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.

The previous posts in this series addressed the need for the CCF to schedule sessions proportionally to the number of requests for relief it receives each year. RNLJ advocates that it is not feasible to continue scheduling 3-4 sessions every year if the number of requests the CCF receives continues to increase.

Recalling the statistics according to the CCF’s annual activity reports, the CCF received 643 new requests in 2015, and 1,417 in 2021, but convened only four times in both years. This means that INTERPOL’s CCF held the same number of sessions despite receiving over twice as many requests.

Time allotted for each case

It is important to note the actual time allotted for the CCF to review each request. If each of the four sessions held in 2021 was four days long, and the CCF members convened for 8 hours per day, members would have had to reach decisions on over 11 cases each hour to review all 1,417. That is about 5 minutes allotted to each request sent in. There is no denying that 5 minutes is far too little time to truly consider a case, even if it has been well-reviewed by the CCF’s capable full-time staff.  

Solutions 

The Commission could remedy this problem by:

  • Increasing the number of sessions so they are scheduled proportionally to the number of requests to be considered.
  • Holding remote “mini-sessions:” All Commission members are from different countries and have full-time positions elsewhere. Holding shorter sessions remotely would allow members to remain in their countries while addressing simpler cases, leaving more complex matters to be addressed in Lyon during formal in-person meetings.
  • Recruiting additional members to the Commission, and divide the requests into categories to ensure uniformity in analysis and approach. 

Any combination of these solutions could reduce the workload and increase the efficiency of the Commission.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Our last post discussed the CCF’s scheduled sessions for 2024 and how more time may be necessary for the CCF to issue timely responses and make timely decisions. Today’s post will discuss INTERPOL’s previous reform efforts within the Commission and ways in which those efforts should continue. 

Reform Within the CCF

Although sometimes it may seem INTERPOL’s rules remain at a standstill, the organization is moving in the right direction. In 2017, the Commission adopted new rules governing the CCF. These rules included:

  •  A 9-month time limit for the CCF to respond to requests
  • The creation of the Commission’s two chambers: the Supervisory and Advisory Chamber, and the Request Chamber
  • The requirement of the Commission to “endeavor to make its decisions, opinions, recommendations, and reports public in all working languages of the Organization.”

These reforms were enacted in part due to requests made by INTERPOL practitioners and human rights organizations. As stated in the RNLJ series discussing the new rules at the time, Fair Trials International provided input that was instrumental in advocating for INTERPOL reform, and many of its recommendations made their way into the new statute.

These past INTERPOL reforms prove that individuals and organizations exposing the flaws of institutions like INTERPOL help an immeasurable amount of people. Those who are affected by the inadequacies of INTERPOL and organizations like it rely on people with the influence to bring about positive change. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files(CCF) has finished its second session of the year, and the remaining dates of its sessions in 2024 are posted on its website. The remaining sessions are listed on INTERPOL’s website as follows:

  • 129th session: Summer 2024 (date unspecified)
  • 130th session: Autumn 2024 (date unspecified)

Only three sessions per year are required of the Commission members to discuss and decide upon all requests the CCF receives. With four sessions planned in 2024 instead of the usual three, the CCF will be more productive as members will have more time to consider each request and take on more cases. 

More time for the CCF

While the increase in CCF sessions this year should be beneficial, it would be productive for the Commission to routinely schedule more sessions so that all requests will be processed and decided in a timely manner.

There currently does not appear to be an adjustment of the number of sessions held to correspond to the workload that the Commission faces. For example, according to the CCF’s annual activity reports, the CCF received 643 new requests in 2015, and 1,417 in 2021, but convened only four times in both years. This means that INTERPOL’s CCF held the same number of sessions despite receiving over twice as many requests. 

If the Commission adjusted its scheduled meetings to more closely reflect the number of requests it had to review, using the years 2015 and 2021 as examples, the CCF would have held 8-9 sessions in 2021 to review new requests.

Effect of work overload: delayed responses to Applicants

It is our observation that the CCF’s Requests Chamber has recently not complied with its own rules regarding timely responses. Given the CCF’s history of punctual responses since the inception of deadlines over 6 years ago, it is reasonable to assume that this lack of compliance is due to an unmanageably high workload.

Our next post will examine what INTERPOL has done to improve the CCF’s efficiency, and how it can advance even further.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Miami, Florida, U.S.A.- Estlund Law has successfully obtained the removal of three Red Notices for our client, Arturo Escobar. Mr. Escobar was accused of bribery, organized crime, and money laundering in Ecuador and Panama. 

