In the last post, I addressed the issue of INTERPOL’s involvement in financial disputes arising from debts owed by individuals to financial institutions in the UAE. Today, the focus expands to the broader question of how some member countries abuse INTERPOL’s tools, specifically Red Notices, when they seek to resolve private disputes.

INTERPOL is prohibited from becoming involved in most private business disputes.  Despite this prohibition, member countries continue to successfully submit Red Notice requests in two situations, neither of which is appropriate for INTERPOL’s involvement:

  1. The member country submits a Red Notice request for a person who has defaulted on a loan issued by a financial institution.  In these cases, the financial institution has frequently made debt collection efforts prior to launching a criminal complaint.  The criminal charges are often filed even though a critical element- intent – is absent from the facts of the case.
  2. The member country submits a Red Notice request for a person who has become involved in a business dispute, such as a contractual disagreement.  The complaining party has successfully convinced (or bribed, or intimidated) local law enforcement officials to criminalize the matter, although it is civil in nature.

Since INTERPOL’s channels now allow for member countries to automatically obtain Red Notices without prior review by a human being, these prohibited notices are very frequently uploaded and circulated without real oversight.  INTERPOL does perform spot checks and will check the propriety of a notice upon complaint, but the opportunity for abuse remains real.  To decrease the amount of improper Red Notices, it would help if INTERPOL flagged certain types of Red Notice requests for immediate review, prior to circulation among other member countries.  Some of the “red flag criteria” might be:

  • Requests where the crime alleged is financial in nature, such as fraud and misuse of funds
  • Requests where the victim is listed as being a financial institution or a business entity
  • Requests from member countries with a history of seeking INTERPOL’s assistance for private disputes
  • Requests from member countries known for unusually high levels of police corruption

Of course, none of these criteria alone, or even together, necessarily dictate that a Red Notice request is invalid.  In my experience, however, all or most of these criteria are present when a Red Notice request has been made improperly based upon a private dispute.  

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The UAE  banking crisis and its inappropriate involvement with INTERPOL Red Notices, which have been addressed here and here in this blog, appears to drag on still.  Parag Deulgaonkar reported recently for Emirates 24/7 that bankers in the UAE are still using INTERPOL’s tools to immobilize expatriates who owe money to their financial institutions.  

As discussed in the previous posts on this issue, many expats who leave the UAE owing debts do so because they have lost their jobs, and therefore, their ability to legally remain in the Emirates.  Their lack of income often forces them to default on home mortgages, and while such an event would be treated as a civil matter in much of the world, creditors in the UAE have been permitted to seek and obtain criminal sanctions against such debtors.

The Emirates 24/7 article, here, quotes an anonymous bank official as saying that, if debtors leave the country and don’t respond to requests for repayment, “we do pass their details on to Interpol.”

While INTERPOL’s tools are not permitted to be used for private debt collection purposes, financial institutions and law enforcement officials often label the “crime” of debtors as fraud, embezzlement, or some other variation of a financial offense.  They use that crime to obtain a Red Notice against the debtor, and the Red Notice is circulated among INTERPOL’s 190 member countries.  Without knowing the history behind the Red Notice request, INTERPOL officials become unwitting accomplices to the improper use of Red Notices.

Calls for reform to the UAE’s banking system have included complaints about the system’s misuse of INTERPOL’s tools.  While it is certain that the UAE’s Red Notice abuse rose along with the financial crisis that exploded in 2008, and that stricter credit regulations will make a stronger UAE economny, it is not at all certain that new banking regulations will necessarily curb Red Notice abuse.

The Central Bank of the UAE is charged with the “formulation and implementation of banking, credit and monetary policies, to ensure the growth of the national economy of the UAE in a balanced manner.”

Toward that end, the Central Bank has issued new regulations aimed at improving the region’s financial stability with respect to lending. Home buyers will now be prohibited from mortgaging almost the entire amount of a home’s sale price, and will not be permitted to utilize credit cards or loans for down payments. Financial observers have long blamed the 2008 financial crash at least in part on the UAE’s failure to implement solid credit rating procedures.

For those individuals with pre-existing debts that have resulted in Red Notices, the new banking regulations will have no direct effect on their situations.  Additionally, those people who find themselves in dire financial straits in the future may still be forced to leave the UAE without paying off their debts.  Moreover, there is no indication that the UAE has adopted any measures that will prevent creditors from utilizing Red Notices against their debtors.  

