigation results are unsurprising in this respect. However, the fact that an investigation took place and that it was executed by French officials at the request of INTERPOL is encouraging.

INTERPOL’s initiation of this type of investigation indicates that the organization is taking appropriate steps to address corrupt actions in its member countries. If corrupt actors are replaced with law enforcement officials who observe the rule of law, individuals dealing with INTERPOL are more likely to be afforded due process of law and fair treatment.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Once individuals learn of their status as a Red Notice subject, one of the most daunting things about INTERPOL’s removal process is the size of INTERPOL’s systems as well as their unfamiliarity. It can be helpful for a Red Notice subject seeking removal to understand who is in charge of the various divisions of INTERPOL and who makes decisions affecting Red Notice subjects. 

The organizational structure of INTERPOL includes the following:

The Secretary General is the most powerful INTERPOL position and is responsible for the General Secretariat, overseeing its day-to-day activities and ensuring that it implements the decisions of the General Assembly and Executive Committee. The Secretary General is proposed by the Executive Committee and appointed by the General Assembly for a period of five years and may be re-appointed once. The second term of the current Secretary General, Jürgen Stock, ends this year, leaving the position open to new candidates. 

The General Secretariat runs INTERPOL’s day-to-day operations, with over 1,000 employees and a global presence. It holds its headquarters in Lyon, France, its Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore, and six regional bureaus in Argentina, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Kenya, and Zimbabwe.

INTERPOL’s president’s role is to preside at meetings of the General Assembly and the Executive Committee and direct the discussions, ensure that the activities of the Organization conform with the decisions of the General Assembly and the Executive Committee, and maintain contact with the Secretary General of the Organization. INTERPOL’s president holds a term of four years. The current president is Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi of the United Arab Emirates. 

INTERPOL’s Executive Committee is the governing body that supervises the execution of the General Assembly’s decisions and the administration and work of the General Secretariat. It meets three times a year. The Committee’s members sit at the top level of policing in their own countries and bring many years of experience and knowledge to advise and guide the Organization. Its role is to supervise the execution of the decisions of the General Assembly, prepare the agenda for sessions of the General Assembly, submit to the General Assembly any program of work or project which it considers useful, and supervise the administration and work of the Secretary General.

INTERPOL’s CCF is another important aspect of the organization, and is the most relevant part of INTERPOL for the purposes of a Red Notice subjects. The Commission is structured in two chambers and is supported by the Secretariat for the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files. These chambers are the Supervisory and Advisory Chamber, and the Requests Chamber. The Requests Chamber examines and decides on requests for access to data and requests for correction and/or deletion of data processed in the INTERPOL Information System. It also examines applications for revision.

The next post in this series will discuss how these roles can affect Red Notice subjects. 

Our last post discussed the long-delayed emergence of cryptocurrency in cases wherein countries request INTERPOL’s assistance. Today’s post will discuss the specific instances of cryptocurrency cases.

The most notable case representing how INTERPOL handles cryptocurrency cases is that of Do Kwon, the founder of Terraform Labs. In 2022, the collapse of Terraform Labs’ TerraUSD stablecoin wiped out around $60 billion in market value, marking the beginning of Mr. Kwon’s downfall. Accused of fraud in both South Korea and the U.S., his case became a focal point for discussions on accountability and regulation in the cryptocurrency sector. Do Kwon and his company Terraform Labs were found liable for civil fraud in a trial that began in April, almost two years after the company’s stablecoin tanked in value and wiped out $40 billion in investors’ funds.

 INTERPOL indicates that the increasing use of technology by organized crime groups allows them to better target their victims around the world. El Economista reports that in presenting a preview of its analysis of the Global Assessment of Financial Fraud, INTERPOL warned that there is increasing evidence that Latin American criminal organizations, such as Commando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) in Brazil, and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG ) in Mexico, are involved in the commission of financial fraud. El Economista’s article goes on to explain that to commit their financial frauds, organized crime groups are turning to migrants, who are victims of traffickers and forced to commit scams operating from call centers, from where a scheme called pig-butchering is committed, which consists of a mixture of romantic attraction and investment in cryptocurrencies.

Reportedly, after “Operation Turquoise V,” coordinated by INTERPOL, hundreds of victims were removed from their region in Latin America, being lured through messaging applications and social media platforms, and then coerced to commit fraud, including investment fraud and pig-butchering scams, a scheme that combines romantic attraction and investment practices with cryptocurrencies.

The constantly evolving nature of cyptocurrency makes it difficult for law enforcement to keep up with criminal enterprises. INTERPOL led a recent operation, HAECHI IV, which enabled police worldwide to address the growing complexity of cyber-enabled scams. Through the operation, a Purple Notice was released which alerted INTERPOL member countries to a new scam detected in Korea involving the sale of Non-Fungible Tokens with promises of huge returns, which turned out to be a “rug pull,” a growing scam in the crypto industry where developers abruptly abandon a project and investors lose their money.

While these INTERPOL initiatives are necessary, it’s important to remember that there are many legitimate reasons for cryptocurrency transactions and the system used to create and transfer cryptocurrency is secure and transparent. With INTERPOL’s history of being used for abusive purposes by some member countries, the organization must ensure that adaptations centering around cryptocurrency have safeguards so that innocent people are protected from abuse.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

Today’s post will address the realities and implications of INTERPOL’s dealings with criminal cases involving cryptocurrency.

Cryptocurrency, although not new to modern culture, is still relatively new to the world of INTERPOL. Crypto has been popular for over a decade, having been invented in 2009 and named the year’s best investment by Forbes in 2013, but it has really only become relevant to INTERPOL only in the last several years.

While INTERPOL is an international law enforcement organization that assists in apprehending suspects of many types of crimes, it became involved in criminal cases with a crypto component when cryptocurrency activity formed the basis for cases of fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes. This has only been in the last few years, given that any criminal enterprise needs time to form and operate.

Businesses and investments related to cryptocurrency have created financial activity the likes of which have not been seen in our publicly traded markets, ever. While cryptocurrency is no longer new, cases related to cryptocurrency in the world’s judicial systems-particularly criminal courts- are fairly new. They often involve allegations of fraud and other financial crimes that fall under the umbrella of money laundering.

“We are facing an epidemic in the growth of financial fraud, leading to individuals, often vulnerable people, and companies being defrauded on a massive and global scale. Changes in technology and the rapid increase in the scale and volume of organized crime has driven the creation of a range of new ways to defraud innocent people, businesses, and even governments. With the development of AI and Cryptocurrencies, the situation is only going to get worse without urgent action.” INTERPOL Secretary-General Jürgen Stock stated.

As stated in a previous RNLJ post, what is different about the criminal charges we are seeing in cases involving cryptocurrency is that jurisdictions don’t always know how -or have not yet agreed on a common scheme- to regulate the financial transactions related to cryptocurrency. Accordingly, a person may be wanted for and detained for a Red Notice based on charges in one country, even if it eventually will not be honored by INTERPOL’s other member countries due to differing regulatory and criminal statutory standards. South Korea, for example, has a regulatory scheme that is still evolving and faces very specific concerns stemming from the Kimchee effect and related capital flight from the country. China has its own version of regulation (including a full ban on cryptocurrency and upcoming anti-money laundering reforms) that differes greatly from that of other countries still forming their cryptocurrency regulations, such as the United States.

Our next post will discuss specific instances of cryptocurrency cases that have involved INTERPOL. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.