INTERPOL Archives | IELR Blog

INTERPOL and Growing Transnational Repression

June 24, 2022 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

Presented by the ABA International Law Section, National Security Committee

Wednesday, July 12, 2022 – 12:00 pm EDT – 1:00 pm EDT

The panel will discuss new U.S. legislation concerning INTERPOL abuse, the organization’s response to recent political events on the international stage and the panelists’ experiences advising victims of INTERPOL abuse.

Specifically, the panelists will review: the U.S. Transnational Repression Accountability and Prevention (TRAP) Act of 2021 and U.S. policy towards INTERPOL abuse, INTERPOL’s lifting of “corrective measures” imposed on Syria in 2012 and the organization’s approach to requests from Russia in light of the latter’s invasion of Ukraine, the decisions made by the 89th (most recent) INTERPOL General Assembly and how they may affect victims of INTERPOL abuse, the controversies surrounding the financing of INTERPOL’s activities, the problems that the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), a critical part of INTERPOL’s redress mechanism, faces on a daily basis, as well as CCF’s consideration of the principle of ne bis in idem, preemptive requests, bounced checks and other provisions of INTERPOL’s rules.

Moderator:

Bruce Zagaris, Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP

Speakers:

Ted Bromund, The Heritage Foundation (Washington DC)

Michelle Estlund, Estlund Law (Miami)

Laurent Grosse-Kozlowski, former General Counsel and Director of the Office of Legal Affairs at INTERPOL (Lyon, France)

Yuriy L. Nemets, Nemets Law (Washington DC)

Rebecca Schaeffer / Bruno Min, Fair Trials (Washington DC / London, UK)

Time

Jul 12, 2022 12:00 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)

INTERPOL Suspends Russia’s Ability to Make Diffusion Notices Directly and Deploys Team to Moldova While Ukraine Disconnects from INTERPOL Network

March 26, 2022 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

The conflict in Ukraine has had significant consequences in INTERPOL. Ukraine has disconnected from the INTERPOL network due to its fear of Russia’s misuse of INTERPOL’s channels. On March 10, INTERPOL announced that the Russian National Central Bureau (NCB) can no longer send diffusions directly. On March 25, 2022, INTERPOL announced that it deployed an Operational Support Team to Moldova in response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Suspension of Russia’s Right to Send Diffusions Directly

When an INTERPOL NCB wants to send a Red Notice, the NCB sends the request for a Red Notice to the INTERPOL Secretariat. The Secretariat must vet the request to ensure that it meets with the organization’s requirements. Once a Red Notice is approved, it is posted over the INTERPOL network. Such a Red Notice enables INTERPOL members to detain an individual against whom an INTERPOL Red Notice exists. However, INTERPOL points out that a decision by a member country whether to act on a request is exclusively at the discretion of the competent authorities.

A diffusion is less formal. An INTERPOL NCB can directly send diffusions. They are less formal and the Secretariat does not vet them. Nevertheless, many NCBs still detain individuals against whom there is a diffusion.

Since March 10, INTERPOL has required the Russian NCB to send all diffusions to the General Secretariat to be checked for compliance with INTERPOL’s Rules. Only if a diffusion is found compliant will the General Secretariat then disseminate it to member countries. This procedure is in addition to the General Secretariat’s current process of reviewing all Notice requests for compliance.

To prevent any potential misuse of INTERPOL’s channels with respect to the targeting of individuals within or beyond the conflict in Ukraine, the Secretary General with the endorsement of the Executive Committee has increased supervision and monitoring measures in relation to Russia.

INTERPOL has announced that the Secretary General may take additional measures on an urgent basis if the need arises.

INTERPOL Rejects Calls to Suspend or Expel Russia

INTERPOL has issued a statement that Article 2 of its Constitution requires it to maintain police cooperation and ensure communication channels remain open. INTERPOL’s mandate does not include the issuance of sanctions or the imposition of punitive measures. Additionally, no provisions allow for the suspension or exclusion of a member country. As a result, INTERPOL rejects calls as the political level to suspend or exclude Russia from the INTERPOL network.

INTERPOL reiterates that its Constitution strictly forbids it from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.

On March 1, Fair Trials observed that Russia has abused INTERPOL Red Notices and Diffusions to intimidate and threaten critics overseas. Fair Trials joined Ukraine and the United Kingdom in calling for INTERPOL to revoke Russia’s membership in INTERPOL.

INTERPOL Deploys Team to Moldova

At the request of Moldova, on March 25, 2022, the INTERPOL General Secretariat deployed an Operational Support Team to Moldova. The mission is furnishing support to law enforcement and humanitarian agencies managing the large outflow of refugees entering the country from Ukraine.

The INTERPOL team will consult and cooperate with Moldova’s General Inspectorate of Police, the General Inspectorate of Border Police, and international organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN International Children’s Emergency Fund and the International Organization for Migration in areas, such as human trafficking, migration and border management.

The INTERPOL’s mission comes within the framework of its cooperation with EU agencies EUBAM (The European Union Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine), Europol and Frontex.

The INTERPOL team will furnish immediate field support to law enforcement and humanitarian organizations and help evaluate the situation on the ground, identifying needs in order to supply relevant training, analysis and operational support. The INTERPOL team will be based in Chisnau and different refugee camps hosting those who have recently fled Ukraine.

INTERPOL has received reports of human traffickers and smugglers waiting at various border control checkpoints to prey on vulnerable populations arriving from Ukraine. Children and unaccompanied minors are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by smugglers and traffickers.

The INTERPOL mission in Moldova is working with national authorities to identify and prevent organized criminal activity from exploiting the crisis.

Analysis

INTERPOL’s suspension of the right of Russia to directly disseminate Diffusions and dispatching a team to Moldova are actions taken in the context of the conflict. Similarly, the decision by the Ukraine NCB to disconnect from the INTERPOL network and the call for INTERPOL to expel Russia by Ukraine, the UK, and Fair Trials all reflect concerns and efforts to respond to instances of the misuse of INTERPOL by Russia and fears that the risks of remaining connected to the INTERPOL network outweigh the benefits.

INTERPOL has the challenge of trying to balance the goals of having universal membership, especially as some of its members have cut or diminished international enforcement cooperation, with the need for proper integrity, governance, and adherence to its Constitution to ensure confidence, trust and integrity in its notices and diffusions.

2021 Holiday Retrospective

December 28, 2021 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

We at the IELR send you the best wishes for a warm and joyous holiday season. 2021 was momentous for the international enforcement community, and we are grateful to have had you following along with our coverage during our 37^th year of discussing international enforcement developments.

