INTERPOL Secretary General Jürgen Stock recently addressed what he referred to as misinformation regarding the organization in the media and critics of the Red Notice system who claim it has become a tool of repressive states. 

In an op-ed published in Euronews, Mr. Stock reiterated that Red Notices are a key tool for cooperation among countries to locate and arrest an individual who has committed a crime. This is obviously true; it is also true that this tool provides an opportunity for abuse by ill-intentioned actors and that the need for reform will likely remain constant.

INTERPOL Reform Efforts

In 2016, two years into his new role as INTERPOL’s Secretary General, Jürgen Stock, along with the General Assembly and the Executive Committee, made a series of reforms to address accountability issues after a tumultuous decade and a half that resulted in numerous arrests in cases that critics say were politically motivated.

The organization added the Notices and Diffusions Task Force (NDTF), composed of lawyers, police officers, and operations specialists, to pre-review Red Notices and carry out a quality and legal compliance review prior to a notice’s authorization. Mr. Stock also tightened records requirements, added a data protection officer, and strengthened the internal review commission. 

In the opinion piece referenced previously, Mr. Stock aimed to remind readers that critics often claim certain countries abuse INTERPOL for political reasons, but he does not believe this to be true. “Although Interpol is a technical policing organisation, we are not blind to geopolitical realities. Red Notices are not issued in an information vacuum,” Mr. Stock wrote in his op-ed.

For example, in October 2022, INTERPOL rejected India’s second request to issue a Red Notice against Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, founder of Sikhs for Justice, a U.S.-based group seeking a separate homeland for Sikhs. INTERPOL rejected the alert on terror charges stating Punnun’s activities have a “clear political dimension,” according to the Wire. 

Mr. Stock also states that in 2021, 483 out of 23,716 alerts were refused because they were believed to be political by nature, alluding to INTERPOL’s increased accountability and transparency, demonstrating the effectiveness of Mr. Stock’s reforms. 

The next post will further address reform efforts and how effective they may be for INTERPOL as well as individuals. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

*Thanks to guest author, Ingrid Matteini, B.S. candidate 2025, Georgetown University

INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF’s) third session of the year occurred from October 16th to the 20th. As no further sessions are publicly scheduled for this year, this will likely be the last session during which the CCF will review INTERPOL notice subjects’ requests for notice removal and access to information.  

The CCF’s Processing of Requests

When reviewing requests, the CCF ‘s Secretariat examines and determines the admissibility of each request it receives. The CCF then performs a detailed assessment of the request according to the Organization’s rules. This will often involve gathering more information from the applicant, the source of information, and may include open-source research. A summary of the case is then submitted to the Commission during one of its sessions for discussion and a decision. 

As the CCF has four months to render a decision on an access request, and nine months to decide on a correction/deletion request, any requests not addressed in the upcoming session will likely be discussed in January. Although the CCF does not always notify an individual that their request will be discussed at the next session, the CCF’s general procedure includes communicating the results of a processed request, so if no results are received, it can be assumed that the request will be discussed at the next session. 

When its decision becomes final, the CCF notifies an applicant within one month. The CCF recommends applicants should wait at least three months after the date of the session that examined the request before inquiring about the outcome of the request.

What to expect from the CCF

Each year, the CCF releases its annual activities report, which reviews the activities of the prior year’s supervisory and advisory chambers as well as the requests chamber. If the CCF’s reports from 2021 as well as 2019-2020(combined report due to COVID-19) are indicators of what to expect this year, we await over 1,500 finalized CCF requests, a majority of them being complaints access requests. 

Once the CCF’s annual report is released, RNLJ will be able to compare this year’s report with those of years past.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

This year, INTERPOL celebrates its hundredth year as an organization. To commemorate this, INTEPROL’s General Assembly will take place in Vienna, Austria, where the organization was founded. INTERPOL’s General Assembly is an annual event hosted for INTERPOL’s member countries to discuss and vote on varying global law enforcement issues. 

