Our last post detailed cases of member countries abusing or attempting to abuse INTERPOL to target specific journalists. Those cases are not at all unique; INTERPOL abuse by its member countries has been documented for years. Turkey and Brazil are not the only offenders. Egyptian officials have sought Red Notices against journalists repeatedly, as reported by the RNLJ; in at least some instances, INTERPOL was able to identify and reject the invalid requests.

Today’s post aims to discuss INTERPOL’s reform options moving forward.

For each case of INTERPOL abuse, more individuals will inevitably fear being targeted for operating with integrity. Although it will likely never be fully eradicated, the only way for INTERPOL to combat such abuse is by continuing to improve and implement reforms such as:

  • Developing stricter criteria for issuing and reviewing Red Notices, ensuring they are not used for political or retaliatory purposes against journalists.
  • Subjecting requests for Red Notices from historically abusive member countries to a higher degree of scrutiny;
  • Forming a dedicated unit within the CCF to aid victims of abusive Red Notices, ensuring they receive tailored support and guidance to correct false and erroneous data;
  • Collaborating with international media organizations and press freedom groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists to aid in screening notice requests for journalists;
  • Adopting more transparency and publish more information regarding Red Notices and how many are abusive.
  • Administering publicized consequences such as limited access to INTERPOL’s databases to countries who knowingly abuse the system.

We have seen INTERPOL reforms create beneficial change in the past. Continually evolving efforts are necessary to ensure the Organization’s integrity and strength.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Member countries abusing Red Notices to target reporters is a particularly heinous form of repression and political persecution. Today’s post will address specific instances of INTERPOL’s tools being used to silence or retaliate against journalists. 

This issue’s prevalence has led RNLJ to cover it in the past. In 2018, Turkey’s Red Notice request against reporter Can Dündar was denied. Dündar was the former chief editor of the Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet. The Committee to Protect Journalists requested that INTERPOL deny the request due to its being politically motivated, and the notice was not issued. INTERPOL rejected the Red Notice request, despite authorities’ claims that it was based on espionage charges, alleging that he disclosed state secrets in the course of his reporting. 

More recently, member countries continue to target journalists notwithstanding INTERPOL’s efforts at reform over the years. The Whistler states that David Hundeyin, an investigative journalist, has alleged that desperate attempts had been made to involve him in a criminal investigation to damage his international refugee status and place him on an INTERPOL notice list, among other things. Mr. Hundeyin stated,

“This is part of the price that you have to pay when you decide to say the truth at the time it wasn’t fashionable to do so, especially a regime that sees truth-telling as an affront or threat to it,” 

Additionally, earlier this year, journalist Paulo Figueiredo, testified at a US congressional hearing regarding the human rights abuses committed in Brazil and Brazilian efforts to weaponize INTERPOL against journalists.  In his discussion, Mr. Figueiredo described the rampant censorship in Brazil, leading to the Brazilian government’s forced closure of a social media platform to silence his criticism. 

Our work on behalf of wrongly targeted INTERPOL subjects relies in no small part on journalists’ and human rights activists’ reports. Their unfettered ability to report the truth from every corner of the world greatly impacts our capacity to provide proof to decision-making entities such as INTERPOL and courts charged with weighing issues of human and due process rights observation.

INTERPOL and the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) have the critical and delicate burden of cautiously evaluating requests from member countries for Red Notices or diffusions against journalists.

Our next post will focus on how INTERPOL can prevent journalist targeting.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In our last post, we addressed the ongoing issue of China’s abuse of Red Notices against people who owned very successful businesses and against dissidents. Today, we’ll consider a primary goal of certain criminal cases being filed against those individuals: asset seizure. 

In China and much of the world, a person’s assets may be seized in association with criminal charges being issued against them. However, in repressive regimes such as China, where improper and abusive charges are not uncommon, arbitrary asset seizure is often associated with people being targeted improperly. 

In our practice, we have noted the phenomenon that the Chinese government has generated charges of a financial nature following a person’s dissident speech or a refusal to share a successful business with people in power. In these cases, criminal charges are filed, the individual’s or the company’s assets are seized, and if the person is out of the jurisdiction, a Red Notice is requested.

Such a case may look like the one that was filed against Sun Dawu, a billionaire business owner. In his case, INTERPOL was not involved because he stayed in the country. The underlying facts of the case, however, closely mirror those of several of our clients and provide a representative example of how abusive criminal cases can lead to asset seizure and forfeiture.