Contributors

We are grateful for the continuing long partnership with Professor Michael Plachta and for contributions from practitioners and professors, including Dr. Ted Bromund, Frederick T. Davis, Michele Estlund, Dr. Scott MacDonald, Dennis Boyle, Konstantinos Magliveras, Yuriy Nemets, Spencer A. Hill, Peter D. Hardy, Kateryna Boguslavska, Matteo Formaggi, and Linda Friedman Ramirez. Miranda Bannister finished her tenure as assistant editor in February. Marwah Adhoob, who specialized in criminology as an undergrad, energetically replaced her. Our legal assistants Sara Kaufman and Emma Byrne ably contributed articles. Our interns, Mitchell Beebe, Elena Botts, Kayla DeAlto, Austin Max Scherer, Teddy David, Jamie Jang, Kenneth Boggess, and Julia V. Brock, contributed some great pieces.

The following is a highlight of some of the articles we covered.

International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court was prominent in our coverage. Plachta discussed the territorial jurisdiction of the ICC in the Palestine/Israel Case as well as the ICC Prosecutor closing a preliminary examination in Colombia and concluding an agreement with the Colombian government. K. DeAlto discussed the Central African Republic’s surrender of Said Abdel Kani to the ICC. M. Beebe and Zagaris wrote articles about the U.S. District Courts’ blocking President Trump’s executive order, sanctioning ICC officials. Zagaris discussed President Biden’s revocation of the Trump executive order.

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

On war crimes and crimes against humanity, Brock discussed the reversal by the South Korean court of the 2018 on “comfort women” and ordered Japan to pay reparations to the families of 12 women forced to work as sex slaves. Plachta discussed the ECHR’s decision on German responsibility for an air strike in Afghanistan. David and Kaufman respectively discussed German courts’ convictions of a former Syrian secret police officer and a Syrian military doctor for crimes against humanity and Adhoob discussed a German court’s conviction of a woman for crimes against humanity in the death of a Yazdi girl in Syria. Likewise, Adhoob detailed the enforcement actions of the UN with regards to genocide, such as UN’s opening of an inquiry into Sri Lanka’s alleged war crimes during its civil war as well as the UN investigation team’s conclusion that ISIL’s crimes against Yazidis constitute genocide. Adhoob discussed a report by a U.S. law firm, finding France responsible for the Rwandan genocide. Zagaris and Adhoob wrote about the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption of a resolution to start a Commission of Inquiry on the latest Israel-Palestine conduct. Jang discussed the African Union’s starting of a Commission of Inquiry on the war in Ethiopia. David wrote about the conviction in a Swiss court of a Liberian warlord, putting the spotlight on universal jurisdiction and Liberian accountability. Zagaris covered the French Supreme Court’s overturning of the dismissal of complicity for crimes against humanity against multinational enterprise Lafarge for its conduct in Syria. Boggess discussed the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent Fact-Finding Mission renewing its mandate as a UN report warns of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Ramirez wrote about a judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, finding Colombia responsible for a journalist’s abduction twenty years before.

Tax transparency and Enforcement

With respect to tax transparency and enforcement, Zagaris wrote about the EU Parliament’s adoption of a resolution to toughen the tax haven blacklist, the OECD’s call for action to disrupt, prevent, and prosecute criminal conduct by professional enablers, the OECD’s new edition of fight tax crime, and the many cases against tax enablers, including the cum-ex dividend fraud cases, as well as a federal court’s approval of a John Doe Summons for a Panamanian law firm dealing with U.S. clients. Scherer also wrote about how charges against professionals illustrate the shifting legal landscape for professional enablers. Zagaris also discussed the U.S. Tax Court decision against a constitutional challenge to passport denial for delinquent taxpayers and about a founder of a Russian bank pleading guilty to tax fraud, including falsifying his expatriation statement. Zagaris discussed the Nigerian government’s start of voluntary offshore assets London declaration facilities and its application to foreign enablers. Zagaris wrote about a CJEU decision mandating enforcement of tax information request even without the taxpayer’s specific name and identity.

Money Laundering, Bank Secrecy and Transparency

On money laundering, bank secrecy and transparency, Boguslavska discussed how the 10^th Basel AML index highlights four worrying gaps in global AML efforts. Zagaris wrote several articles on the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, as well as FinCEN’s proposed regulations on beneficial ownership and the ANPRM on beneficial information on real estate purchases. MacDonald wrote about Suriname’s corruption and money laundering challenges. Adhoob and Zagaris wrote about the FinCEN notice informing financial institutions of money laundering dangers from illicit art and antiquities trade. Plachta discussed the Council of Europe’s adoption of a resolution and recommendation on strengthening FIUs. Zagaris discussed the Cayman AML regulator’s crack down after the FATF greylisting. Scherer discussed how the Xizhi Li conviction showed an application of money laundering techniques for laundering drug proceeds on behalf of foreign drug-trafficking organizations. Zagaris discussed the implications of the Pandora Papers and the proposed new enforcement actions of the European Parliament in the wake of the Pandora Papers.

Counter-terrorism, Economic Sanctions and Human Rights

Counter-terrorism, economic sanctions and human rights were continuing topics. Plachta discussed the adoption by the European Commission of a new counter-terrorism agenda and a proposal for amending Europol regulation. Adhoob discussed the ACLU’s suit on alleged discrimination by the U.S. “no-fly list” against Arabs and Muslims. Zagaris covered China’s adoption of blocking legislation and counter-sanctions. Bannister covered the Biden Administration’s countering the Trump Administration’s sanctions against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Zagaris discussed the ruling of the EU Advocate General that a German telecom cannot cancel a contract with an Iranian bank without showing the cancellation was not due to U.S. sanctions.

Counter-terrorism financing,

On counter-terrorism financing, Adhoob discussed U.S. prosecution of a woman extradited by the Dutch for terrorist financing through a charity. Zagaris wrote about a French donor’s financial contributions to the U.S. alt-right before the capitol assault and the need to apply counter-terrorism financial enforcement tools as well as a meeting between G7 and EU Security ministers on cooperation on countering racially and ethnically motivated extremism.

