Not too far in the future, INTERPOL’s General Assembly will gather in Rome for its annual meeting.  The General Assembly is charged with making decisions about how the organization will be run in the coming year, and considers everything from general policy matters to resources to electing the members of the Executive Committee.  From November 5- November 8, the General Assembly will consider these issues, among others.

This year, we humbly request that the General Assembly acknowledge that the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) is in need of additional resources.  The time it takes to obtain a response to some appeals for relief can be excruciating for attorney and client alike.  Were there more resources made available to the CCF, the rapidly rising number of Red Notice challenges could be more efficiently addressed, and in a more timely fashion.  When we say “more resources,” here’s what we mean:

  1. More staff.  By increasing the number of staff assigned to the CCF, cases will be reviewed and prepared for sessions at a quicker rate than is currently the case.
  2. More sessions.  The CCF has been meeting three times per year, which is the minimum number of sessions allowed per year according to INTERPOL’s rules.  By increasing the number of sessions, CCF members would be allowed more time for the consideration of individual requests for relief.
  3. More funding.  As the number of Red Notices (and other notices, for that matter) increase, the number of requests for relief increase as well.  Funding must increase in an amount that is commensurate with the demands placed on the CCF if it is to function effectively.

An increase in these resources would also serve as an opportunity for INTERPOL to lend credence to its stated goal of respecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that its member countries are acting in compliance with INTERPOL’s governing rules and texts.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In honor of Halloween, many of us decorate with images of scary jack-o-lanterns, witches, ghosts, and the like.  We expect people to surprise us from around the corner, and to yell “Boo!” when we don’t expect it. Part of the fun of being scared on Halloween is knowing that the fright is only temporary, and that it is not real.

Unlike those temporary and fictional fears, many business owners and employees have learned that the troubles accompanying business failures abroad can be very real and very long-lasting.

As individuals and corporate organizations engage more frequently in international business endeavors, there are naturally more successes as well as more failures in such endeavors.  In many countries, a business deal gone bad ends in a financial loss, a loss of future business opportunities, or perhaps bankruptcy or a civil lawsuit.

In other countries, however, an otherwise civil matter may be treated as a criminal offense.  When a person is charged with a criminal offense related to a failed business transaction, he may find himself the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice.  While the matter may be improper for a Red Notice, INTERPOL will likely not be alerted to that fact by the country requesting the Red Notice.

In these instances, business people who become the subjects of Red Notices often travel without knowing their Red Notice status, and are detained in INTERPOL member countries while they await extradition, trial, or sentencing.  That’s the bad news.

The good news is that Red Notice subjects can challenge the propriety of the Notices.  When they are improper, INTERPOL will destroy the Notices and the subjects are able to resume their lives as usual- kind of like rising from the dead.

Happy Halloween.

 

 

While there is no doubt that INTERPOL holds great power over the lives of people who are the subjects of its notices, and that INTERPOL has one of the strongest international networks in the world, we are reminded this week of the fact that INTERPOL does not own the information in its files.

Every INTERPOL member country owns the information that it supplies to INTERPOL, and the member country has a say in whether that information can be made available to requesting parties, as well as whether the information should continue to be disseminated via INTERPOL’s data-sharing tools.

As reported here, Colombia recently decided to suspend its request for INTERPOL’s help in tracking certain wanted persons.  The reason for the suspension is that the country plans to engage in peace talks with members of the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), and one or more of those members were Red Notice subjects.  The talks are to take place in Norway, and a Red Notice presents an obvious travel impediment to the subject of the notice.

Given that Colombia is the owner of the information that it submitted to INTERPOL, Colombia is well within its rights to request the complete withdrawal of the information or, as is the case with the FARC members, to request the temporary suspension of the Red Notices.

