How does a legitimate businessperson become an INTERPOL target? In this series, we’ll consider a case originating in the U.S. to demonstrate how an ordinary business dispute can lead to a criminal matter, which can lead to a Red Notice. 

From building a business to INTERPOL Involvement

The process by which civil disputes can become criminal cases is exemplified in a  recent case wherein Celestino Diaz sought to build a business in New York. He envisioned and began a Venezuelan-style restaurant, “Areppas,” which would eventually expand into a 15-store chain. One major investor in this idea was Omar Gerardo Camaro, a member of the family behind Televen, one of Venezuela’s largest television networks. The two families had reportedly known each other for decades. 

After COVID-19 restrictions led to the business’s closure, Mr. Camero sought to recover his investment and took the resulting dispute to arbitration in New York. Arbitration is a civil mechanism in which a neutral third party makes a legal decision regarding the dispute.  The parties reportedly signed an agreement dismissing the arbitration without prejudice. The agreement also provided Whiteswan (Mr. Camero’s company) and its forensic examiners with access to Areppas’ financial information and certain personnel. The agreement did not adjudicate the merits of Mr. Camero’s allegations.

Civil dispute takes an international turn before becoming criminal

Following this, Mr. Camero reportedly filed a private criminal complaint in Venezuela, accusing Mr. Diaz of fraud related to the Arrepas Restaurant investment. Mr. Diaz argues that Mr. Camero is attempting to turn a civil pursuit into a criminal prosecution.  

One Venezuelan court found that there had not been a sufficiently thorough criminal investigation and that the evidence wasn’t enough to establish that Diaz had committed a crime. Another court said it didn’t have jurisdiction because the dispute was essentially civil/commercial and had already been addressed through arbitration. Prosecutors still continued pursuing the matter through another court, which eventually resulted in an arrest warrant for Diaz. Venezuela then requested and obtained an INTERPOL Red Notice against Diaz.

Mr. Diaz has now sued Mr. Camero and two companies tied to Televen, alleging that Mr. Camero utilized a dispute over his $1.09 million investment in the restaurant chain into a years-long campaign to force Mr. Diaz into paying him millions more than he invested, using threats, Venezuela’s criminal-justice system and, ultimately, his family’s media company to apply pressure. Although these claims remain alleged, they illustrate how a monetary dispute can ultimately lead to INTERPOL involvement. 

But is it proper grounds for a Red Notice?

INTERPOL is not meant to – and does not want to – assist in cases that are primarily civil disputes without an overriding criminal element. In cases where business owners disagree about contractual compliance, investment returns, or other civil matters, INTERPOL is likely to decline involvement. The reason INTERPOL may become involved improperly in a civil matter often has to do with the complainant’s characterization of the case as having some criminal component. In business disputes, the alleged component is often fraud, misappropriation, or embezzlement. In those cases, it is only when the subject of the notice proves the true nature of the dispute to INTERPOL’s CCF – which is after the notice has been issued- that INTERPOL actually has all of the information available regarding the case.

Consequences of a Red Notice

Even if INTERPOL considers and later deletes a Red Notice, the subject of the notice has often already suffered the collateral consequences of the notice. According to Mr. Diaz’s lawsuit, the Department of Homeland Security revoked his Global Entry account, presumably following the Red Notice. Mr. Diaz says he has since avoided international travel because he fears being detained and potentially extradited to Venezuela. Gazsó von Klingspor, a Venezuelan Attorney in Miami, said INTERPOL headquarters in France has since temporarily blocked access to the Red Notice while reviewing it.  

Our next post will continue on this topic.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

As AI increasingly affects our world and how we live, work, and conduct business and pleasure, INTERPOL is no exception. Today’s post focuses on how AI is showing up in our cases, how it can be of use, and how to excercise caution.

Red Notice and Diffusion deletion case preparation by clients

One of my favorite parts of working with clients who have embraced AI is that many of them have begun using it to help organize their documents and questions even before we meet. AI is extremely effective- and likely will become more so- at responding to prompts for organization, issue-spotting, and even analysis.