All of this means that INTERPOL must act as its own watchdog against the abuse of Red Notices for the settlement of civil disputes.  The next post will address the warning signs of Red Notice abuse arising from financial disagreements.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

At a time when so many Venezuelans are suffering through political, economic, and social upheaval and violence, it can seem hard to come by good news.  Today, however, we do have some very good news.

Gilberto Jesus Imery Gonzalez, a Venezuelan national and businessman currently living in the United States, has prevailed in having his name removed from INTERPOL’s Red Notice list after being falsely charged with a financial crime by the Venezuelan government.  His story in this blog’s sidebar marked, “Press Release: Gilberto Imery.”

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

Humberto Roca’s story may seem unusual to Western minds, but it is all too familiar in the world of INTERPOL abuse.  Roca was the owner of a Bolivian airline company called Aerosur Airlines, and as a wealthy business owner who was critical of Bolivia’s government, was charged with “unjust enrichment” as his business was expropriated by the Bolivian government.  

Roca fled Bolivia and in 2012, he was granted asylum in the United States.

As of today’s date, Roca’s name is not published on INTERPOL’s wanted list (a majority of Red Notice subjects’ names are also not made public).  However, numerous media outlets reported that he was, in fact, wanted by INTERPOL for the charges.

Roca’s case satisfies the formula that has been established by those countries seeking to nationalize their economies:

  • Target an industry for nationalization, 
  • expropriate the assets of the most successful private businesses, 
  • charge the owners and/or board of directors with financial crimes, 
  • issue arrest warrants against those individuals, 
  • obtain INTERPOL Red Notices against them; 
  • force the individuals to remain focused on their own defenses rather than challenging government action,
  • repeat. 

As reported here by Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald, Roca was later targeted by Bolivian National Police Col. Mario Fabricio Ormachea Aliaga for extortion.  U.S. officials brought federal charges against Ormachea, who offered to have the Bolivian charges against Roca dropped in exchange for $30,000.  Ormachea actually came to the U.S. and was caught accepting $10,000 in initial payments from Roca in an FBI-led sting.

Ormachea was convicted by a Miami jury last week on two counts of extortion.  That’s great for Roca, who no doubt feels vindicated.  Although the extortion conviction does not compel a dismissal of Bolivia’s charges against Roca, it certainly provides solid ground for a Red Notice challenge, if one remains outstanding.

But you have to wonder what would have happened if Ormachea had never come to the U.S. in furtherance of his extortion plan?  And what if Roca’s only redress would have been in the Bolivian court system? Or if Roca had fled to another country with a more corrupt law enforcement or judicial system?  Roca’s vindication would have been a long time coming, if it ever arrived at all, and that is the position in which many Red Notice subjects find themselves.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.  

 

 

A good number of Red Notice subjects who seek to remove their notices from INTERPOL’s files are legitimate businessmen and women who need to travel to maintain their livelihoods.  Many of them find themselves forced to challenge a Red Notice that was improperly issued based on political grounds or business disputes. The fact that they are in the midst of fighting a Red Notice does nothing to change the reality that they must continue to operated their businesses and, very frequently, to travel for business purposes.

Accordingly, one of the most frequently asked questions posed by Red Notice subjects is, “What will happen if I travel? Is it safe?”  And the very unnerving answer to the question is, it depends.

Whether a Red Notice subject is detained while traveling internationally depends in part on:

  • Which countries they choose as temporary ports and destinations;
  • Whether those countries have systems in place to check travelers’ identifications against INTERPOL’s databases; and
  •  Whether the employees on duty at the time of the travel actually run the checks on the travelers’ identities

If no system is in place, or if a system is not followed, then a Red Notice subject may travel undetected. INTERPOL’s databases also include other types of information, such as missing persons, stolen travel documents, and a member country’s failure to check INTERPOL’s databases will also result in that country’s inability to make a “hit” even when the opportunity presents itself. 

A perfect example of such a failure is provided by Malaysia’s apparent failure to check passenger passports against INTERPOL’s databases, which resulted in two passengers boarding a flight with stolen passports.  That aircraft is now missing. INTERPOL issued a public statement today regarding what is now known about those passports.

