Malaysian Police Seek INTERPOL Help to Track Down Comedian After MH370 Joke

Malaysian police plan to seek help from INTERPOL to track down US-based comedian Jocelyn Chia, who joked about the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. Ms. Chia, whose website states she is originally from Singapore, received backlash after statements made during a set at a New York Club that Malaysian Airlines “cannot fly” and that Malaysia had lagged behind Singapore after the 1965 separation of Malaysia and Singapore. 

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 went missing in 2014 after it disappeared from air traffic radar somewhere over the Indian Ocean, with 227 passengers and 12 crew onboard. On the ninth anniversary of the disappearance in March of 2023, Netflix began streaming a three-episode docuseries on the theories of the disappearance. The docuseries has renewed public interest in the disappearance referred to as one of the biggest aviation mysteries of all time. 

As CBS News stated in an article, Ms. Chia’s statements caused an uproar on social media, followed by condemnations by top Malaysian officials including the foreign minister.

“I am appalled by her horrendous statements,” Singapore’s foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan tweeted.

“We treasure our ties with family and friends in Malaysia, and are sorry for the offence and hurt caused to all Malaysians.”

 As The Guardian reported, Jocelyn Chia will be investigated under the country’s laws relating to insulting speech and offensive or obscene online content. Police chief Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani was quoted as saying that the police would ask INTERPOL for assistance in finding out her full identity and whereabouts.

As stated in a Fox News article, INTERPOL told Fox News Digital that it received “no request for a notice or diffusion from Malaysia … in relation to this individual,” and any request would need to comply with the organization’s constitution, “which forbids any activities which are religious, racial, military or political in nature.”

Ms. Chia stood by her joke even after Malaysia’s plan to involve the international police body became public, tweeting: “Would love to see the face of the Interpol officer who received this request.” 

Whether her joke was in good taste or not, Ms. Chia is likely correct in her understanding of this matter as being improper for INTERPOL’s involvement.  There appears to be no underlying crime that could qualify as a criminal matter in INTERPOL’s other member countries, and that dual criminality element is required for an extradition to occur.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

The Chinese Government has a long history of abusing its power, both outside of and within INTERPOL. The United States Department of Justice recently issued a press release discussing agents of the People’s Republic of China(PRC) being charged with a bribery scheme in an effort to bribe a purported IRS official at the direction of the PRC.

In light of this new information and China’s repeated abuse of legal processes, the question of its continued status as a Member Country of INTERPOL is an appropriate one. 

In part one of this series, we addressed two examples of China’s abuses of power:

As recognized here in a Euronews article, the Chinese government often utilizes INTERPOL’s Red Notice system as a tool of transnational repression to target activists and dissidents. The article’s authors are Ben Keith and Rhys Davies, UK-based barristers, who predict that:

“Unless the system is reformed — with proper checks and balances put in place to weed out politically motivated Red Notices before China and other repressive states weaponise them — the system will continue to lose credibility.”

Their point is a valid one. Politically motivated Red Notices have been a long-standing issue that INTERPOL has addressed with varying degrees of success. NGOs and media outlets such as Human Rights Watch, Sky News, and more recently, The China Project have reported on the need for supervision of China’s Red Notice requests due to China’s use of INTERPOL to persecute dissidents, political opponents, and ethnic and religious minorities.

INTERPOL’s General Secretariat already provides a legal review of all Red Notices prior to their publication. These examples make clear that INTERPOL must increase the vigilance of its screening process of Red Notices from China and other member countries with a history of abuse.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

This past spring, the United States Department of Justice released a press release discussing two illegal agents of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government being charged for a PRC-directed bribery scheme. The press release states that John Chen, a Los Angeles resident and former citizen of the PRC, and Lin Feng, a Los Angeles resident and PRC citizen, allegedly furthered the PRC government’s transnational repression campaign against the Falun Gong by bribing a purported IRS official.

This failed scheme exposes China’s capacity for corruption and leads one to question China’s role in INTERPOL as a member country. China’s history of human rights abuses and violations of its obligations to INTERPOL make it necessary to examine the ways in which Chinese officials can abuse their power within INTERPOL.

As stated in a Euronews article by my able colleagues Ben Keith and Rhys Davies:

 “By issuing Red Notices via the Interpol system, some of the world’s dictators and worst human rights abusers have been able to weaponize police forces in countries where they would normally have no influence.”