General Assembly Agenda

Following the conclusion of INTERPOL’s CCF’s third and final required session of 2023 in October, this year’s General Assembly takes place in November. The agenda each year includes:

  •  Discussion on the principles and measures needed for INTERPOL to reach its objectives.
  • Election of new members of the Executive Committee, the governing body which provides guidance and direction in between sessions of the Assembly. 
  • Discussion and approval of INTERPOL’s activities and financial plans for the coming year.
  • Observation of current major crime trends and security threats facing the world. 
  • Resolutions which are voted on by member countries. 

Attendance of INTERPOL’s General Assembly

As reported by Vienna International News, in total, police and government leaders from up to 195 member countries are expected to attend this occasion, and a total of 1,500 participants are expected. As this annual event is attended by high-ranking police experts and government leaders from all over the world, it brings Vienna a unique security challenge. Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt, BK) director Andreas Holzer states: 

“My colleagues have been working for quite some time to make this General Assembly a safe event that does justice to the significance of this anniversary,” 

The detailed itinerary of this year’s General Assembly will only be available after it concludes. Once it becomes available, it will reveal some of INTERPOL’s priorities as well as its plans for the coming year. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF’s) third session of the year will occur from October 16th to the 20th. If the CCF has no more sessions this year, this will be the last session that the CCF will review INTERPOL notice subjects’ requests for notice removal and access to information.  

The CCF’s Processing of Notice Requests

The CCF receives requests from attorneys and individuals seeking access to INTERPOL’s files as well as requests for removal or correction of data. When reviewing requests, the CCF Secretariat examines and determines the admissibility of each request it receives. The CCF then performs a detailed assessment of the request according to the Organization’s rules. This will typically involve gathering more information from the applicant and the source of information, and may include a review of open source information. A summary of the case is then submitted to the Commission during one of its sessions for discussion and a decision. 

As the CCF has four months to render a decision on an access request, and nine months to decide on a correction/deletion request, any requests not addressed in the upcoming session will likely be discussed in January. Although the CCF does not always notify an individual that their request will be discussed at the next session, the CCF’s general procedure includes communicating the results of a processed request, so if no results are received, it may be assumed that the request will be discussed at the next session. 

When its decision becomes final, the CCF notifies an applicant within one month.

What to expect from the CCF

Each year, the CCF releases its annual activities report, which includes a review of the activities of the prior year’s supervisory and advisory chambers as well as the requests chamber. If the CCF’s reports from 2021 as well as 2019-2020(combined report due to COVID-19) are indicators of what to expect this year, we await over 1,500 finalized CCF requests, a majority of them being complaints access requests. 

Once the CCF’s annual report is released, RNLJ will be able to compare this year’s with years past and discuss the meaning behind any variations present. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued new agency-wide guidelines regarding how its employees will address cases in which Red Notices and Diffusions.

The complete guidelines are found here, and the likely effect of some of the most practically impactful provisions are listed in part 2 of this series, found in our last post.

Today’s focus is on the provisions that will likely have little effect on detentions or immigration proceedings involving subjects with Red Notices or Diffusions. Those provisions and the reasons that they will probably not have much impact are:

ICE officials are prohibited from relying exclusively on Red Notices or Diffusions as a basis for action in immigration proceedings. This new policy element is already a fact, as immigration court decisions have made clear in the last several years. However, the reminder is a good one, as not all immigration officials or judges have had much experience with Red Notices.

ICE officials must conduct a preliminary review of available information for evidence of abuse or non-compliance with INTERPOL’s rules. This requirement is a good one, but it presupposes that the ICE officials will know what evidence of abuse of INTERPOL would look like. It also presumes that they have enough knowledge of INTERPOL’s rules to recognize non-compliance. This is a complex area. It seems improbable that ICE officials will receive the requisite training and materials to detect invalid Red Notices or Diffusions, though it would be nice to be wrong.