Clients who use AI to organize their documents and questions often understand their cases better, even if that understanding means that they have identified the questions they need answered about their cases. This preparation saves time during our initial meeting, and often results in the clients feeling more prepared to process the information and strategies we discuss regarding their Red Notices or Diffusions.

AI for translations, document organization, and security

Translations of documents have historically been one of the most expensive and daunting parts of some deletion case work for some clients. When a document is not in Arabic, English, French, or Spanish (the four working languages of INTERPOL), or the attorney does not read the language of the documents, a translation is required for the work to be effective. Privacy must be considered when obtaining translations from an AI service:

  • Lack of privacy: While open-forum (free) translation services have been available for years, once a document or content is uploaded, that information cannot be deleted and is no longer private. The company can use the information for training, data retention, targeted ads, or otherwise review the information as it wishes. There is no attorney-client privilege, even if it was entered in relation to a case, and the information can be used against a defendant in court because no right to privacy exists in that context.
  • Privacy protected: Private (paid) translation and AI services specify that the information uploaded by their clients is privacy protected, not used for training, and not sold or transferred to other companies.

(Obviously, in some cases an AI translation will not suffice and a professional translation service must complete and certify the translations. This discussion is limited to AI translation services.)

AI and the CCF

At a recent online seminar, the CCF’s Chair, Teresa McHenry, addressed the CCF’s use of AI, and mentioned that the CCF does not currently use AI to aid in its processing of cases. The organization is considering generally how the CCF can use AI appropriately and considering whether or not it should be used it to identify potential related cases or similar issues. It is not going to be used for decision-making and it will not be replacing human review, and that is good news.

AI and law enforcement agencies

Many defense attorneys and human rights advocates have expressed concerns about law enforcement use of AI, and for good reason. We have repeatedly seen reported examples of individuals who were wrongly accused of illegal acts based on law enforcement’s reliance on AI tools, without taking the time to properly investigate a case. While many of these cases are identified prior to conviction, the arrests, detention, humiliation, and money spent to correct the arrests cannot be reversed. We should expect to see an increase in AI-driven investigations that result in Red Notices in the future.

AI in law firms

Many clients have case files that span years, and sometimes decades, so AI programs can be helpful to search for and organize information. However, clients should ensure that their lawyers use closed (private/paid) AI services for document organization, translation, or searches for specific facts or legal articles. Lawyers should not allow private client files, facts, or documents to be uploaded to any public forum or service for the reasons mentioned above.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

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

Our last post detailed the next steps a former Red Notice subject should consider following a successful deletion of their data from INTERPOL’s files. While a Red Notice deletion constitutes a significant victory with life-altering consequences, a deletion does not always resolve every issue facing the former Red Notice subject. Today’s post will address several of those issues. 

The Underlying Criminal Case

While a Red Notice deletion eliminates the widespread INTERPOL alert from the CCF’s database, it does not remove any related criminal charges from the underlying case that formed the basis for the Red Notice. Any investigations and charges from the requesting country typically remain active until they are handled domestically. Consequently, while the potential for an INTERPOL-related arrest or extradition is less likely due to the Red Notice deletion, extradition could still occur if a country detects the former subject’s presence by some other means.

A deleted Red Notice can sometimes function as persuasive grounds for the country of origin to address the charges favorably for the subject. Nevertheless, subjects of the Red Notice should recognize that returning to the country while charges are pending may pose the same risk of detention and rights violations that existed before the notice was deleted. 

New Notices or Alerts

A Red Notice deletion does not provide guaranteed immunity from the issuance of new Red Notices or Diffusion, especially if the requesting country presents new evidence or legal grounds. INTERPOL maintains a strict position against involving itself in politically motivated matters, which could entail an abusive re-publication of a Notice. While re-publication is a rare, former subjects may wish to notify INTERPOL if it appears likely that a government will seek a new Red Notice based on the same or similar grounds as the deleted one.  

Additionally, as addressed in our previous post, a deletion does not:

  • Guarantee deletion of data from National Central Bureaus of INTERPOL’s member countries
  • Mitigate reputational damage from media sources
  • Restore access to frozen financial assets

In many cases, these issues can be successfully addressed. A well-planned, strategic approach to one’s case increases the likelihood of success with reputation, domestic databases, and asset access and banking.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 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.