China has repeatedly proven its tolerance for corruption both within and outside of INTERPOL. Chinese authorities have often used Red Notices to harass and extradite people being improperly charged by the Chinese Government.

Just one example

One example of China’s corrupt use of the Red Notice system is found in the case of Chinese dissident Chuan Liang Li, discussed here with his permission, after Estlund Law successfully applied for the removal of his politically motivated Red Notice.  Following Mr. Li’s exposure of corruption within the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), The PRC requested a Red Notice in his name. In response to Mr. Li’s public criticism of Chinese authorities, the CCP filed charges in China against him, accusing him of  “embezzling large amounts of state-owned funds and accepting bribes” twenty years earlier. 

Subsequently, members of Mr. Li’s family were arrested and told that their arrest was due to Mr. Li’s public criticism of Chinese authorities. His former colleagues and friends were also arrested, interrogated, and tortured.

Unfortunately, Mr. Li’s case is not at all unusual, and such violations are well-documented.

Liuzhi

China’s further disregard for its obligations to INTERPOL is obvious in its practice of Liuzhi, or  “retention in custody.” Under Liuzhi, which has been in practice since 2018, anyone related to the CCP can be secretly investigated and detainees can reportedly be denied access to legal counsel or families for as long as six months. 

Next time: an in depth explanation of why these actions harm INTERPOL, and how INTERPOL might respond. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today, international human rights lawyers and experts published an open letter on behalf of The Arrested Lawyers Initiative to INTERPOL’s Secretary General, Jürgen Stock. The lawyers and experts call on INTERPOL to take actions to comply with its human rights obligations and protect individuals against abuse by Turkey of INTERPOL’s Stolen and Lost Travel Document (SLTD) database.

The Arrested Lawyers Initiative is a Brussels-based rights group committed to protecting and upholding the rule of law by defending international lawyers and human rights defenders to carry out their duties without fear of intimidation, reprisal or harassment.

Included with the letter to Mr. Stock (attached here) is a detailed report on Turkey’s misuse of INTERPOL’s SLTD database.

We look forward to INTERPOL’s response in furtherance of its commitment to the protection of human rights and due process.

INTERPOL recently published details on its largest coordinated firearms operation ever, called Trigger IX. The operation allowed local authorities in multiple countries to make thousands of arrests and firearm seizures. The operation lasted three weeks(March 12 to April 2)  throughout 15 countries across Central and South America, with the primary goal of locating illicit firearms.  

INTERPOL reports that it gathered firearms experts from participating countries at Foz do Iguaçu in the tri-border area, bordering Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, as an operational hub to support frontline actions and ensure the swift exchange and cross-checking of intelligence. 

Although Red Notices may seem irrelevant to this operation, Operation Trigger IX and those like it can lead to Red Notices and and affect Red Notice subjects. To fully understand the connection between this operation and Red Notice subjects, let’s first review Operation Trigger IX’s results. 

Operation results as reported by INTERPOL

  • Authorities seized 8,263 firearms.
  • Authorities made 14,260 arrests. 
  •  In Uruguay, 100,000 pieces of ammunition trafficked internationally by two European nationals were seized by authorities, marking the country’s largest-ever ammunition seizure.
  • Authorities in Brazil and Paraguay shut down several firearms dealerships following the identification of irregular transfers and unlicensed sales.

Operation Trigger IX was enormously effective in achieving its goal and the operation additionally garnered unforeseen results. 

Unforeseen results

  • INTERPOL’s coordinations led to authorities’ disruption of 20 organized criminal groups, including the arrest of members of Primeiro Comando da Capital, Mara Salvatrucha, and the Balkans Cartel, all involved in firearms trafficking.
  •  Authorities dismantled a human trafficking ring, from which 11 victims were rescued in Paraguay.
  • A 32-year-old woman was arrested at the land border between Paraguay and Brazil with eight pistols and 16 chargers taped to her body.
  • In cooperation with Venezuela, police in Colombia arrested a Venezuelan national INTERPOL Red Notice subject for terrorism and arms trafficking.