The parties to the talks flew to Norway on October 17, and the Colombian government expects that any resolution to the ongoing conflict will necessarily include a means of political participation for the FARC.  Whether the Red Notices will be reinstated after the talks quite likely depends on how successful the parties are at coming to a resolution of their differences.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

When clients or attorneys ask me what an INTERPOL Red Notice is, I often answer that it’s similar to what we would call a BOLO in the United States.  A BOLO, or Be On the Lookout, is an announcement dissiminated to law enforcement officials that describes a criminal suspect in an effort to have him or her apprehended quickly after a crime has occurred.

Similarly, a Red Notice is a request issued by INTERPOL on behalf of any of its 190 member countries, and its goal is to apprehend a criminal suspect or convict who has fled to another country.  

One difference between a BOLO and a Red Notice is that the BOLO is intended to be dissiminated in the time immediately following a crime, with little expectation that the BOLO will remain active for much time afterwards if the suspect is not apprehended.  A Red Notice, on the other hand, can remain active for years, as long as certain of INTERPOL’s criteria are met.

A man from El Salvador recently felt the effect of Red Notice’s longevity when he was deported from the United States to El Salvador for a crime alleged to have been committed in 1999.  His Red Notice caused United States immigration officials to learn about his wanted status all these years later, as reported here by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

Many Red Notice subjects simply want to move forward with their lives when their names are removed from INTERPOL’s databases.  That decision is understandable, given the vast amount of time, resources, and energy that are required to live through the events leading up to a Red Notice being issued and to actually challenge the Red Notice.

There are times, however, when a Red Notice removal requires some mention.  Kevin Walls, a legitimate and established businessman, has succeeded in having his name removed from INTERPOL’s Red Notice list.  Mr. Walls’ Red Notice received much publicity, and so should its removal.  His story is here and here, at the box marked, “Press Release: Kevin Walls.”

 As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

 

I recently read an online inquiry by a Red Notice subject who had been advised that her Red Notice was “in the process of being removed” by the prosecuting attorney.  The subject wondered how long the removal would take.

Every INTERPOL member country has its own National Central Bureau (NCB), which acts as a liaison with INTERPOL itself.  Red Notices are issued at the request of the member countries, and the information contained in the Red Notice, as well as the information contained in the files kept by INTERPOL, actually belongs to the member country that supplies that information to INTERPOL. That ownership was discussed in more detail here (back when INTERPOL had only 188 member countries.)

The requesting member country may decide to publicize the Red Notice or not, and also may decide to withdraw the information at any point.  For example, if a Red Notice is no longer needed because a person has been acquitted or an underlying charging document has been found to be invalid, the member country has the capability of instructing its NCB to arrange the removal of its information from INTERPOL’s files.

Once such a decision has been made, the removal can and should be almost immediate.  If the member country is efficient, the subject should not need an attorney to facilitate that process.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

INTERPOL is working with the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency to fight corruption related to World Bank funded projects.  The effort, described here, is certainly a worthy one.  The idea behind this, or any anti-corruption campaign, is that support will be provided to countries so that they can cull out the corrupt elements of their governments and general society after detecting them.

A question that arises when any country launches an anti-corruption initiative is this:  Who’s watching the watcher?  

Any observer of anti-corruption drives can attest that with such efforts usually comes a measure of . . . corruption.  How does it happen?

  • First, a government official is charged with the duty of rooting out corruption, and such rooting may target bribery, fraud, embezzlement, and the like.  
  • When officials begin to prosecute such crimes, the public is often quite supportive of those actions, and governments are allowed a bit more wiggle room in their law enforcement activities than they might otherwise have.
  • Once the anti-corruption activity gains steam, it sometimes takes on the taint of the very corruption it seeks to eliminate.  Officials feel emboldened to act in ways that are technically illegal, but seem palatable in an “end justifies the means” sort of way.

The anti-corruption effort can be used as a shield to cover politically motivated criminal charges, as has been seen in countries such as Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cameroon, and Malaysia.  After criminal charges are filed and the accused has reason to believe that his rights will continue to be violated, he often flees the jurisdiction and a Red Notice is issued.