All in all, the new policy is well-thought-out and provides a solid basis for ICE personnel to perform their duties without detaining people who are wanted by old or invalid data entries within INTERPOL’s databases.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued new agency-wide guidelines regarding how its employees will address cases in which Red Notices and Diffusions.

The complete guidelines are found here, and the most relevant provisions (in my estimation) are listed in our last blog post.

In part one of this series, we referenced the fact that some of the new provisions would likely be more impactful in a practical sense than others. The provisions that are likely to have the strongest impact, and the reasons for that, are:

ICE officials must verify the validity of such data to ensure it is still current and active. This new requirement should eliminate the possibility that an outdated piece of data from INTERPOL is used improperly to detain a person in the U.S. in any situation. For people with pending immigration proceedings, this should prevent an unjustified detention, which can severely affect the direction of an immigration case.

ICE officials are required to get the approval of a supervisor to act on the Red Notice or Diffusion. Though likely to take the form of a brief review and authorization, this requirement places another roadblock against the possibility of ICE officials detaining a person “just in case” and instead only detaining people when doing so is based on valid information.

ICE officials must obtain the underlying documentation from the U.S. National Central Bureau (NCB), the U.S. liaison with INTERPOL, in Washington, D.C., and request the authority to use the data from the U.S. NCB if ICE plans to use the data in immigration proceedings. This is critical. In many cases, until now, an immigration finder of fact often does not receive the underlying documentation from the government, and the petitioner or detainee is left to attempt to obtain it from the foreign government. Frequently, the person cannot access that information either in time for the proceedings or at all, given their absence from the country or lack of funds required to hire someone to assist in obtaining the documents. This new policy element will be key to people receiving fairer proceedings.

ICE officials are required to provide the Red Notice / Diffusion subject with the underlying documentation and provide a meaningful opportunity to contest it or its contents. This new requirement is clearly designed to provide a Red Notice or Diffusion subject with a chance to defend against invalid information. Currently, petitioners are often denied an opportunity to contest the information underlying a Red Notice or diffusion because they cannot obtain the information in time, and there is no specific requirement that they be permitted a meaningful opportunity to defend against it. This provision changes that.

It will be interesting to see how this provision is implemented for detention cases, particularly how the opportunity to contesting the information is implemented.

ICE officials are prohibited from representing/implying that the data is an arrest warrant or that it conveys independent legal authority or any independent judgment by INTERPOL regarding probable cause or the validity of the underlying criminal proceedings. This new requirement is a game-changer. While INTERPOL has always clearly stated that Red Notices and Diffusions do not constitute probable cause, immigration officials have often relied upon and/or presented them as substantial evidence of crimes. This clear directive should prevent such representations in the future.

In the next post, we’ll address why some of the remaining new provisions may have little effect on the treatment of Red Notices and Diffusions in detentions and immigration proceedings.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued new agency-wide guidelines regarding how its employees will address situations in which Red Notices and Diffusions exist.

The guidelines, found here, contain several important provisions that should significantly affect the experiences of people who seek immigration benefits or relief while being the subjects of Red Notices or Diffusions. Currently, Red Notice and Diffusion subjects often face a dizzying disparity in the approaches of various ICE officials vis-a-vis their use of INTERPOL data in detention and/or immigration proceedings. The lack of uniformity, and often the lack of knowledge, regarding INTERPOL data in a U.S. detention or immigration proceeding, creates unnecessary difficulty for applicants. These changes will allow for a more streamlined, fair, and predictable process.

ICE personnel are the people who often initiate the detention of individuals who are not citizens of the U.S., and the reasons for the detention are various. Until now, ICE officials may have detained people based solely on Red Notices or Diffusions, in a “better safe than sorry” approach. The detention of persons amid proceedings for immigration benefits can turn the proceedings in a completely different direction, radically changing the applicant’s strategy and options. This policy changes that.