According to INTERPOL, two of the passengers on Malaysia Airlines flight 370 boarded the flight using stolen passports issued by Italy and Austria.   The passports both had been stolen from Thailand in previous years.

If Malaysian authorities had checked its passengers’ passports against INTERPOL’s databases, the use of the two stolen passports would have been discovered.  Whether the stolen passports were related to the apparent demise of the plane is yet unknown.  INTERPOL’s Secretary General, Ronald Noble, was quoted in what must have been an extremely frustrating statement to have to issue:

“This is a situation we had hoped never to see. For years INTERPOL has asked why should countries wait for a tragedy to put prudent security measures in place at borders and boarding gates. 

Now, we have a real case where the world is speculating whether the stolen passport holders were terrorists, while INTERPOL is asking why only a handful of countries worldwide are taking care to make sure that persons possessing stolen passports are not boarding international flights.”

Mr. Noble also highlighted the need for member countries to utilize the stolen and lost passport database in a speech last month in the U.A.E.  INTERPOL has reported that the U.K., the U.S., and the U.A.E. run frequent checks on passports through INTERPOL’s databases, but many other member countries with access to INTERPOL’s files did not.

As for whether it’s safe to travel as a Red Notice subject, of course the answer should be that detention is always a possibility.  Flight 370 illustrates that such travel often goes completely undetected. After this weekend, however, it’s probably safe to say that Malaysia will up its game.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

A reader recently wrote to ask what happens when an INTERPOL member country’s National Central Bureau (NCB) does not respond to INTERPOL’s requests for confirmation of information supplied by a Red Notice subject or his attorney.

An NCB is obligated to respond to INTERPOL’s request for information in order for INTERPOL to properly process individual requests for access to INTERPOL’s files, and when the NCB responds in a timely fashion, INTERPOL is able to do the same regarding the request.

However, there are times when the NCB either completely fails to respond.  When this happens, INTERPOL can and does make a determination regarding the subject request based upon the information it has available.  That decision may be favorable to the individual or not.

The reader also asked about approaching INTERPOL in person or via telephone in order to obtain a response.  Neither approach is likely to be successful, because INTERPOL’s independent body that addresses all requests for information and relief, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, requires that all requests be sent to it via post.  Postal requests are also the only means of keeping inquiries confidential.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

The CCF (Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files) has completed its first session of the year, wherein its members considered the requests for removal of Red Notices, and likely other notices and diffusions, that were submitted by both attorneys and individuals.

The CCF normally meets over a two-day period three times per year.  During each session, the Commission members are charged with considering and deciding upon the various applications for relief that are pending before them.  A common question posed by Red Notice subjects is how long the CCF’s response will take.  Of course, the answer is that it depends on several factors.

In my experience, the Commission responds fairly quickly to simple requests.  For example, if a Red Notice has become moot because the subject turned himself into local authorities for prosecution, or if he was acquitted of the underlying charges, the Commission can easily verify this information, and a response time of one to two months is a reasonable expectation.

If a request for relief requires the Commission to contact a member country’s National Central Bureau (NCB) to obtain other information, and the NCB does not respond immediately, the CCF’s response will take more time.

Additionally, where the Commission needs additional time to consider a case, it may also be set over to the following session for a decision, which means that the matter will not be decided for at least another four months.

It is not uncommon for the CCF to send a letter updating the subject as to the status of the case, or to advise that the case will be taken under advisement at a specific session.  

With regards to final decisions, attorneys and Red Notice subjects can reasonably expect to begin receiving responses from the January session any time between now and two months from now.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

This is the second in a series of posts addressing the current call for INTERPOL’s reform.

Fair Trials International recently released a report containing its recommendations for change to INTERPOL’s current system.  The report, found here, includes two major areas for reform:

1.  Protection from abuse of INTERPOL’s tools by member countries, and

2.  Creation of a more fair and transparent process for individuals who are challenging data that has been processed by INTERPOL.

With regard to providing protection from abusive member countries, Fair Trials recommends several methods of correction to INTERPOL’s current activity.  One of these recommendations concerns INTERPOL’s treatment of cases wherein an individual who is the subject of a Red Notice has received asylum from another country.  