Corruption in Ecuador causes politically motivated prosecutions

Mr. Escobar’s case arose from a political dispute between two of Ecuador’s former presidents. After a journalist published a series of articles claiming to have uncovered corruption at the highest levels of government about Petroecuador, the country’s national oil company, then-President Rafael Correa faced pressure to show that he did not tolerate corruption. He began a politically motivated prosecution to address the scandal in 2016. While there appeared to have been credible bribery allegations against some individuals, he used the prosecution to insist that other, specific individuals be prosecuted, even where there was evidence of their innocence. There was also evidence that he shielded his allies from prosecution and steered the prosecution away from himself. As a result of the biased investigation and prosecution, many individuals, including Mr. Escobar, were prosecuted for alleged bribery or conspiracy to commit bribery. 

Ecuadorian officials tried Mr. Escobar in his absence. He never received the requested evidence that could have aided in his defense in his trial. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Escobar was convicted despite the lack of due process and the absence of evidence implicating him. 

Results

Estlund Law has significant experience removing politically motivated Red Notices. Ms. Estlund used that expertise to build the case for removing Mr. Escobar’s three outstanding notices, focusing on the lack of evidence provided by the prosecution, the political motivation behind the case, and the human rights violations suffered by Mr. Escobar and others in the case. 

After reviewing the firm’s removal request, INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) found all three Red Notices in Mr. Escobar’s name uncompliant with INTERPOL’s rules. The organization recognized that although criminal elements were present in this case, the predominant factor was political motivation. 

Mr. Escobar said after the case was resolved, “We can’t express with words how grateful and joyful we feel with this resolution. We want to thank you and all your team for your amazing work, kindness, and understanding.”

Ms. Estlund notes that this case was specifically characterized by the dedication of Mr. Escobar’s family, particularly his wife, to ensure that the matter was fully and fairly resolved so their family could resume a normal, productive life.

Our last two posts in this series discussed how a Red Notice can have a residual effect on an individual. Those posts detailed the effects on a person’s financial abilities and lasting inaccurate data within a government’s databases. Today’s post will detail the lasting damages a Red Notice has on an individual’s online reputation. 

In an increasingly digital world, individuals often become acquainted with each other online before even being introduced in person. This being the case, an individual’s online presence has become a vital part of their reputation. 

Once INTERPOL’s CCF has determined that an individual’s case should be removed from INTERPOL’s databases, the notice is removed and that individual should then be free of Red Notice-related complications. When considering the digital world though, where nothing can truly be erased, the consequences of a Red Notice could potentially follow a person forever. 

To combat this, previous subjects of Red Notices sometimes address the problem by:

  • directly contacting the sources of the online information to request corrective action;
  • systematically uploading the new, positive or neutral information about themselves online in order to minimize the dominance of the negative information, or
  • engaging a reputation management company for this task.  

All approaches are designed to ensure the internet reflects updated information regarding a person and suppress or minimize negative or false search results.

These posts have highlighted the reputational risks of Red Notices, detailing the remaining difficulties in banking, government data, and online reputation.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Our last post discussed the financial difficulties that may remain following Red Notice removal. Today’s post will similarly detail the residual effect of Red Notices in government and police databases. 

Once INTERPOL’s CCF has determined that an individual’s case is either not truly criminal, politically motivated, or without sufficient legal information to sustain a Red Notice, that individual should be free of Red Notice-related complications. Although INTERPOL notifies its member countries once a Red Notice is removed, there are instances in which outdated information remains in domestic government databases. 

When there is outdated Red Notice information on an individual, that person may face the same barriers they did as a Red Notice subject. Incorrect information on an individual could lead them to be detained when trying to travel or interact with law enforcement, denied financial services as detailed in the previous post, or to suffer the tarnishment of their reputation. Outdated government data can include showing a case is open when it is not, showing an existing Red Notice after it has been removed, or other damaging inaccuracies. 

If an individual is experiencing the difficulties of a Red Notice subject after the removal of a Red Notice, that individual should contact their lawyer to decide the best course of action. This may  involve notifying the CCF to request that it remind the member country holding incorrect data to modify or delete it. It may also involve contacting that country directly for the same purpose, or providing documentation to the office or agency that has the outdated information.

Our next post will detail the lasting damages a Red Notice can have on an individual’s online reputation.  

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.