This policy also profoundly affects the obligations of ICE officials who encounter people who are in the U.S. without proper documentation.

Among other provisions, ICE personnel are now:

  • prohibited from relying exclusively on Red Notices or Diffusions as a basis for action in immigration proceedings;
  • required to verify the validity of such data to make sure it is still current and active;
  • required to conduct a preliminary review of available information for evidence of abuse or non-compliance with INTERPOL’s rules;
  • required to get the approval of a supervisor to act on the Red Notice or Diffusion;
  • required to obtain the underlying documentation from the U.S. National Central Bureau (NCB), the U.S. liaison with INTERPOL, in Washington, D.C.;
  • required to request the authority to use the data from the U.S. NCB if ICE plans to use the data in immigration proceedings;
  • required to provide the Red Notice / Diffusion subject with the underlying documentation and provide a meaningful opportunity to contest it or its contents;
  • prohibited from representing/implying that the data is an arrest warrant or conveys independent legal authority or any independent judgment by INTERPOL regarding probable cause or the validity of the underlying criminal proceedings.

The portions of these policy changes that will likely be the most useful are noted in bold, above. Their practical implications are addressed in the next post. The items in italics may prove less so and are addressed in part three of this series.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

*Thanks to Daniel Celayas, attorney extraordinaire at Saleh and Associates, P.A., for bringing this release to us in real time.

A local reader recently asked a question, hoping to learn whether a message they received was a scam.

The reader was contacted by someone claiming to be an INTERPOL agent, who alleged that there were 2 cases held against the reader for committing several crimes. The reader was reached through WhatsApp, where the “agent” demanded 2 thousand dollars to close the cases or the reader would be arrested.

To answer the reader’s question, it is necessary first to understand that all civilian communication with INTERPOL regarding Red Notices takes place through the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF). INTERPOL will never contact a person to advise them that he or she is the subject of an INTERPOL notice, nor is it INTERPOL’s role to do so. INTERPOL’s role regarding Red Notices is to maintain the data submitted by its member countries in aid of the law enforcement efforts of those countries.

Unless they are of the small percentage of Red Notice Subjects displayed on INTERPOL’s website (interpol.int), the primary method of determining if one is a Red Notice subject is to inquire with INTERPOL’s CCF directly. 

It also must be understood that to remove a Red Notice, a subject cannot pay an INTERPOL agent for two reasons:

  1. INTERPOL agents of this type do not exist, as the organization is a data-sharing agency, and domestic law enforcement officials are the people charged with taking action to detain, arrest, or extradite people. 
  2. To remove a Red Notice, a subject must contact INTERPOL’s CCF with a removal request, which the CCF would then review and return having either accepted or denied said request. 

Although the threat of being arrested could have easily elicited a response out of fear, the reader’s suspicion was valid. The type of communication is a scam, and the reader .

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Estlund Law is proud to share the news that INTERPOL has removed the Red Notice in the name of our client, Derek Ong, a former executive at Deutsche Bank. After enduring the impact of 13 years of politically motivated charges against him, he has regained the freedom to travel, conduct business, and participate in everyday activities that had been impossible as a Red Notice subject.

Large index arbitrage unwinding leads to market instability despite all precautionary measures

Preceding his Red Notice, Mr. Ong’s employer, Deutsche Bank in Hong Kong, was poised to execute a trade to unwind its index arbitrage position in South Korea. This was also the time of the 2010 G-20 Summit event, which was being hosted in South Korea. In the months leading up to the summit, South Korea marketed itself as one of the most sophisticated investment markets in the world. 

During the unwinding, which was not particularly large by the standards of most of the world’s liquid futures and options markets, senior executives at Deutsche Bank approved the trade and Mr. Ong and his colleagues conducted the requisite backtesting and also gave all required notifications of the trade.  The trade was also spaced out to allow the market to adjust accordingly. Because Deutsche Bank was placing an offshore international order, the trade was approved by a member of the Korean Stock Exchange before it occurred. It was only in the aftermath of the trade that it became clear that the standard backtesting results were inaccurate predictors of the effect it would have on the market due to a liquidity black hole during the G20 summit. This caused the KOSPI response to drop by 2.7 percent, or 2.4 trillion won (USD 2 billion).  