Transnational Corruption and Asset Forfeiture

With respect to transnational corruption and asset forfeiture, Zagaris discussed the Justice Department’s civil forfeiture suit against two alleged Ukrainian kleptocrats, a settlement by Deutsche bank of an FCPA and commodities case. Bannister and Adhoob covered in separate articles the fishrot scandal in Namibia, where Icelandic Samherji employees allegedly paid bribes to Namibian government officials for rights to fish for horse-maskerel. Boyle discussed the Biden Administration’s policy toward Central America and the challenges posed by corruption. Zagaris contributed a piece on U.S.-N. Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act setting the stage for new U.S. policy. Zagaris discussed the British Commission on Inquiry’s investigation of alleged corruption in the BVI as well as the Biden memorandum declaring anti-corruption a core U.S. national security interest. Zagaris wrote about the Dutch court’s agreement with a report calling the Santos-linked Angolan energy deal corrupt. Zagaris discussed the Amec Foster Wheeler’s global corruption settlement with the U.S., U.K., and Brazil. Zagaris discussed the return by the U.S. government of an additional $452 million in forfeited 1MDB funds to Malaysia as well as the DOJ’s return of over $32m in forfeited funds to FIFA victims.

Illegal Production and Use of Weapons

With respect to the illegal production and use of weapons, Zagaris discussed a suit by the Mexican government against U.S. arms manufacturers for illicit trafficking in arms as well as the guilty plea in the U.S. in the first successful prosecution of exportation and manufacturing of firearms to the Mexican Cartels. Adhoob discussed the U.K. and U.S. sanctions on seven Russian agents and entities over the Alexi Navalny poisoning. Zagaris discussed a ECtHR’s decision finding Russia responsible for the assassination of Litvinenko and Britain naming a third Russian suspect in the poisoning of Skripal.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Extraterritorial jurisdiction remained controversial. Fred Davis discussed the Second Circuit’s decision, opening the door a bit to non-citizen defendants challenging a court’s jurisdiction in criminal cases and also the partial clarification by the Second Circuit of the procedures applicable to prosecution of foreign sovereign owned enterprises. Zagaris discussed Bahrain’s return of a U.S. citizen to the U.S. to face charges of murdering his mother in Bahrain as well as an Italian court’s ordering four Egyptians to stand trial in the kidnapping and killing of an Italian student in Egypt. Zagaris wrote about a Spanish court’s ordering Banco de Chile to set aside $103 million for its role in money laundering from the Pinochet expropriations and about the EU Commission proposals for major revisions in its AML/CFT laws.

Recovery and Return of Cultural Property

On the recovery and return of cultural property, Zagaris discussed the German-Nigeria agreement on the return of Benin bronzes as well as the DOJ forfeiture action for 10^th century statute looted from Cambodia, and the return by U.S. Homeland Security of hundreds of looted artifacts to Mali. Adhoob covered the U.S. return of looted artifacts to Iraq stolen after the U.S. invasion as well as the discussion between Met officials and U.S. investigators of returning to Cambodia artifacts stolen from ancient sites.

Transnational Organized Crime

On transnational organized crime, Plachta discussed the consequences and prospects for the UN (Palermo) Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on its 20th anniversary. Adhoob discussed the arrest by Italian police of suspected Black Axe members for fraud and other serious crimes. Boggess covered the international dark web bust operation DarkHunTOR following the dark market seizure by U.S. and EU law enforcement.

On international narcotics enforcement, transnational organized crime and corruption, Zagaris wrote about Mexico exonerating its ex-defense chief and enacting a law pausing enforcement cooperation with the U.S. Bannister wrote about the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs’ vote to remove cannabis from the list of Schedule IV narcotics. Zagaris wrote about the U.S. detention of the wife of “El Chapo” and the guilty plea to violating the Kingpin Act by the daughter of the head of the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación. Hill and Hardy discussed a UN report targeting corruption and illicit cross-border finance. Kaufman covered ANOM, a global covert investigation conducted by law enforcement worldwide through an encrypted App, yielding 800 arrests. Zagaris wrote about Mexico’s suit in U.S. court in Florida to recover assets from former security chief linked to the Sinaloa cartel. Adhoob discussed the Italian police’s dismantlement of an international drug trafficking ring operated by the ‘Ndrangheta mafia clan.

International Environmental Enforcement

With respect to international environmental enforcement, Zagaris covered Kenya’s extradition of its citizen for trafficking rhino horns, elephant ivory, and heroin. Byrne discussed illicit ivory trafficking from Angola to Vietnam. Adhoob wrote about the S. African arrest of a hunter for illegal possession of rhino horns. Zagaris discussed how U.S. prosecutions of three wildlife trafficking violations show the rising incidence of these crimes.

Migration Enforcement

Migration enforcement received significant focus. Byrne discussed the INTERPOL operation targeting human trafficking and migrant smuggling in approximately 24 countries. Adhoob covered the U.S. State Department’s 2021 trafficking in persons report and the impact of misinformation and Covid-19 on human trafficking. Adhoob also discussed a State Department’s lawyer’s resignation due to a Biden Administration policy on asylum Kaufman discussed the 5th Circuit’s decision rejecting the Biden Administration’s efforts to end Migration Protections Protocols. Plachta wrote about the EU’s responses to human smuggling in the Belarus border crisis.

International human rights and enforcement,

With respect to international human rights and enforcement, Plachta discussed the EU adoption of Magnitsky-type global human rights sanctions regime. Magliveras discussed the first application of sanctions under the EU’S Magnitsky Act on Russia. Zagaris wrote about Turkey’s arrest of an Iranian dissident’s coinciding with Freedom House’s transnational repression report as well as about the signing by 58 nations of a declaration against arbitrary detention of foreign and dual nationals. Botts wrote about OFAC’s naming three Bulgarians under the Global Magnitsky Act for corruption. Kaufman discussed how events in Haiti and C.A.R. show the threats posed by mercenaries to international peacekeeping. Adhoob covered ECOWAS’ demanding answers in the alleged detention of Mali’s former interim leaders as well as Qatar’s imprisoning a Kenyan for blogging about low-income Kenyan migrants work conditions in Qatar.

Extradition and Extradition Alternatives

Developments on extradition and extradition alternatives remained critical. Ramirez and Boggess wrote articles about the extradition of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab to the U.S., notwithstanding his claims of diplomatic immunity. Zagaris wrote several articles about the Assange extradition decisions by U.K. courts and the U.S. extradition of the father and son for helping Carlos Ghosn escape from Japan. Zagaris covered the S. African court’s overruling the Justice Minister in ruling the former Mozambique Finance Minister will be extradited to the U.S. rather than Mozambique.

