In a continuation of the issue of INTERPOL’s seemingly blind trust in the representations of its member countries, today’s post concerns the application process of member countries requesting Red Notices from INTERPOL.  And this just in . . . an article by Libby Lewis, sponsored by the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists, wherein the author asks, “Are Some Countries Abusing Interpol?”

A great, and timely, question.  It goes without saying that in any group of 188 countries, some of those countries necessarily will be governed more honestly or more corruptly than others.  Lewis’ article accurately points out that INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files cannot investigate cases on its own.  Adding to that frustrating fact is another increasingly frustrating fact:  law enforcement agencies now enter the information regarding Red Notice applications on their own.  Not surprisingly, this change has coincided with a rise in applications for Red Notices.

As the numbers of Red Notice applications rise, so naturally do the instances of rules violations stemming from improper Red Notice Requests.  The ICIJ has identified seventeen countries with a history of improperly utilizing Red Notices to persecute political opponents, economic targets, or environmental activists.

We do know, and the Lewis article recognized that, once INTERPOL becomes aware of a given member country’s improper Red Notice request habits, INTERPOL takes notice and acts.  An example discussed here previously is that of Venezuela.  Raising that awareness, however, can require the considerable and repeated efforts of Red Notice subjects and their lawyers.    

In the next post, look for a discussion of an idea proposed by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions: the modification of INTERPOL’s Red Notice request review process.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

Earlier this month, I wrote here about INTERPOL’s role and the fact that INTERPOL is not concerned with guilt or innocence.  Instead, INTERPOL is concerned with assisting member countries with the return of fugitives to the proper authorities so that the rule of law may be carried out properly.  This is still true, but a bit more information on the issue of innocence is necessary for the sake of completion.

There are those rare instances wherein the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice is actually found to be not guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, or where the underlying charging documents are found to be invalid, as I discussed back in April, here.  In those rare but delicious cases, INTERPOL does care about innocence.  More precisely, INTERPOL’s involvement is no longer appropriate nor permitted once a finding of “not guilty” has been made.

And as any defense attorney will attest, a “not guilty” will do just as well as “innocent.”

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

In the last posts, I addressed the topic of banking and Red Notices.  But what of the effect of a Blue Notice, or Green for that matter?  For attorneys whose clients are the subjects of INTERPOL-issued Notices, it is the fact of any Notice’s existence that matters, not only Red Notices.  While Red Notices are issued for individuals who are wanted for crimes or who have already been convicted of crimes, other types of Notices are also issued by INTERPOL.  

For example, Blue Notices, as discussed here previously, may not relate to the subject being suspected of criminal activity, and could have to do with a search for witnesses or other information related to a suspected crime.  A Green Notice is issued for a person who has committed a crime in one country and is deemed likely to commit a crime in another country.

The exact nature of the Notice issued is not of great concern to the bank.  The bank is more concerned with the fact that the subject of the Notice is involved in, or may be involved in, suspicious activity, period.  Once a financial institution has reason to believe that its customer is the subject of a Notice issued by INTERPOL, it is likely to seek to eliminate any risk of further dealings with that customer.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

Continuing with the issue addressed in the last post, today’s post addresses banking and the effect of a Red Notice on a person’s ability to maintain an account at a financial institution.  Specifically, how does a financial institution know about a pending Red Notice?

A majority of banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions subscribe to one or more services that allow them to check the financial history and activity of new customer applicants and existing customers. They might use a service such as IntelliCorp,or Accurate Background, Inc.  Think of the services as CARFAX for automobiles, or Equifax for credit history.  They provide information from an array of sources, thus allowing an entity to make an informed decision about whether it should do business with an individual based on her history.  

If an applicant’s name search reveals any information which renders her undesireable as a customer, the application to open the account may be denied. Likewise, if information of any suspicious activity by existing customers comes to the attention of banking officials, that customer may become undesirable.  

Suspicious activity may include:

  • Check kiting from one bank to another
  • Repeated transfers to nations with heavy fraud activity such as Nigeria
  • A customer being the subject of a Red Notice 

Any one of these grounds, among others, may cause a bank to advise the customer that they need to find a new financial home.  Finding a bank that will accept such a customer could prove difficult and may necessitate a challenge to the problematic Notice.  

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed. 

 

 

 

In the last post, I addressed the issue of ownership of INTERPOL’s files.  A question that is at least as significant to attorneys with clients who have Red Notices issued against them is, who may access that information?

Wanted persons sometimes seek access to that information for a variety of reasons.  Very often, they seek to govern their behavior or travel plans. Whether INTERPOL grants that access or not will depend on the answers to several questions:

  • Is the right person asking?
  • Depending on the type of request, is it being made for an appropriate reason?
  • Does the requesting country validly wish to keep the information private?

Provided that INTERPOL deems the request to be “admissible,” or appropriate under its rules, an individual’s request for access to INTERPOL’s files may be granted.  Otherwise, it will be denied, with reasons given to the requesting party.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

 

It is a given that a certain level of trust, even if for limited purposes, must exist between INTERPOL and its member countries.  Member countries send requests for Red Notices to INTERPOL in hopes of obtaining Red Notices against wanted persons.  The requests then become part of INTERPOL’s files.  