Currently, a Red Notice subject who has been granted asylum in another country may remain the subject of a Red Notice from the requesting member country.  This is true even where the grounds for the asylum are directly related to the case that generated the Red Notice.  Fair Trials rightly recommends that the granting of asylum for the same proceedings which give rise to the Red Notice should trigger the protections of INTERPOL’s Constitutional Article 3.  (Article 3 prohibits INTERPOL’s involvement with any matter of a political nature.)

This recommendation is a sound one, and would be very easily implemented by INTERPOL and the CCF.

When a domestic court rules on an asylum claim, it has necessarily considered the factual grounds both for and against the claim, as well as the legal basis for both positions. INTERPOL should recognize that, while it is the repository for data supplied by its member countries, once a court of competent jurisdiction has evaluated the case that gives rise to the data and found that the data breaches INTERPOL’s constitution because of a valid claim for asylum, INTERPOL must remove itself from any further involvement in the matter.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

In the next post: what should be the minimum required documentation that a member country must supply in order to obtain a Red Notice?

As 2013 drew to a close, two very different organizations released their own reports, both of which addressed the need for reform within INTERPOL and its independent review body, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).

Both Fair Trials International, based in London, and the Heritage Foundation, housed in Washington, D.C., released extremely in-depth reports.  Both organizations called for reform.  Some of the recommendations were shared by both organizations, and some were different. But what’s striking about both the timing and the content of the reports, as well as the agreement that significatn reform is necessary, is that Fair Trials and Heritage Foundation are two very different animals, with what might frequently be considered to be divergent interests.

The Heritage Foundation describes itself as a research and educational institution with the following mission:

to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

 Fair Trials International is a London-based charity organization that lists its goal as working toward

the better protection of fair trial rights and defended the rights of people facing criminal charges in a country other than their own. Our vision is a world where every person’s right to a fair trial is respected, whatever their nationality, wherever they are accused.

Differing goals aside, both organizations strongly value the rights of the individual, and both reports reflect a need for change within INTERPOL in order to protect individual rights.

The report by Fair Trials International, found here, by Libby McVeigh, Rebecca Shaeffer, and Alex Tinsely, among others, is driven by Fair Trials’ own experience in assisting individuals with INTERPOL notices, and focuses on the need for protection from abuse by member coutnries as well as the need for transparency when challenging INTERPOL notices.

The Heritage Foundation’s report, by Ted R. Bromund and David B. Kopel, is found here, and focuses on reform as related to the United States’ interests with INTERPOL, including the protection of U.S. citizens and the U.S. role in INTERPOL’s funding.  

In this series of posts, both reports and their recommendations will be examined and discussed.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

This is the second in a series of posts addressing the current call for INTERPOL’s reform

Fair Trials International recently released a report containing its recommendations for change to INTERPOL’s current system.  The report, found here, includes two major areas for reform:

1.  Protection from abuse of INTERPOL’s tools by member countries, and

2.  Creation of a more fair and transparent process for individuals who are challenging data that has been processed by INTERPOL.

With regard to providing protection from abusive member countries, Fair Trials recommends several methods of correction to INTERPOL’s current activity.  One of these recommendations concerns INTERPOL’s treatment of cases wherein an individual who is the subject of a Red Notice has received asylum from another country.  

Currently, a Red Notice subject who has been granted asylum in another country may remain the subject of a Red Notice from the requesting member country.  This is true even where the grounds for the asylum are directly related to the case that generated the Red Notice.  Fair Trials rightly recommends that the granting of asylum for the same proceedings which give rise to the Red Notice should trigger the protections of INTERPOL’s Constitutional Article 3.  (Article 3 prohibits INTERPOL’s involvement with any matter of a political nature.)

This recommendation is a sound one, and would be very easily implemented by INTERPOL and the CCF.

When a domestic court rules on an asylum claim, it has necessarily considered the factual grounds both for and against the claim, as well as the legal basis for both positions. INTERPOL should recognize that, while it is the repository for data supplied by its member countries, once a court of competent jurisdiction has evaluated the case that gives rise to the data and found that the data breaches INTERPOL’s constitution because of a valid claim for asylum, INTERPOL must remove itself from any further involvement in the matter.

In the next post: what should be the minimum required documentation that a member country must supply in order to obtain a Red Notice?

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.