This drop and the Korean market’s inability to remain stable caused great embarrassment on a global stage to Korean officials, particularly on the opening day of the G-20 summit.

Public embarrassment leads Korean officials to pursue politically motivated criminal charges

Though Deutsche Bank paid in full for the losses claimed by Korean officials, government officials prosecuted Mr. Ong and other mid-level employees within Deutsche Bank to avoid admitting the shortcomings of the South Korean Exchange systems and regulations.

His life took a drastic turn from working as a respected professional in the financial industry in support of his family to fighting for his livelihood and freedom on multiple fronts. Mr. Ong lost his job and was banned from the stock industry for ten years. Financial institutions were unwilling to work with him based on this case. His otherwise stellar reputation was called into question unjustly. 

During the investigation and the criminal court proceedings, Korean officials violated Mr. Ong’s due process rights. They failed to notify him of hearings and changed the charges as the case’s lack of evidence became apparent. Mr. Ong heard nothing of the criminal investigation for eight years until 2019, when he was detained due to the INTERPOL Red Notice that Korean officials had obtained against him.

At this point, Mr. Ong and his family reached out to Michelle Estlund of Estlund Law for help.

Results

Estlund Law has a successful track record of representing individuals who are facing INTERPOL Red Notices based on unfair charges of financial crimes related to public stock market and commodities trading activity, commercial invoice financing, or other investment activities. The firm used that knowledge and experience to build a strong case for removing Mr. Ong’s Red Notice. The focus of his case was the lack of transparency in proceedings, the oppressive delay of the pursuit of charges, the risk of inhumane and degrading treatment of Mr. Ong within the Korean prison system, and the evident political motivation behind the case. Mr. Ong and his family worked closely with the firm to prepare his case and remained strongly united during the entirety of the process.

INTERPOL’s CCF ultimately removed the Red Notice, recognizing “… that there is a predominant political dimension to this case and that maintaining the data challenged would have significant adverse implications for the neutrality of the organization.” 

Mr. Ong and his family are also grateful for the contribution of their UK and Hong Kong-based advocates: In the UK, Barrister Ben Keith, instructed by Fiona Haddadeen and led by Mark Summers KC; the team successfully fought extradition while the INTERPOL case was pending. In Hong Kong, Nathan Dentice provided continuous and effective representation since the civil matter began in 2010.

This lengthy ordeal resulted from an action that was not a crime, but an unfortunate outcome of an authorized trade that became politicized. Mr. Ong and his family were elated to receive the news of the Red Notice removal and are working on returning to a normal life.

In the INTERPOL practice, it is often beneficial to engage co-counsel in the country where the Red Notice, diffusion, or other notice originated. Toward that end, I often consult with colleagues in other countries regarding our mutual practices and cases.

As a member of the WORLDWIDE INDEPENDENT LAWYERS LEAGUE, I recently had the privilege of participating in a discussion with my fellow member and criminal defense attorney from Italy, Paola Turello. Many thanks to WILL and its leadership for this opportunity.

Below is the WILL publication and recording of the conversation:

📣 Recording Alert! Last Monday, July 17, we had the unique opportunity to host an enlightening presentation featuring attorneys Paola Turello and Michelle Estlund from WILL CRIMINAL LAW GROUP🏛️. They brilliantly navigated the complexities of comparative criminal law between Italy 🇮🇹 and Florida 🇺🇸.
We’ve now made this invaluable session available for all who missed it or wish to revisit these insights 📚. Don’t miss out!

🚩 https://lnkd.in/dR6Fbkdc
Passcode: 5eW?Kg+@