Interpol Law Firm

Case of Austrian businessman wanted for fraud in Russia

The Facts

The Applicant is a dual national of Ukraine and Austria, and he is an owner of a company.

In 2011 the Russian State Company transferred more than 17 million US dollars to companies of our Client for delivering equipment. However, the equipment was not delivered in full for reasons that did not depend upon the will of our Client but related to other contractors.

However, the Applicant was accused of fraudulent misappropriation of funds from the Russian budget and was put on the international wanted list in 2020.

On 08 April 2022, the Applicant was arrested in Hungary based on Interpol’s diffusion. He was subject to restrictive measures pending the extradition proceedings. On 11 April 2022, the Hungarian Metropolitan Law Court issued a decision denying Applicant’s extradition on the basis that the conditions for extradition had not been met because the statutory limitations for the crime under Hungarian law expired.

The Commission’s findings

First of all, the Commission establishes that Russia did not adequately explain the absence of efforts by its authorities to pursue the purpose of the diffusion vis-à-vis their Austrian counterparts, given how his location in Austria is officially declared by the Russian authorities. Therefore, the Commission expressed some doubts about the active interest of the Russian authorities to achieve the purpose of the data in the meaning of Articles 10 and 97 (1) of the RPD.

The Commission analyzed the availability of elements to describe the individual criminal involvement of the Applicant.

The Commission, in its analysis of the tangible elements available to describe the link between the Applicant and the underlying facts, has established that the Applicant’s signing of the contract appears to be the sole conduct imputed to him in an individual capacity without grouping his involvement to that of his accomplices, which does not, in itself, amount to a sufficient link to a criminal conspiracy.

The Interpol Law Firm arguments
Interpol Law Firm requested the deletion of the data concerning the Applicant contending, in essence, that:

1. there is a lack of clarity regarding the purpose of processing the data;
2. the case relates to a private dispute that is not of interest for the purposes of international police cooperation; and
3. the data lack a succinct and clear description of the Applicant’s alleged criminal involvement.

The Outcome (decision of the CCF)
The Commission decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with Interpol’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from Interpol’s files.

Preventive Request Helped to Avoid Extradition Arrest

The Facts

Our client faced the imminent threat of extradition arrest, prompting a need for urgent and strategic legal intervention. This case has been a powerful example of how proactive and transparent defense strategies can significantly influence the outcome of extradition cases.

Our team of INTERPOL lawyers submitted a preventive request to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), which helped to avoid extradition arrest.

The Results

The Monaco court, in reviewing the case, took into account our client’s appeal to the CCF with the preventive request. This appeal was a critical factor in demonstrating that our client was not a fugitive from justice but someone who was actively and transparently using legal means to defend themselves.

The Outcome
This outcome is a testament to the importance of utilizing legal instruments effectively. It reinforces the idea that active engagement in legal processes can provide substantial advantages during extradition proceedings.

The case sets a precedent and offers hope and guidance to anyone facing similar situations and using the pre-emptive request to CCF.

Deletion of the INTERPOL Red Notice

The Facts
The Applicant was accused of giving bribes to officials from 2013 until 2015, with the aim of obtaining economic benefits by securing lease contracts, which were not profit for the state enterprise. After the applicant’s detention in Spain, the court decided to refuse extradition to Belarus.

What was the position of the NCB of Belarus

The NCB said that its legislation guarantees the fundamental rights of the accused in a criminal case, and that the judges are independent and are subject exclusively to the law. The NCB considered the fact that the Applicant lodged a request before the Commission Confirmed his maliciousness because a law-abiding citizen would not even think of applying to the Commission in order to challenge the data concerning him, registered in the INTERPOL Information System. At the same time the NCB stated that the Spanish decision for refusal of an extradition applicant “cannot represent a model of reference for objectivity, but only a specific decision of the court in relation to a particular person.”

Findings of the CCF
The main arguments of the Commission were based on the court decision for refused on extradition, issued by the Audiencia Nacional of Madrid explicitly outlined a tangible risk that the Applicant will not be subject to fair process carried on by an independent and impartial body, not be provided with an effective remedy, which based on a political dimension that underpins the Applicant’s case. Commission also highlighted that Belarusian position concerning the applicant rights to submit the request to the Commission is symptomatic of a problem of lacking respect for independent oversight. 

The Results
The CCF found that the data concerning the Applicant did not meet the necessary criteria under Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution. Consequently, the Commission decided to delete the wanted notice.

Pre-emptive Request & Temporary Measures in INTERPOL

The Facts

The Southern District court of New York in 2023 sentenced to 12 years imprisonment Pablo Renato Rodriguez, the co-founder of the cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme AirBit Club. This case includes a crazy number of victims from all over the world from this Ponzi scheme activities, including our clients, which were officially declared a victim by the U.S. Department of Justice.

At the same time, our clients are being prosecuted by some countries through INTERPOL channels for allegations of activity in AirBitClub schemes in other jurisdictions. This is a paradox, given that they are victims in the United States and defendants in the same case in another jurisdiction.This is a clear example of the conflict of jurisdiction that arises in complex transnational crimes.

What Interpol Lawyers did
Given the complex legal landscape, our team took proactive measures by submitting a preemptive request to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF). In our submission, we presented a compelling argument highlighting the jurisdictional conflict at hand. We argued that the prosecution of our clients in other jurisdictions while being recognized as victims in the U.S. was a clear conflict of jurisdiction that needed resolution.

The Results

Based on these circumstances and on our pre-emptive request, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files has implemented an interim measure in the client’s case to ensure data integrity and compliance. In certain critical cases such as this, access to certain data by INTERPOL member countries is now temporarily blocked. This measure is being taken to ensure that all data is thoroughly checked against INTERPOL’s strict rules and regulations.

Through our proactive approach, we have effectively highlighted and mitigated the risks associated with transnational legal conflicts, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Check the post on LinkedIn.

Defending the Rights of Refugees Against Persecution
The Facts
Our client, a refugee, was facing persecution through INTERPOL channels.

What Interpol Lawyers did
Our team of INTERPOL lawyers argued that the data retention concerning our client no longer complied with INTERPOL’s rules, specifically Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the RPD, which pertain to the relevance and necessity of data processing. We presented a strong case that maintaining the INTERPOL Red Notice was unjustified and violated our client’s rights as a refugee.
 

The Results
The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files has decided to delete data concerning our client from the INTERPOL system, marking a crucial step in upholding legal standards and individual rights in particular as a refugee status. This outcome underscores the importance of adherence to legal frameworks and the protection of personal data within international law enforcement 

What is particularly interesting in this case is that the Commission’s decision was made outside of the regular session, which emphasizes the special paid to the protection of refugees’ rights.