Nemets discussed how the U.S. Immigration court’s handling of INTERPOL Red Notices and diffusions suggests a uniform approach. Estlund and Bromund summarized and assessed the 2019 changes in INTERPOL’s rules on the processing of data. Zagaris discussed the CJEU decision against detention for INTERPOL Red Notice due to ne bis in idem (dual criminality).

International Evidence Gathering

With respect to international evidence gathering, Jang discussed how the Gupta brothers’ corruption scandal invoked the ratification of a new mutual legal assistance and extradition treaty between S. Africa and the UAE. Adhoob covered the Netherlands’ funding the Iraq UNITAD witness protection program to promote accountability for crimes committed by ISIL.

Economic Integration and International Enforcement

Plachta contributed many articles on economic integration and international enforcement, including the European Parliament’s call for improvement of implement and application of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and the EU Court of Justice’s rejection of “automatic refusal” of EAWs issued by Polish authorities. Zagaris discussed the Eurojust’s new funding initiative for joint investigation teams. Scherer discussed the EU whistleblower protection directive the Jonathan Taylor extradition. Plachta covered the adoption by the Council of Europe of a resolution on political responsibility for corruption as well as the European Commission releases of three proposals to strengthen and enhance police cooperation across the EU.

Maritime Piracy

On maritime piracy, Scherer discussed the shipping industry task force initiative against maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea. Adhoob discussed the Nigerian high court’s sentencing of 10 pirates for the hijack of a Chinese vessel.

International Tribunals

With respect to international tribunals, Zagaris discussed the affirmation by the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals of the conviction of Ratko Mladić’ for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as the closure of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and how the closure raises questions about international tribunals.

International Sex Trafficking

Mr. Zagaris contributed articles on international sex trafficking, especially the U.S. and Canadian charges against the Canadian fashion tycoon Peter J. Nygard.

Online Child Sex Exploitation Abuse

With respect to online child sex exploitation abuse, Zagaris covered U.S. indictments and INTERPOL’s pursuit of international enterprises and individuals involved in online sexual exploitation. He wrote about the EU Justice & Home Affairs Council initiatives on the digital dimension of child sexual abuse.

Cybercrime

Cybercrime continued to grow exponentially. Zagaris discussed cooperation between the EU and eight countries in taking down dangerous the malware EMOTET, the DOJ’s participation in global disruption of NetWalker ransomware, and Australia’s extradition of two defendants in an auto-subscribing cyber fraud scheme. Zagaris discussed the U.S. indictment against three N. Korean military hackers. Adhoob discussed the imposition by the Biden Administration of sanctions against Russia for alleged election interference and SolarWinds cyber hacks as well as the guilty plea of a crypto expert to assisting N. Korea evade sanctions. Zagaris covered U.S. sanctions against a Russian-owned crypto-exchange for ransomware activities as well as the U.S. indictment and sanctions against Iranians for cyber-enabled disinformation regarding the 2020 Presidential Campaign. Scherer wrote about cases involving the seizing illicit proceeds of and combating ransomware attacks. Zagaris covered the guilty plea by the director and promoter of BitConnect for its participative in a massive fraud conspiracy. Formaggi discussed China’s declaration of all cryptocurrency transactions illegal while the U.S. and EU prepared further crypto regulation. Zagaris discussed the arrests and seizures by 17 countries of alleged ransomware extortionists. Plachta covered the adoption by the Council of Europe of the Second Protocol to the Cybercrime (“Budapest”) Convention.

International Anti-trust Enforcement Cooperation

On international anti-trust enforcement cooperation, Zagaris discussed the DOJ’s Antitrust Division summary of its 2020 international achievements.

Export Control and Economic Sanctions

With respect to export control and economic sanctions, Boggess discussed the CEO quitting after the U.S. Commerce Department blacklisted Israeli spyware firm NSO Group. Zagaris wrote about the Mashreqbank settlement with OFAC, the Federal Reserve and NYDFS for violating the Sudan sanctions.

Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing

With respect to illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, Adhoob wrote about Bolivia’s signing an MOU to strengthen compliance/transparency in the fishing industry.

ABA CJS Int’l Comte Meeting on US-Brazil Jt Settlements et al

July 21, 2021 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

The ABA Crim. Just. Sec. Int’l Comte, which I co-chair, will meet on Thurs. Aug. 5 from 2:00-3:00 pm E.S.T. via Zoom as part of the ABA Hybrid Annual Meeting. Everyone is welcome to attend, including non-members.

Join Zoom Meeting
americanbar.zoom.us/j/…

Meeting ID: 977 9733 8444
Passcode: 264266

Find your local number: https://lnkd.in/d2aAsEz

Guest Speakers
Antenor Madruga and Ana Belotto, both of Feldens Madruga, in Brazil, will join us to discuss “US-Brazilian Joint Criminal Settlements: Trends and Implications for Stakeholders”
The panelists will discuss recent joint settlements between the U.S. , Brazil and other countries, including the Amec Foster Wheeler settlements (June 25 in the US and July 2 in the UK), Rolls-Royce, and others. They will discuss the trends and implications for stakeholders of joint settlements and other developments in international criminal cooperation.
Antenor Madruga has a PhD in international Law, is the founding partner at the FeldensMadruga law firm in Brazil. He is recognized as a leading Brazilian lawyer in complex litigations and negotiations involving government criminal and administrative proceedings, particularly in multijurisdictional cases.
Ana Belotto coordinates the Compliance practice at FeldensMadruga with a special focus on AML and anti-corruption matters. Has participated in the negotiation of complex multijurisdictional leniency agreements involving criminal, civil and administrative matters. She is a member of the New York Bar and is a registered Solicitor at the Law Society of England and Wales

Other Agenda Items
The Committee will also discuss other developments in the field and Committee business, such as the proposed resolution on joint settlements, and its recent webinar on “Abusing Interpol’s Resources to Persecute Expatriate Dissidents” on July 14.

Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Online Meetings, Screen Sharing – Zoom

The Gupta Brothers’ Corruption Scandal Invokes the Ratification of a New Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Treaty Between South Africa and the United Arab Emirates

June 17, 2021 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

by Jamie Jang[1]

In 2018, the economic and political stability of South Africa was upended when the Gupta brothers – Ajay, Atul, and Rajesh Gupta – and government officials were caught conspiring together.[2] The Gupta brothers, Indian-born South African businessmen, owned a tectonic empire across South Africa and wielded a great degree of political power.[3] After a government official testified against the Guptas, it was revealed that they had been involved in a longstanding scheme with members of the South African government, including President Jacob Zuma, to siphon millions of dollars from state-owned firms and the national treasury.[4] President Zuma was forced to resign and the Gupta brothers fled to Dubai, leaving their enterprises in South Africa bankrupt.[5] This scandal “offers a case study in a new, systematic form of graft known as ‘state capture.’ [. . .] It demonstrates how an entire country can fall to foreign influences without a single shot being fired”.[6]

The Gupta brothers have yet to face the charges brought against them for fraud and money laundering as they remain hidden in the United Arab Emirates.[7] For over three years, South Africa has requested full cooperation from the United Arab Emirates to extradite the Gupta brothers so they may be prosecuted in the country where they committed their crimes.[8]

UAE and S. Africa Ratify a New MLAT and Extradition Treaty

In response to the scandal, a new mutual legal assistance and extradition agreement between South Africa and the United Arab Emirates was ratified by both countries.[9] A statement issued by United Arab Emirates ambassador to South Africa, Mahash Alhameli reads, “These agreements have been and remain key to the UAE in promoting judicial and legal cooperation with South Africa and strengthening bilateral relations between law enforcement institutions and partners on both sides”.[10] While the treaty agreement was intended to mend the relationship between both countries, it appears that South Africa remains unsatisfied with the United Arab Emirates’ efforts.[11] National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shamila Batohi states, “As I expressed to the ambassador yesterday, we will only accept that there is full cooperation when we receive the necessary information that we have been requesting now for over three years without success”.[12]

S. Africa Expresses Frustration over Inability to Obtain Custody of the Guptas and Request Interpol Red Notice

The NDPP is not the only one expressing frustration over the inability to obtain cooperation from the United Arab Emirates.[13] Civil society organizations, namely the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation and the Defend Our Democracy movement protested outside the United Arab Emirates embassy.[14] A statement from the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation reads, “The Guptas must be brought from the UAE, where they currently reside, to SA to account for the litany of allegations of state capture and corruption that they face”.[15]

The National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) Investigating Directorate (ID) head, Hermione Cronje has asked Interpol to circulate an international red notice to have the Gupta brothers deported back to South Africa.[16] The ID intends to try the Guptas for the R25 million spent on a feasibility study to determine the viability of the failed Estina dairy farm in South Africa.[17] The ID asserts that “the department paid Nulane the R25 million for the feasibility study. However, after receiving the money, Nulane appointed and paid Deloitte Consulting R1.5 million to conduct the study. The rest of the money was allegedly laundered through a series of accounts, ending in Gateway Limited, a Gupta-owned company in the UAE”.[18] After three years of unsuccessful efforts to extradite the Gupta brothers, help from Interpol for an international arrest warrant appears to be another mechanism for South Africa to try to gain custody of the Guptas. .

The case demonstrates how difficult it can be sometimes for prosecutors to obtain effective international enforcement cooperation.

[1] B.A., Rhodes College.

[2] “State Capture”: How the Gupta Brothers Hijacked South Africa Using Bribes Instead of Bullets. Vanity Fair. March, 2019.

[3] “State Capture”: How the Gupta Brothers Hijacked South Africa Using Bribes Instead of Bullets. Vanity Fair. March, 2019.

[4] “State Capture”: How the Gupta Brothers Hijacked South Africa Using Bribes Instead of Bullets. Vanity Fair. March, 2019.

[5] “State Capture”: How the Gupta Brothers Hijacked South Africa Using Bribes Instead of Bullets. Vanity Fair. March, 2019.

[6] “State Capture”: How the Gupta Brothers Hijacked South Africa Using Bribes Instead of Bullets. Vanity Fair. March, 2019.

[7] Masondo, Sipho. “NPA asks Interpol to help arrest, deport Guptas to SA”. June 3, 2021.

[8] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: SA has been requesting information from UAE for over three years without success”. June 11, 2021.

[9] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: UAE confirms signing agreement on mutual legal assistance”. June 9, 2021.

[10] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: UAE confirms signing agreement on mutual legal assistance”. June 9, 2021.

[11] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: SA has been requesting information from UAE for over three years without success”. June 11, 2021.

[12] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: SA has been requesting information from UAE for over three years without success”. June 11, 2021.

[13] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: SA has been requesting information from UAE for over three years without success”. June 11, 2021.

[14] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: UAE confirms signing agreement on mutual legal assistance”. June 9, 2021.

[15] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: UAE confirms signing agreement on mutual legal assistance”. June 9, 2021.

[16] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: SA has been requesting information from UAE for over three years without success”. June 11, 2021.

[17] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: UAE confirms signing agreement on mutual legal assistance”. June 9, 2021.

[18] Chabalala, Jeanette. “Gupta extradition: UAE confirms signing agreement on mutual legal assistance”. June 9, 2021.

Evaluating the Jonathan Taylor Extradition Case

May 24, 2021 by Austin M. Scherer Leave a Comment

By Austin Max Scherer[1]

This past July, Jonathan Taylor, a whistleblower that exposed bribery at his old firm SBM Offshore, was arrested on an Interpol red license.[1] Taylor, a U.K. native, was found on vacation in Croatia.[2] Since the arrest, Interpol dropped the warrant, while Croatia has kept Taylor within the country due to an extradition request by Monaco.[3] The detention has brought a lot of criticism from different organizations like the European Union (EU) and the Resource Center on Media Freedom in Europe.

This blogpost will evaluate the following issues: Whether the extradition is legal? Whether the extradition violates the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive? And whether the requesting state, Monaco, is trying to protect an economically powerful entity in Monaco?

Legality of the Extradition

The first issue deals with whether the extradition is legal. An Interpol Red Notice alert can be issued to arrest someone for extradition if the subject falls within one of two categories: “Either the individual is: (1) awaiting a trial-prosecution for an offense for which he or she has been formally charged or (2) the individual has already been convicted of crime and is wanted in order to serve their lawful sentence.”[4] Taylor does not suffice either of these requirements. A May 19 letter from the Resource Center on Media Freedom in Europe states: “Mr. Taylor is not charged with anything as there are no criminal proceedings, nor is there any execution of a judgment for which he is wanted…”[5] Since neither requirement is fulfilled, the legality of the extradition appears questionable.

