Konstantina Zivla[1]
Between 2008 and 2019, despite Epstein’s transcontinental travel via private jet to Paris, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, no Red Notice was ever issued.[2] Public discourse surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s decades of international mobility has long been dominated by conspiracy theories, suggesting that intelligence agencies across the globe conspired to protect a convicted sex offender from justice. Although these narratives capture the public imagination, they often obscure a far more banal reality. A forensic audit of Department of Justice (“DOJ”) records[3] reveals that Epstein’s “immunity” was not the product of a coordinated silence by powerful actors, but rather the result of a self-inflicted systemic void. This void was created by a singular legal instrument: the 2008 Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”).[4] This Agreement extinguished the legal basis needed for international law-enforcement cooperation (and therefore, INTERPOL’s involvement).
To grasp the magnitude of this failure, one must first dismantle the misconception surrounding INTERPOL and its Red Notice system. Contrary to popular belief, INTERPOL is not a supranational police force possessing independent investigative or coercive powers.[5] It holds no authority to compel sovereign states to investigate, arrest, or prosecute individuals within their own borders. Its mandate is strictly coordinative, serving merely as a secure communication hub for the 196 member countries’ National Central Bureaus (“NCBs”). Each NCB has the authority to request that the INTERPOL General Secretariat issue a Red Notice.
The Red Notice is the cornerstone of international fugitive apprehension.[6] Although it is considered an “international instrument”, its issuance requires a domestic legal foundation, typically: (a) an active arrest warrant; (b) a pending criminal prosecution ; (c) a conviction where the individual is still at large.[7] Absent these conditions, INTERPOL cannot independently initiate proceedings. Its Notices’ system is triggered only by valid domestic judicial orders.[8]
Consequently, the inquiry into why Epstein evaded capture does not begin with a question of whether the NCB of the US or INTERPOL itself failed to act, but rather with whether the requisite legal conditions for its activation ever existed.
The pivot point of this inquiry is the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPO”) itself.[9] The 2008 NPA between the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein terminated all federal prosecutorial activity regarding conduct that had previously attracted significant scrutiny from the FBI (e.g. conspiracy, interstate enticement, child sex trafficking, etc.).[10] Although Epstein pleaded guilty to state-level solicitation charges, the federal case was legally extinguished.[11] Therefore, under U.S. Federal Law, Epstein ceased to be a fugitive from Federal Justice. He became a convicted offender fulfilling a state-mandated sentence. Because the DOJ closed its federal file, there was no active warrant and no open investigation to serve as the predicate for a Red Notice request. In essence, the United States could not trigger the Red Notice mechanism because, de jure, the federal government held no outstanding claim against Epstein.
Yet this limitation extends beyond Red Notices alone. Would Epstein’s Tier III SORNA listing generate international awareness? The answer is no – absent a Green Notice, such data remained domestically contained due to the absence of an automatic bridge between state registries and INTERPOL. A Green Notice an international alert used by law enforcement to warn other countries about a person’s criminal activities It is used when an individual is suspected of committing crimes across multiple borders and is seen as a possible threat to public safety. Though his high-risk classification could theoretically trigger a Green Notice, none has been verified. And crucially, under Article 89(1) of the RPD, even a valid Green Notice serves only to warn member states, enabling (and not obliging) screening or entry denial.[12]
These findings dismantle the “shadow mastermind” theory. What emerged instead was a “Swiss cheese” enforcement framework: structural holes in jurisdiction created “immunity” at the federal level. The 2008 NPA closed the federal avenue and extinguished the Red Notice trigger. What Epstein’s trajectory proves is that when federal/national power is voluntarily withdrawn, international mechanisms, such as INTERPOL, simply have nothing to seize onto. This supports the conclusion that INTERPOL’s role is strictly cooperative, never obligatory. Its notices function not as binding mandates on states, but merely as alerts, leaving the ultimate decision regarding enforcement entirely within the discretion of each sovereign jurisdiction.
[1] Konstantina Zivla is an International Criminal Lawyer, specialised in INTERPOL law and procedures, cross-border data protection, and procedural fairness in international police cooperation.
[2] CNN, “Epstein’s island: Inside the Caribbean fiefdom where he wooed the wealthy and abused girls”, 13 March 2026, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/13/us/jeffrey-epstein-little-st-james-island-invs-vis (Accessed 24 June 2026).
[3] DOJ Disclosures https://www.justice.gov/epstein/doj-disclosures.
[4] Original NPA Document (Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement.
[5] INTERPOL, “Who We Are”, https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/What-is-INTERPOL.
[6] INTERPOL, “About Notices”, https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices.
[7] Under Art. 83 of the INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (“RPD”).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Original NPA Document (Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement.
[10] Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.).
[11] OPR Full Epstein Report, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26440221-opr-full-epstein-report/.
[12] More about Green Notices, at INTERPOL’s website https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices.
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.