Operation’s effect on Red Notice subjects

As seen in the bullet point above highlighting the arrest of a Red Notice subject, Operation Trigger IX and similar operations affect Red Notice Subjects. Red Notice subjects, a percentage of whom are actually law-abiding citizens, are most commonly found during international travel, immigration proceedings requiring background checks, and contact with domestic law enforcement officials.

Operations like this one typically require an influx of law enforcement officials with the power to locate and identify a Red Notice subject through INTERPOL’s systems. While Operation Trigger IX had a positive effect making thousands of presumably legitimate arrests and seizures, it also caused a widespread increase in law enforcement officials’ interactions with people, which is typically the manner in which invalid Red Notices are issued or acted upon.

Not only can Operations like this aid in locating Red Notice subjects, but they can also produce Red Notices. If a suspected perpetrator’s location becomes unknown, law enforcement may request a Red Notice released in their name to help locate them.  

Looking ahead, INTERPOL states that some 30 investigations were opened as a result of actions on the ground, and authorities identified 15 new modus operandi for the illicit manufacturing, trafficking, and concealment of firearms, with INTERPOL’s Purple Notice* leveraged to help alert member countries.

Up next: the link between illicit firearms and drug trafficking. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

*A Purple Notice is used to seek or provide information on modus operandi, objects, devices, and concealment methods used by criminals.

Join this conversation with my esteemed colleagues, Yuriy Nemets and Jago Russell, tomorrow at 12 pm EST, 6 pm CET. Many thanks to Yuriy Nemets for hosting this webinar series.

You are invited! Stream this event on your social channels.

Open Conversations About INTERPOL Abuse

Join us live on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and Facebook on April 27 at 12 pm EST, 6 pm CET

Use this link and add event to your calendar
bit.ly/3NdSeSn

INTERPOL released a Blue Notice following Japan’s Foreign Ministry ordering GaaSyy to return his passport after police obtained an arrest warrant over celebrity defamation and threat allegations.  GaaSyy, whose real name is Yoshikazu Higashitani, allegedly threatened three people, including actor Go Ayano, in his YouTube videos. In the videos, he is accused of suggesting he would defame the three and urged one of them, a company owner, to go out of business. 

Mr. Higashitani has lived in the United Arab Emirates since before he won his seat as a lawmaker in Japan’s Upper House election in July 2022.  Just one day before these charges, Mr. Higashitani was expelled from his position as a Japanese lawmaker for not appearing at any sessions since he was elected last year. His expulsion is the first in over seven decades and only the third ever, the last expulsion being in 1951. 

Purpose of Blue Notices

Unlike Red Notices, Blue Notices can be issued prior to criminal charges being filed and differ from Red Notices in their function and use.  As previously posted by the RNLJ, a Blue notice exists to assist with the following:

  • Seeking the location of someone connected with a criminal investigation
  • Identifying someone connected with a criminal investigation
  • Finding witnesses to a criminal act, and
  • Locating friends, relatives, or associates of offenders or suspected offenders

As Mr. Higashitani’s precise location is currently unknown, the Blue Notice is likely being used to help locate him. 

If Japanese authorities request a Red Notice against Mr. Higashitani, the principle of dual criminality may prevent one from being issued, and it may also protect him from being extradited. Dual criminality occurs when the crime alleged by the country seeking the individual is also a crime in the country where the individual is located. Dual criminality is a requirement in most extradition treaties in order for extradition proceedings to take place.

Why a defamation charge may not lead to a Red Notice

Defamation is normally a civil charge rather than a criminal one in most countries. Likewise, threats of a general or unspecified nature, or conditional threats, are often not sufficient to form the basis for criminal charges. Civil matters cannot form the basis for INTERPOL’s involvement unless a criminal element also exists. It appears that the current allegations may not support a Red Notice request.

As of now, without a Red Notice, and with the potential barrier of dual criminality, Mr. Higashitani may not be extradited from the United Arab Emirates. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Our last post addressed how the media often fuels the misconceptions regarding INTERPOL. Today, we look to the case of Biafran Dissident Simon Ekpa and how misinformation on INTERPOL presented in journalistic accounts of his situation. 