With the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency aiding in the investigation of allegedly corrupt activity, the hope is certainly that such investigations will be more transparent and properly targeted than we might otherwise see.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

We last addressed the matter of Paul Watson, the leader of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (“SSCS”), and INTERPOL back in May, when Watson was arrested in Germany.  That arrest was made at the request of Costa Rica, for activity alleged to have occurred over ten years ago, and the arrest did not involve INTERPOL.  INTERPOL issued a press release at that time indicating that its denial of a Red Notice was based on a lack of compliance with its constitution and rules.  

Now, however, things have changed.  INTERPOL has confirmed that it has issued Red Notices in Mr. Watson’s name on behalf of both Costa Rica and Japan.

Prior to the second Red Notice being issued, Watson’s German attorney, Oliver Wallasch, issued a letter to SSCS. The letter has been publicized and explains the situation from the attorney’s perspective.

Obviously, Watson’s travel will either be curtailed until the Red Notices are addressed, or he will likely be detained if he attempts to exit or enter any INTERPOL member country while the Notices are outstanding.

Whether Watson decides to formally challenge the Notices remains to be seen.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Red Notice subjects who are considering challenging their Red Notices have frequently exhausted all of their other options.  Their efforts to show investigating police officers that they are innocent have failed; they have been charged and improperly convicted despite mutliple law violations by government officials; and they have fled their countries due to a very real fear of further human rights violations upon incarceration.

For those people, a challenge to an INTERPOL Red Notice is often their last hope.  It is almost unbearable to think about the possibilitiy of yet another loss, but the question nonetheless arises, “What if we lose?”

The idea of an INTERPOL loss bears consideration for several reasons, not the least of which is that one is well advised to go into any adversarial situation fully apprised of every contingency.  When challenging a Red Notice, the following truths regarding a possible loss should be known:

1.  It is possible that, despite a proper challenge, you might be denied relief.  The process is indeed an uphill battle because the Red Notice is presumed to be valid once it is issued and that presumption must be overcome.  One’s odds are increased greatly with proper preparation, and decreased greatly by poor preparation.

2.  Your challenge, whether successful or not, will educate Interpol.  The organization does not perform its own investigations, and the more challenges that are made regarding  a given member country, the more likely INTERPOL is to have those violations on its radar. For example, once INTERPOL became aware of the disproportionate number and impropriety of Red Notices being requested by Venezuela for fraud-related matters, it began to deny significantly more requests from Venezuela for such Red Notices.

3.  You may be setting yourself up for success at a later time.  If the requesting country is not regconized as a member country that abuses its INTERPOL membership, it may be so recognized later, in part due to your efforts.  At that time, a renewed challenge may be appropriate. 

4.  Finally, if no attempt is made to remove a Red Notice simply because of the possibility of failure, then the Red Notice will go unchallenged and failure is guaranteed due to simple lack of effort.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

INTERPOL’s latest Annual Report is out and can be found here.  It contains information regarding INTERPOL’s leadership, activities, new endeavors, priorities, infrastructure, and funding.

Of particular interest is the organization’s strategic priorities regarding its legal foundation.  It has been known for some time now that INTERPOL deeply values its status as an international organization with the accompanying immunities.  The new report, however, asserts that INTERPOL plans not only to guard the immunity that it currently enjoys, but also to “seek the extension of privileges and immunities” in the future.

The report gives no details as to how such an extension will be sought, but certainly the recently issued new rules on the processing of data are relevant to the consideration of INTERPOL’s immunities internationally.  In its new rules, the organization increased the accountability of its National Central Bureaus (NCB’s).  It also distanced itself from the NCBs’ actions, at least theoretically.  

Regardless of the manner in which INTERPOL attempts to increase its reach while protecting itself from exposure, the real test will be whether the formal rules and statements of purpose are underwritten by substantive, meaningful action by INTERPOL and by its quasi-appellate body, the CCF.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.