Violation of the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive

The second issue evaluates whether the extradition violates the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive. The aims of this directive were to strengthen the legal protection available to whistleblowers and provide protection that would be consistent throughout all EU Member States.[6] Further, it would be expected that member states would incorporate minimum standards featuring, “reporting channels for organizations of a certain size; and the level of protection afforded to persons that report breaches of Union law.”[7] Member states would be expected to comply by December 17, 2021.[8] The Supreme Court of Croatia confirmed Taylor’s status as a whistleblower.[9] This confirmation further qualifies Taylor’s defense under the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive. Croatia is obligated to uphold the directive, which, “includes ensuring they are immune from civil and criminal liability for having blown the whistle.”[10] This extradition would violate the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive. Since the withdrawal of the arrest warrant by Interpol, Monaco appears to act against Taylor in a retaliatory nature. This was confirmed again by Interpol on March 23, 2021.[11]

Is the Requesting State Protecting an Economically Powerful Entity?

The final issue discusses whether the requesting state, Monaco, is trying to protect an economically powerful entity in Monaco? Taylor uncovered one of the most expansive corruption and bribery scandals. This led to criminal investigations in the U.K., U.S., Netherlands, Switzerland, and Brazil.[12] SBM Offshore’s main office is in Monaco, and interestingly, Monaco has yet to initiate a single criminal investigation into a highly credible and well documented allegation of bribery and corruption, “on the part of SBM Offshore.” SMB Offshore earned $2.368 revenue in 2020; this comprises nearly a third of Monaco’s GDP.[13] One could surmise from this quantitative information, that SBM Offshore has influence in Monaco. SBM Offshore is Monaco’s largest private-sector employer and with offices 400 meters away from Monaco’s prosecutor’s office, it has close ties to the state.[14] Taylor stated the following, “It’s very political…they’re trying to discredit me and to show the world that Monaco doesn’t put up with whistleblowers, that companies are ‘safe” there.”[15] This information illustrates exploitation of an individual and a country’s attempt to lure more businesses to its domain. A potential court case in Monaco would serve beneficial to SBM Offshore. This would essentially provide, to use a sports term, a homefield advantage. Furthermore, SBM Offshore has major influence in Monaco politics, which should create fears to not only Taylor but to all human rights organizations.

Analysis

With SBM Offshore paying over $800 million in fines, SBM may want to make an example of Taylor.[16] Croatia seems bound to meet the requirements of the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive and return Taylor to the U.K. Arguably Croatia may take the position that it has until December 21 to comply with the EU Whistleblower Protective Directive and until it implements the Directive, it must follow its current national law. Taylor committed to answering any questions the Monaco government has, and if the Monaco government’s desire to speak to Taylor is purely judicial, then why does it require his extradition to Monaco if there is no criminal charge?[17] In any event Taylor’s counsel is expected to request the Croatian Minister of Justice to use his discretion to not extradite Taylor. In addition, Taylor is likely, if necessary, to appeal to the Croatian Constitutional Court and the European Human Rights Court.

[1] Rising third year law student, Washington College of Law, American University; M.S., Finance, American Univ; B.S., George Washington Univ.

[2] Jo Couzens, Jonathan Taylor: Oil whistleblower’s Monaco extradition bid upheld, bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-57137065 (last visited May. 24, 2021).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Extradition proceedings against Jonathan Taylor needs to end, article19.org, https://www.article19.org/resources/extradition-jonathan-taylor/ (last visited May. 24, 2021).

[6] Ana Myers, Urgent letter to Croatian Minister of Justice: Do not extradite Whistleblower Jonathan Taylor, Resource Center on Media Freedom in Europe, (May. 19, 2021).

[7] See Werner Berg, Sunny Mann, and Julia M. Wilson, Whistleblower Protection Directive, bakermckenzie.com, https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2020/02/whistleblower-protection-directive (last visited May. 24, 2021).

[8] Id.

[9 Id.

[10] Myers, supra note 6.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] SBM Offshore Full Year 2020 Earnings, sbmoffshore.com, https://www.sbmoffshore.com/?press-release=sbm-offshore-full-year-2020-earnings (last visited May. 24, 2021).

[15] Andrew Rettman, Monaco hunts oil-bribery whistleblower in EU, euobserver.com, https://euobserver.com/justice/149356 (last visited May. 24, 2021).

[16] Id.

[17] Myers, supra note 6.

[18] Rettman, supra note 15.

No Appeal as of Right and the Need for Due Process: the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files Steps In Again

December 5, 2020 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

By Yuriy Nemets*

Ability to Challenge INTERPOL Red Notices

It is well known that the redress mechanism that INTERPOL has established for individuals to challenge government use of its channels is far from meeting modern democratic due process standards. Among the rights without which it is difficult to imagine a modern democratic society but that are lacking within the INTERPOL framework are the right to a hearing, the right to examine evidence produced by a government and the right to appeal. Several years ago, INTERPOL carried out reforms aimed at making its redress mechanism more independent, transparent and better staffed for adjudicating complaints from individuals alleging violations of their rights through unlawful use of the Organization’s resources. The reforms have addressed only some of the most pressing issues, however. The redress mechanism still lacks a number of crucial elements, including the rights mentioned above, which to this day allows governments to use INTERPOL as a tool in politically motivated and otherwise corrupt prosecutions.

The INTERPOL redress mechanism is represented first and foremost by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), an independent body with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints from individuals. With the obvious lack of urgency on the part of the INTERPOL General Assembly to address the ongoing abuse and close the loopholes that contribute to it, CCF seems to be stepping in. I have already written about a case in which CCF responded to the government’s abuse of its absolute right to deny an individual access to INTERPOL’s files by ordering the information deleted until the government agreed to provide access to the information or justified its refusal to do so.[1] Fortunately, it appears that CCF’s quest for balance does not end there.

As mentioned above, INTERPOL’s rules do not guarantee individuals the right to appeal if CCF denies their complaints. The CCF Statute allows for revision of its decisions but “only when [the request for revision is] based on the discovery of facts which could have led the [CCF] Requests Chamber to a different conclusion if that fact had been known at the time at which the [complaint] was being processed.”[2] A request for revision must be made “within six months after the discovery of [such] fact.”[3] It is, therefore, up to CCF only to decide whether or not its decision to deny an individual’s complaint warrants its review, and CCF’s powers in this regard as described in its Statute are broad.