Simon Ekpa

Simon Ekpa, a Biafran dissident residing in Finland, was arrested by Finnish Police after threatening to disrupt the forthcoming elections in Nigeria. As reported by Ripples Nigeria here, Mr. Ekpa is a self-proclaimed disciple of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. IPOB is a separatist group seeking the renewed declaration of Nigeria’s South-East  region as the Republic of Biafra.  Mr. Ekpa has allegedly achieved a history of inciting destruction through social media, including declaring sit-at-home orders, meaning people must remain in their homes for whatever amount of time demanded, threatening disobedience with death.

Finnish investigation and arrest

As explained by Premium Times here, according to an official statement shared by the Finnish embassy in Nigeria, Mr. Ekpa was arrested as part of n investigation by Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation into a suspected money collection offense. 

Multiple early news reports such as those published here and here here inaccurately reported that Mr. Ekpa was arrested by INTERPOL when Finnish police were responsible for his apprehension. 

It is unclear why INTERPOL was reported to have arrested Mr. Ekpa, as INTERPOL does not make arrests; he resides in Finland; and the alleged crime was not committed internationally.

INTERPOL’s role in criminal cases

When INTERPOL is involved in a case, a member country’s NCB (National Central Bureau) will request a Red Notice in order to locate and return an individual to the requesting country when the wanted person is believed to be abroad.

When accepted, the Red Notice is circulated to all of INTERPOL’s member countries which gain access to an individual’s information. The Red Notice Subject, once located, is then provisionally arrested pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Over the past several decades, popular media has contributed to a widespread misunderstanding of INTERPOL and how it operates. The media often portrays INTERPOL as a body that sends out detectives or agents to arrest and apprehend criminals. This is not the case. As explained in a previous blog post here, INTERPOL receives information from law enforcement agencies in INTERPOL member countries around the world. The organization then shares that information with other member countries to aid in the suspect’s apprehension.  

Fictional films on INTERPOL

For example, in the 2011 film version of The Adventures of Tintin:  The Secret of the Unicorn, the plot concerned two detectives who were “INTERPOL agents” investigating a crime.  This portrayal of detectives investigating crimes further feeds the misunderstanding of INTERPOL, and it continues today. More recently, the 2021 Netflix film Red Notice depicts Dwayne Johnson as an INTERPOL agent tracking down an international art thief. These portrayals are often the only times people hear about INTERPOL or Red Notices with any context, so they often lead to unrealistic ideas about the law enforcement support organization.

How INTERPOL member countries contribute to the media-driven misconceptions

The media-driven confusion is sometimes compounded by INTERPOL’s member countries themselves. Some member countries refer to their National Central Bureau offices – which are their liaisons between the countries and INTERPOL – by the name of “INTERPOL, ” although they are not actually operated by INTERPOL. For example, the United States refers to its NCB, which is the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., as “INTERPOL Washington.” This often leads individuals to reach out directly to the NCB for assistance on Interpol matters that have nothing to do with the United States, only to be directed to INTERPOL in Lyon, France.

Tthe confusion around INTERPOL’s purpose and functioning occasionally affects media reporting on real individuals. The post referenced above addresses multiple media outlets reporting in 2013 that INTERPOL’s agents in Mexico had gone missing while conducting an investigation. Reports stated that INTERPOL’s investigating officials had left the city of Chihuahua on Monday and had not reached their destination of Ciudad Juárez when INTERPOL had no such officials. 

All of this background information provides some context to RNLJ’s next post, in which we will address the false or erroneous reports regarding INTERPOL-related arrests that continue today. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A reader recently sent in the following question:

I wanted to know how long is a red alert in effect? I mean, when does it expires?

  • This question arises often, and with reason. 
  • INTERPOL’s member countries circulate Red Notices for people who are wanted either to stand trial or to serve a sentence.  People who are the subjects of Red Notices naturally want to know when it is safe to travel without risking detention or extradition due to an old Red Notice
  • Red Notices typically expire after five years.  However, they are subject to renewal if the INTERPOL member country that originally made the request advises INTERPOL that the notice should remain outstanding.  If a subject has not been apprehended after five years from the time the notice was originally issued, she should not assume that the notice no longer exists; it very may well be in effect.
  • In fact, some notices that should have been cancelled (due to the charges having been dropped, or the sentence having been served already, etc.) still remain in effect months or years later because the requesting member country fails to advise INTERPOL that the notice should be removed.

So the whole answer is: a Red Notice should be removed when its purpose has been served or no longer exists, or after five years, or longer if it’s renewed.