With 188 member countries, there is a fair likelihood that, at any one time, several member countries are in the position of having strained relations with other member countries.  As a consequence, such requesting countries may prefer that the other member countries not have access to the information they submit to INTERPOL.  

Luckily for them, INTERPOL does not own the files that it receives from member countries.

The information sent in by member countries belongs to the submitting member countries.  INTERPOL acts as a depository for that information, and is not allowed to modify it absent the member country’s request or consent.  

INTERPOL has strict rules regarding who may have access to its files, and under what circumstances. Unless another member countries submits a qualifying request for such access, the information will not be released.  

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

 

As INTERPOL has developed over time, it has experienced the growing pains that normally attend any large and relatively complex entity, and also some that are more specific to its own, unusual functions.  In his book that I love, The Legal Foundations of INTERPOL, Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha touched on one of these developments:  the creation of the Commisssion for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).

The CCF was created when France and INTERPOL were renegotiating INTERPOL’s Headquarters Agreement. France was concerned about the rights of individuals to have access to the information that INTERPOL possessed about them, and argued that French law should govern the files that were in France.  INTERPOL disagreed, based on the fact that French governance would result in INTERPOL losing its autonomy from any one country’s authority, which is critical to its mission.  

A compromise was reached in the form of the CCF.  Its function includes the processing of requests for access to INTERPOL’s files by individuals who are the subjects of Red Notices, and other Notices as well. This arrangement also allows for other member countries to communicate with INTERPOL free from worry that the French government will be privy to their communications.  More on that in the next post.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

I’m still thinking about the topic of the last post:  FIFA’s historic donation to INTERPOL.  The donation is meant to be used to prevent future crimes by training players, officials, and fans about the dangers of illegal betting and match-fixing.  It is not for the purpose of investigation of the crimes themselves.

Does this mean that criminal defense attorneys with clients who are prone to illegal betting should advise our clients to rest easy?

Alas, no.

Remember, INTERPOL still has in its arsenal the INTERPOL Major Event Support Team (IMEST), which is available for aiding in the investigation and arrests of persons accused of crime surrounding major sporting events.  And should we need proof of INTERPOL’s zeal or effectiveness in investigating sports related illegal betting, simply look back to its 2010 World Cup operation “SOGA III,” which led to over 5,000 people across Asia being arrested.  

The only arrests that will be avoided due to FIFA’s donation will be those that do not happen because the goal behind the donation has been met:  people have been educated, trained, and warned to the point that the illegal activity does not occur.

We’ll see how that goes.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

FIFA just made a HUGE donation to INTERPOL to support efforts to combat match-fixing and illegal betting in soccer.  The donation, which was in the amount of 20 million euros, will be used to set up an anti-corruption training wing in the new global complex in Singapore, discussed here back in March. 

Wow.  This is a massive gesture to fight what may seem like a harmless pastime.  Not so, says INTERPOL. Secretary General Ronald Noble pointed out that illegal betting and match fixing frequently leads to intimidating debt collection practices, violence, drug smuggling and prostitution.  If this is correct, we can expect to see an increase in Red Notices as the efforts to fight these crimes are increased.

However, as Al Jazeera reports, not everyone agrees that the donation was appropriate.  The decision to make the donation was made by the current president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, but was roundly criticized by FIFA presidential candidate Mohammed bin Hamman.  He argued that the donation was made without consulting the governing body of FIFA, which only contributes to the organization’s image of being corrupt. 

Regardless of how the donation was made, or its propriety, INTERPOL certainly stands to benefit greatly from the contribution, which is the largest one ever made by a private organization. 

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

Still on the subject of the Venezuela/INTERPOL brouhaha over INTERPOL’s refusal to issue certain Venezuelan Red Notice requests, today’s post addresses one of INTERPOL’s suggested remedies for the ongoing dispute.  Recall that the Venezuelan government is none too happy about INTERPOL denying many of its Red Notice requests for wanted banking officials.

As referenced in the last post, INTERPOL General Secretary Ronald K. Noble visited Venezuela and was to have proposed “opening direct channels of communication between Venezuela’s Fiscalia and INTERPOL’s Office of Legal Affairs.”  This proposal was to have been made with INTERPOL’s stated goal of ensuring that “cases that comply with INTERPOL’s rules for the issuance of Red Notices can be identified.”

Communication is good.  Of concern is the idea that an politically motivated request may, after discussion with the Office of Legal Affairs, be tweaked by Venezuelan authorities just enough to pass muster and lead to the issuance of a technically correct, but still improperly motivated Red Notice.  

INTERPOL expressed an interest in improving its understanding of Venezuela’s banking fraud laws, and also implied that Venezuela might brush up on its understanding of INTERPOL’s rules regarding the requirements for Red Notices to be issued.  

Hmmm.  Diplomatically speaking, INTERPOL’s suggestion seems appropriate.  However, if I may be so bold, I’d suggest another refresher course:  Venezuelan authorities may wish to consult the laws of their own Republic prior to taking legal action and issuing arrest warrants.  

It is well-documented that many Venezuelan prosecutors and law enforcement officials, as well as jurists, have no real autonomy to properly carry out their duties as dictated by law, and are under such incredible political pressure from Hugo Chávez that the rule of law in Venezuela is sometimes more of an exception than a rule.

Will enhanced communication between INTERPOL and Venezuela bring a halt to Venezuela’s politically motivated Red Notice requests?  Only time will tell.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.