Home
Our legal team filed a pre-emptive request with the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) for clients facing a risk of future INTERPOL action. The CCF subsequently applied provisional measures concerning the processing of their data while the matter was under review.
The case arose from an unusual cross-border situation: our clients had been treated as victims in connection with the AirBit Club fraud in the United States, while authorities in other jurisdictions accused them of involvement in related conduct.
Background: The AirBit Club Case
AirBit Club was an international cryptocurrency investment scheme whose operators were prosecuted in the United States.
In September 2023, AirBit Club co-founder Pablo Renato Rodriguez was sentenced by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to 12 years in prison. The U.S. Department of Justice described the scheme as an international fraud that induced victims to invest based on false promises of cryptocurrency mining and trading returns.
According to our case record, our clients were recognised as victims in the U.S. proceedings.
At the same time, they faced allegations in other jurisdictions concerning the same broader scheme. This created a risk that information could be circulated through INTERPOL channels despite the conflicting positions taken in different countries.
Our Strategy: A Pre-Emptive Request to INTERPOL
Instead of waiting for a Red Notice or Diffusion to appear, our lawyers submitted an INTERPOL preventive request setting out the relevant facts and supporting documents.
Pre-emptive requests are recognised in CCF practice. INTERPOL’s published activity reports describe them as submissions made by people who believe that national authorities may seek international police cooperation against them. More recent CCF reporting also refers to pre-emptive requests that provide information before prospective data is processed.
A pre-emptive submission does not guarantee that a future Notice will be blocked. Its purpose is to place relevant information before the CCF so that potential INTERPOL processing can be considered in light of the Organization’s rules.
Outcome: Provisional Measures
According to the case record, the CCF applied provisional measures concerning the clients’ INTERPOL data while the case was being examined.
The CCF Statute allows the Requests Chamber to adopt provisional measures at any time during proceedings in relation to the processing of the data concerned. Official procedural guidance explains that such measures can include restricting or blocking data, removing information from the public website or giving a matter priority in urgent circumstances.
In this case, the provisional measures reduced the risk that the disputed information would be used through INTERPOL channels before the Commission completed its review.
What This Case Shows
This case demonstrates the value of acting before an anticipated INTERPOL request has already produced practical consequences.
Where there is credible evidence that future INTERPOL processing may raise compliance concerns, a pre-emptive submission can place that information before the CCF at an early stage. The outcome always depends on the facts and evidence of the individual case.
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.