After Mr. Dawu spoke out against China’s ruling communist party, the 70-year-old is now serving an 18 years in jail for alleged corruption. Following his detention, Mr. Dawu’s company was placed under new management. A detailed Reuters article by journalist David Lague reports that, in April of 2022, Mr. Dawu’s company was sold to a group set up just three days before a court-ordered auction, as reflected in Chinese corporate filings and court documents. It was sold at a fraction of its true value, according to his family. The impression left is that the Chinese government jailed Mr. Dawu purely for control of his assets. 

“Their objective was very clear,” said Yang Bin, a former government prosecutor turned defense lawyer. “They wanted to totally crush his whole business.”

Mr. Dawu stated that some evidence shown at his trial was fabricated, some was exaggerated, and other allegations didn’t involve illegal conduct.

Cases like Mr. Dawu’s illustrate how relatively easy it is for a government to abuse its systems- and if needed, those of INTERPOL- to obtain a desired result. Charges that appear to be legitimate can be used to issue Red Notices and target individuals through INTERPOL. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

For many, Global Entry cards and visas are essential for smooth travel from international origins into the United States. However, when an individual is the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice, these travel privileges can come under threat. This blog post explores how a Red Notice can lead to the revocation of Global Entry cards and visas, and the challenges this poses to Red Notice subjects. 

What is a Red Notice

A Red Notice is a request issued by INTERPOL to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition or similar legal proceedings. It is issued based on requests from member countries and usually involves serious criminal allegations.

Consequences for Global Entry and Visa Holders

Individuals with Global Entry cards or visas who are subject to a Red Notice face several potential consequences. 

Global Entry: Being part of the Global Entry program signifies a trusted traveler status. However, a Red Notice can trigger a review of the individual’s background, leading to the revocation of their Global Entry privileges. The expedited entry benefits are suspended while the individual’s legal situation is resolved.

Visas: Visas are granted based on specific conditions, including the individual’s legal standing. A Red Notice can lead to a reassessment of visa validity, potentially resulting in its revocation. This action can occur regardless of the visa type, whether tourist, business, or student.

The Personal and Professional Impact

  • Immediate Travel Restrictions: The revocation of Global Entry and visas can result in immediate travel restrictions, impacting personal and professional plans. For frequent travelers, this can cause significant disruptions and delays.
  • Legal Complications: The involvement in legal proceedings associated with a Red Notice can be complex and costly. The inability to travel freely can hinder legal defense efforts, as individuals may face challenges in attending court hearings or meetings with legal representatives.
  • Economic Impact: Travel restrictions can lead to financial loss, particularly for those who rely on international travel for business or employment. The costs of legal defense, combined with lost opportunities and disrupted plans, can be substantial.
  • Psychological Strain: The stress of dealing with legal issues, coupled with the loss of travel privileges, can have a significant psychological impact. The uncertainty and disruption can affect mental well-being and overall quality of life.
  • Reputational Damage: The public nature of a Red Notice can lead to reputational damage. Even if the individual is later exonerated, the negative publicity and perceived association with serious criminal activity can have long-lasting effects on personal and professional relationships.

The revocation of Global Entry cards and visas due to a Red Notice presents significant challenges. Individuals facing such issues should seek expert legal advice to navigate the complexities and understand their rights. Preparing for potential disruptions and managing the associated stress are crucial steps in handling the impact of a Red Notice on travel and immigration status.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In an increasingly globalized world, travel and international mobility are more essential than ever. Programs such as the United States’ Global Entry trusted traveler program, which expedite customs and immigration processes so people may enter the US, and various visas facilitate smooth cross-border movement. However, for individuals facing serious legal issues, these conveniences can suddenly become liabilities. One such issue is the potential revocation of Global Entry cards and visas in the presence of an INTERPOL Red Notice.

How Red Notices Affect Global Entry and Visa Status

Global Entry is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection program that allows expedited entry for pre-approved, low-risk travelers into the United States. Visa statuses, similarly, grant individuals permission to enter or stay in a country under specific conditions. However, these benefits can be jeopardized if an individual is subject to a Red Notice.

Global Entry Revocation: If a person with a Global Entry card becomes the subject of a Red Notice, their status in the program can be revoked. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other immigration authorities may reassess the individual’s background, leading to immediate suspension or cancellation of their Global Entry privileges.