2018 Annual Report Indicates Broadening of Redress Mechanism

However, in its most recent (2018) annual report, CCF seems to indicate that it interprets the provisions regarding requests for revision broadly — “[a]lthough [in considering applications for revision,] the Commission is especially careful to ensure that the procedures in place do not jeopardize the binding character of its decisions, it may also consider revision under certain circumstances: for instance, when it appears necessary to correct a possible violation of a rule or procedure, or a mistake in the conclusions due to some missing information or a miscarriage of justice.”[4] CCF, therefore, seems to interpret the provisions to mean that they apply not only when new and previously unavailable evidence is discovered, the concept that we usually use in the context of a motion for a new trial, but also when CCF makes a material error in its procedure or in interpretation of law or fact, the latter typical of an appeal. Although this broad interpretation of INTERPOL’s rules does not introduce appeal as of right, as the decision whether or not to review its previous conclusions remains CCF’s solely, it is a very serious step that suggests CCF’s recognition of the importance of that right which is still lacking and long overdue in the INTERPOL redress mechanism.

* Managing Member of Nemets, Wash., D.C. https://nyllaw.com. Yuriy is a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law (Chicago), from which he received his Juris Doctor (JD) and Master of Laws (LLM) degrees, and Moscow State Law Academy (Russia), from which he received his first law degree and his Ph.D. in law.

[1] Yuriy Nemets, The Absolute Right of Governments to Deny Individuals Access to INTERPOL’s Files and the Need for Due Process: CCF Seeks Balance, Red Notice Abuse Report (Dec. 19, 2019), https://rednoticeabuse.com/the-absolute-right-of-governments-to-deny-individuals-access-to-interpols-files-and-the-need-for-due-process-ccf-seeks-balance/

[2] Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, art. 42(1), available at https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Legal-documents

[3] Id. art. 42(2).

[4] Activity Report of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files for 2018 § 47, available at https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL-s-Files-CCF/About-the-CCF

INTERPOL, I-CAN Global Anti-Mafia Organization Take Down Fugitives

August 10, 2020 by Julia V. Brock Leave a Comment

By Julia Brock, Scripps College Class of 2022

INTERPOL’s Cooperation Against ‘Ndrangheta (I-CAN) has rounded up six fugitives in Albania, Argentina, and Costa Rica, following intelligence tips gathered in an operation targeting the ‘Ndrangheta in November 2019. The news was reported on INTERPOL’s website on July 23, 2020.

Last year’s “Operation Magma 2007” targeted individuals wanted for association with the ‘Ndrangheta, as well as drug trafficking and illegal weapons possession. It resulted in the arrest of 45 suspects across Italy. It was conducted by Italy’s Guardia di Finanza and Direzione Centrale Servizi Antidroga, and coordinated by the Direzione Distrettuale Antimafia in Reggio Calabria.

Three of the fugitives were arrested in Buenos Aires on 21 July, 2020, while a simultaneous operation in Tirana, Albania led to the capture of a fourth ‘Ndrangheta-linked fugitive. The next day, a fifth fugitive was arrested in Costa Rica. A sixth fugitive who had avoided capture in Operation Magma 2007 was arrested in Albania last May.

Combined, the operations netted 400 kg of cocaine, 30 kg of hashish, 15 kg of marijuana, an automatic assault rifle, three semiautomatic pistols, a silencer and ammunition of various calibers.

The operation also led to the dismantle and arrest of all top family members of the Bellocco family clan, one of many in the ‘Ndranghata. The Bellocco clan was involved in importing South American cocaine by boat into Italy, particularly from Argentina and Costa Rica. For this, the group depended on emissaries who travelled frequently between the Bellocco clan’s Calabrian base and supplier countries.

The ‘Ndrangheta

The ‘Ndrangheta is the most extensive, wealthiest, and powerful criminal organization in the world. “Ndrangheta” itself means loyalty or courage and is of Greek origin. The organization specializes in kidnapping and political corruption, but have also been linked to drug trafficking, bombings, murder, counterfeiting, gambling, frauds, theft, labor racketeering, loansharking, and alien smuggling. The organization has acquired direct or indirect control of companies operating across all areas of society, including construction, transportation, import and export, and more. They also utilize the deepweb and Darknet to conduct illicit commerce transactions.

The ‘Ndrangheta was formed in the 1980s when a group of Sicilians, banished from the island, settled in Calabria and formed small criminal organizations based on family ties, primarily blood relationships and marriages. It has since expanded into an international organization and is present in 32 countries worldwide. Its tight-knit, clan-like structure makes it difficult to penetrate.

INTERPOL and Organized Crime Prevention

INTERPOL’s Organized Crime unit’s goal is to stop organized crime organizations like the ‘Ndrangheta from operating. The unit works hand in hand with all of INTERPOL’s police services to identify major figures involved in transnational crime, the associated criminal networks and their activities.

The unit also conducts criminal analysis based on intelligence provided by our member countries and partners, such as biometrics, images and known associations. These methods allow INTERPOL to have a detailed understanding of the crime organizations they are focusing and proves crucial to finding connections between organizers, financiers, distributors, and corrupt officials.

I-CAN

I-CAN, an Italian and INTERPOL initiative targeting the ‘Ndrangheta, was launched in January 2020. The ultimate goal of the I-CAN project is to enhance the ability of law enforcement worldwide to more effectively identify and combat mafia-type organizations.It is funded by the Italian Department of Public Service and focuses on the ‘Ndrangheta.

I-CAN is developed across three pillars:

Content – Building on Italy’s direct experience and knowledge of the threat posed by Ndrangheta, its structure and how it operates.
Access – Making this vital policing information available to the targeted countries, in order to identify patterns, trends and potential targets for law enforcement.
Action – Coordination of joint investigations with national law enforcement to identify and arrest individuals wanted in connection with Ndrangheta-linked activities.

DOJ Rules Red Notices are Sufficient to Prevent Asylum and Withholding of Removal Claims

May 21, 2020 by Alexandra Haris Leave a Comment

On March 6, 2020, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that, on its own, a Red Notice may be sufficient to prevent an asylum claim or a withholding of removal claim from being heard.

Specifically, the DOJ said that “An Interpol Red Notice may constitute reliable evidence that indicates the serious nonpolitical crime bar for asylum and withholding of removal applies to an alien.”

Background

The DOJ made this ruling in response to an asylum case for a citizen of El Salvador who entered the U.S. in 2012. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed him in removal proceedings and asserted that he was removeable under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2018), as an alien who is present in the United States without admission or parole.

According to the DOJ, “He conceded removability and applied for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A) and 1231(b)(3)(A) (2018), and for protection under the Convention Against Torture.”

On July 10, 2018, the DHS submitted an Interpol Red Notice, explaining that the Magistrates Court of San Salvador issued a warrant on March 31, 2016 for the respondent’s arrest regarding participation in an “illicit organization.” This alleged act is considered a violation of article 345 of the Salvadoran Penal Code.

