Home
Our legal team challenged INTERPOL data concerning a businessman with Austrian and Ukrainian citizenship who had been sought by Russian authorities in connection with alleged fraud.
The case involved an INTERPOL Diffusion, detention in Hungary and subsequent extradition proceedings. The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) ultimately found that the challenged data did not comply with INTERPOL’s rules and recommended its removal from the Organization’s databases.
Background of the Case
In 2011, a Russian state-owned company transferred more than USD 17 million to companies affiliated with the client under a contract for the supply of industrial equipment.
According to the case record, the full delivery could not be completed because of complications involving other subcontractors rather than actions attributed directly to the client.
In 2020, Russian authorities accused the client of fraudulently misappropriating state funds and circulated information about him through INTERPOL channels.
Arrest in Hungary and Extradition Refusal
On 8 April 2022, the client was apprehended in Hungary on the basis of an INTERPOL Diffusion.
While the extradition request was being considered, restrictive measures were imposed on him.
On 11 April 2022, the Metropolitan Court of Budapest refused extradition. According to the case record, the court concluded that the criminal charges were already affected by statutory limitation periods under Hungarian law and could therefore not support extradition.
This national extradition decision did not itself determine whether the INTERPOL data should remain in the Organization’s systems. That question required a separate review before the CCF.
Where a client faces a similar national surrender proceeding, our international extradition lawyers can assess the applicable extradition framework separately from the INTERPOL challenge.
Why the Purpose of the Diffusion Was Questioned
The CCF examined whether the processing of the client’s data continued to serve a valid purpose of international police cooperation.
According to the case record, Russian authorities had acknowledged that the client was residing in Austria but had not adequately explained why they had not taken steps to engage Austrian authorities in pursuing the objectives of the Diffusion.
This issue was considered in light of Articles 10 and 97(1) of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data.
Article 10 requires data in the INTERPOL Information System to be processed for a given and explicit purpose consistent with the Organization’s aims. Article 97(1) identifies the specific purposes for which Diffusions may be circulated, including arrest or restriction of movement, locating a person and obtaining information.
The Client’s Individual Role
The Commission also considered whether the available information sufficiently described the client’s personal involvement in the alleged criminal conduct.
According to the case record, the only specific act attributed to him was signing the contract.
The information did not establish a clear connection between that act and coordinated criminal conduct or accomplices. The Commission therefore questioned whether the material provided sufficiently demonstrated the client’s alleged personal role in the fraud.
Arguments Submitted to the CCF
Our lawyers requested deletion of the INTERPOL data concerning the client.
The application relied on three main arguments:
- the purpose of continuing to process the data was not sufficiently clear;
- the dispute had substantial civil and commercial elements;
- the information provided did not clearly and specifically describe the client’s alleged criminal involvement.
INTERPOL’s rules require personal data to be accurate, relevant, not excessive in relation to its purpose and up to date.
For cases where INTERPOL data no longer meets the applicable requirements, our INTERPOL notice deletion lawyers assist with applications for removal through the CCF.
The CCF Decision
After reviewing the available information and legal arguments, the CCF concluded that the data concerning the client did not meet the requirements of INTERPOL’s legal framework.
According to the case record, the Commission found the information non-compliant with INTERPOL’s rules and recommended its removal from the Organization’s databases.
The result concerned the lawfulness of processing the client’s information through INTERPOL. It did not constitute a determination of guilt or innocence in the underlying Russian criminal proceedings.
What This Case Shows
This case illustrates that an INTERPOL Diffusion must have a clear purpose and contain sufficient information about the individual conduct attributed to the person concerned.
A national criminal allegation alone does not remove the need for INTERPOL data to comply with its own processing rules.
Where the purpose of international police cooperation is unclear or the information does not adequately describe the individual’s alleged role, those issues can form part of a CCF challenge.
Need Legal Help?
Facing an Interpol Notice or Extradition Threat?
Our international criminal defence lawyers have helped clients in 50+ countries. Get a confidential consultation today.