Visa Revocation: Similarly, visa statuses can be revoked if a Red Notice is issued. The issuing country may view the Red Notice as grounds for visa cancellation, especially if the charges involve serious crimes or pose a threat to public safety.

The effect of Red Notices on travel privileges such as Global Entry and visas underscores the importance of understanding the broader implications of international legal matters. For those facing such issues, seeking professional legal advice and understanding the potential consequences of a Red Notice is crucial in managing and mitigating the impact on their travel and immigration status. Our next post will underscore the implications of losing certain travel privileges. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today’s post will cover an often revisited RNLJ topic: China’s Red Notice abuse. INTERPOL member countries have always abused Red Notices, and no matter how many reforms are put into place, the sheer number of INTERPOL member countries dictates that INTERPOL abuse will never fully vanish. Some member countries are worse than others, however, and China has one of the most prolific histories of abusing INTERPOL’s tools. 

While Red Notices are designed to allow cooperation between police agencies worldwide, China has increasingly exploited this system to pursue political dissidents, critics, and individuals involved in non-violent activities that are deemed problematic by Chinese officials. This abuse of the Red Notice system raises concerns about the integrity of INTERPOL and its protection of human rights.

Estlund Law has experience dealing with multiple cases wherein the Chinese government raised false charges against individuals in retaliation for dissident speech, the collection of extreme wealth, or a combination of both.

Dissident speech led to criminal charges

For example, in the case of Chuang Liang Li, (shared with the client’s permission) Mr. Li exposed corruption within the Chinese Communist Party. When he spoke out against the Chinese government and its corruption, authorities filed charges against Mr. Li, accusing him of “embezzling large amounts of state-owned funds and accepting bribes.”  Subsequently, Mr. Li’s family members were arrested and told that their arrest was due to Mr. Li’s public criticism of Chinese authorities. His former colleagues and friends were also arrested, interrogated, and tortured, and a Red Notice was issued in his name. 

Unfortunately, our client’s experience was by no means unique. Chinese officials are currently criminally prosecuting scores of private and public-sector business leaders in an effort to maintain economic and political control.

Communist Party critic and billionaire farmer and businessman Sun Dawu once employed over ten thousand people. He openly criticized the Chinese Communist Party and advocated for democracy; he is now serving an 18-year sentence for corruption. Like our client, Mr. Sun’s family members were jailed in relation to his criminal case, which observers have characterized as a means of eliminating a threat to the Party’s control over the economy. Attorney Li, Jinxhing (see below) succinctly articulates the CCP’s goal with respect to extremely successful business owners in China, several of whom received identical 18-year sentences in wholly unrelated cases:

“It’s very simple. The authorities want them to die in jail. It’s terrifying when you think about it.”

 A recent Reuters special report highlighted other successful business owners who have been targeted by the Chinese government include: 

  • Li Jinxing, one of China’s top criminal defense and human rights lawyers prior to being disbarred for criticizing legal and political authorities; his case has been the focus of Human Rights Watch and Lawyers for Lawyers reports and a U.S. congressional hearing.
  • Ren Zhiqiang, a real estate tycoon and blogger, who was sentenced to 18 years for corruption. He was accused of being disloyal and was detained after after an article that was widely attributed to him and circulated online, criticized the government’s handling of COVID-19;
  • Wu Xiaohui, former chairman of Anbang Insurance Group. He acquired New York’s landmark Waldorf Astoria hotel. Before he was sentenced to 18 years in prison (see the theme here?), prosecutors focused on Wu’s “unchecked ambition and reckless expansion, which resulted in risks to the Chinese financial system;”  this charge has also been raised against other business moguls.
  • Jack Ma, owner of Alibaba, who until recently had receded from the public eye since criticizing Chinese regulators in 2020.
  • Tian Huiyu, former president of China Merchants Bank, who received a suspended death sentence for charges of bribery and insider trading.

These cases are precisely the type of matters that form the underlying basis for abusive Red Notice requests from China. Given the current focus on identifying and punishing business tycoons for their words and their wealth, the fresh wave of abusive Red Notices from China that our firm is seeing is unsurprising.

In our next post, we will detail the financial windfall that the Chinese government achieves in cases where successful business owners are targeted.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

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/