The Red Notice indicates that, according to an investigation conducted in 2010, the respondent is a “hit man,” for the MS-13 gang. The Immigration Judge found that there are serious reasons to believe the respondent had committed a serious nonpolitical crime prior to his entry into the United States.

The respondent argued that the Red Notice does not have any probative value because the notice is insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest in the U.S. under the Fourth Amendment and, as a result, does not have any probative value. However, the DOJ explains that a Red Notice “is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today.”

The Immigration Judge found the Red Notice to be reliable as a request by El Salvador to provisionally arrest the respondent pending extradition based on a valid national arrest warrant for a crime that is not political in nature. Additionally, the DOJ found that the DHS has met its burden to show that the serious nonpolitical crime bar may apply to the respondent pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(d)(2) and 1240.8(d).

The onus was placed on the respondent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the serious nonpolitical crime bar does not apply. The respondent then submitted a letter from an attorney in El Salvador that explain the charges stemming from this incident were dismissed in October 2018. However, the Immigration Judge found this letter was not enough to show that the criminal charges had been dismissed. In other words, the judge found that the respondent did not meet his burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the serious nonpolitical crime statutory bar does not apply to him.

In addition, the judge noted that the respondent did not submit official court documents regarding these criminal charges. As a result, the judge found that the Red Notice was still active and trustworthy.

In sum, given that an alien is barred from obtaining asylum and withholding of removal when “there are serious reasons for believing that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime” before arriving in the U.S., this Red Notice was ruled sufficient to prevent asylum from being granted.

Significance

The decision illustrates the importance of supplying court documents beyond lawyer statements to immigration officials in order to prove that a Red Notice was improperly issued or is invalid.

According to Michelle Estlund, a criminal defense attorney, “The court…held that an applicant has the burden of showing that the Red Notice is not the type of evidence referenced above, once the government has asserted it as such. In order to meet that burden, an applicant would do well to submit a court order substantiating his claim whenever possible. Obviously, it can be quite difficult to obtain court documents in some jurisdictions; when that is the case, the court must be informed of that fact.”

Estlund makes a notable point. In fact, if the respondent had been able to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the serious nonpolitical crime statutory bar does not apply to him, the ruling could have been different.

International Crackdown Leads to the Confiscation of 19,000 Artifacts and 101 Arrests

May 11, 2020 by Alexandra Haris Leave a Comment

On May 6, 2020, INTERPOL announced that more than 19,000 artifacts and other artworks (including a Colombian gold mask, a carved Romanian lion, and thousands of ancient coins) had been recovered during two operations. These operations, Athena II and Pandora IV, included INTERPOL, Europol, and the World Customs Organization (WCO) and spanned 103 countries to focus on the dismantlement of international criminal networks of art and antiquities traffickers.

In total, the joint initiatives, which ran in the fall of 2019, lead to 101 arrested suspects and 300 opened investigations. According to INTERPOL’s press release, “The criminal networks handled archaeological goods and artwork looted from war-stricken countries, as well as works stolen from museums and archaeological sites.” The trafficked goods ranged from objects unearthed in excavations, works stolen from museums, and looted paintings. Details of the Athena II and Pandora IV are only being released now due to operational reasons.

Much of the stolen artwork had been looted from Colombia but thousands of other objects were seized by Argentinian, Latvian, and Afghan officials—illustrating just how global and collaborative the operation was.

“Organized crime has many faces,” said Catherine de Bolle, the executive director of Europol, “The trafficking of cultural goods is one of them: it is not a glamorous business run by flamboyant gentlemen forgers, but by international criminal networks. You cannot look at it separately from combating trafficking in drugs and weapons: we know that the same groups are engaged, because it generates big money.”

Indeed, it’s often the case that stolen art can change “owners” and generate a great deal of profit for its illegitimate owners before being recovered by law enforcement. For example, at the height of their power, the Nazis notoriously stole countless art objects from victims of their persecution and auctioned them off afterwards; it’s taken decades for these artworks to be returned to the descendants of their rightful owners.

Similarly, the Ghent Altarpiece, perhaps the most frequently stolen and coveted artwork in world history, has been the target of no less than 13 crimes over the course of its 600-year history. This proves that when artwork is coveted, there is sometimes little that can be done to prevent theft from occurring. However, as evidenced by the success of the recent joint operation between Interpol, Europol and the WCO, sometimes all that’s necessary to achieve justice is a coordinated effort.

Details of the operations

During the operations, law enforcement paid specific attention to the monitoring of online marketplaces and sales sites since the internet is a prominent factor of illicit trade of cultural goods.

In fact, during “cyber patrol week,” the Italian Carabinieri led police and customs experts, Europol, INTERPOL, and WCO in the mapping of active targets in order to develop intelligence packages. This effort resulted in the seizure of 8,670 cultural objects for online sale, representing 28 percent of the total number of artifacts recovered during the international crackdown.

Another highlight occurred when police officers in Spain recovered several rare pre-Colombian objects at Madrid’s Barajas airport. These artifacts included a Tumaco gold mask, gold figurines, and pieces of ancient jewelry. All of the artifacts had been illegally acquired by looting in Colombia.

Nine traffickers were arrested in Spain and Colombian police carried out searches in Bogotá, resulting in the seizure of 242 more pre-Colmbian objects, the largest confiscation in the country’s history.

Additional highlights of the operations were listed in INTERPOL’s press release:

Afghan Customs seized 971 cultural objects at Kabul airport just as the objects were about to depart for Istanbul, Turkey.
The investigation of a single case of online sale led to the seizure of 2,500 ancient coins by the Argentinian Federal Police Force (Policia Federal Argentina), the largest seizure for this category of items, while the second largest seizure was made by Latvian State Police (Latvijas Valsts Policija) for a total of 1,375 coins.
Six European Police forces reported the seizure of 108 metal detectors, demonstrating that looting in Europe is still an ongoing business.

INTERPOL Secretary General Jürgen Stock said, “The number of arrests and objects show the scale and global reach of the illicit trade in cultural artefacts, where every country with a rich heritage is a potential target.” The INTERPOL Chief added, “If you then take the significant amounts of money involved and the secrecy of the transactions, this also presents opportunities for money laundering and fraud as well as financing organized crime networks.”

These operations were the second time that INTERPOL, Europol, and WCO have come together to tackle the illicit trade in cultural heritage. The three organizations also jointly ran a 24-hour Operational Coordination Unit (OCU) that carried out checks against various international and national databases.