Legal Competence of Lawyer BOYCHENKO Yegor

It is important to seek the assistance of a qualified lawyer with relevant experience before contacting the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files and submitting the relevant request.

Lawyer BOYCHENKO Yegor has successful experience in removing the INTERPOL’s notices and diffusions and provides the following services in dealing with the police international organization INTERPOL and the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files:

• Preparation and submission of requests for access to the data about the applicant in the INTERPOL’s database;
• Preparation and submission of requests for deletion and correction of the data in the INTERPOL’s database, including removal of red, blue, yellow notices and diffusions;
• Preparation and submission of requests for temporary suspension of the international search notice and diffusion;
• Preparation and submission of requests for revision of the Commission’s refusal to delete or correct the data;
• Preparation and submission of preventive requests.
• In the event of extradition proceedings from the States of the European Union - preparation of the expert reports about the violations of the national law and human rights and freedoms in the criminal proceedings in the State of Eastern Europe requesting extradition.

Law company of BOYCHENKO Yegor has successful cases dealing with removal of the applicants from the INTERPOL database by filing requests for deletion of the data and requests for revision of the Commission’s decisions as well as prevention of the applicant’s data to be included into the INTERPOL’s database by filing the preventive requests against countries of Europe (Norway, Russia, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Belarus), Asia (Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) and Latin America (Peru).

The main objective of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL - INTERPOL) is to record international criminal information, to combine the efforts of national law enforcement agencies of the member states in the fight against crime, and to coordinate the international search. INTERPOL has its headquarters in Lyon, France.

The structure of the law-enforcement agencies of each state - member of the INTERPOL includes a National Central Bureau (NCB) – an authority responsible for cooperation with the NCBs of other member states and the General Secretariat of the INTERPOL.

Based on requests and documents of the investigation authorities, the NCB submits to the INTERPOL requests for recording in the INTERPOL Information System the data about the international search of a specific person. After the INTERPOL General Secretariat agrees to the data processing, the data about the person is recorded and processed in the INTERPOL database with the assignment and publication of a specific notice of the international search. The INTERPOL General Secretariat may also record and process the information about the search of a person in its database on its own initiative.

It should be noted that although the INTERPOL bodies have the authority to verify the information provided by the NCB before recording and processing the information in its database, it is presumed that the information provided by the NCB is accurate, sufficient and relevant to be recorded and processed in the INTERPOL database. Using this presumption, some NCBs misuse the INTERPOL system to prosecute individuals not for the purposes foreseen and permitted by the Organization, for example, with the purpose to exert pressure on individuals through criminal prosecution and international search for political or religious reasons.

INTERPOL Notices

INTERPOL uses nine types of notices, of which seven types of notices have particular colours, i.e.:

1. red notice: to seek location and arrest of a person with a view to his/her extradition;
2. blue notice: to locate or obtain information regarding a person of interest in a criminal investigation (accused, convict, victim, witness);
3. green notice: to warn about person’s criminal activities if that person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety;
4. yellow notice: to locate a missing person or to identify a person unable to identify him/herself;
5. purple notice: to warn about modi operandi, objects, devices or concealment methods used by offenders or to request information on offences to resolve them or assist in their investigation;
6. black notice: to seek information on unidentified bodies;
7. orange notice: to warn of an event, a person, an object, a process or a modus operandi representing an imminent threat to public safety and danger to persons or property;
8. Interpol-United Nations Security Council special notice: to inform INTERPOL's members that an individual or an entity is subject to UN sanctions;
9. Stolen work of art notices.

NEWS. In January 2025 INTERPOL published its first-ever Silver Notice upon the request of Italy. Silver notice is devoted to the tracing and recovery of assets. It is being launched as part of a pilot phase involving 52 countries and territories, which will run at least until November 2025. Through Silver Notices and Diffusions, member countries can request information on assets linked to a person’s criminal activities such as fraud, corruption, drug trafficking, environmental crime and other serious offenses. Its aim is to facilitate locating, identifying, and obtaining information about laundered assets including properties, vehicles, financial accounts and businesses. Countries may subsequently use such information as a basis for bilateral engagement, including bilateral requests for seizure, confiscation or recovery of assets, subject to national laws.

Other than notices, the member states often use a diffusion for the same purposes as notices. The main difference between the diffusion and the notice is that a diffusion if a request for international cooperation, which is sent to the states at the choice of the NCB of the requesting state and so only the states indicated by the requesting state can see the request for the person’s search in their databases. In practice, the INTERPOL puts less stringent requirements for recording diffusions in its database than those for issuing a notice.

Consequences of issuing a notice or a diffusion

If a notice or a diffusion has been issued and processed in the INTERPOL database with respect to a person with a purpose of his/her arrest and extradition, then that person risks being arrested at the border, when receiving / renewing documents in the official bodies, or in other circumstances when information about the location of the wanted person is identified. From this moment, the extradition procedure of the person to the requesting state is launched.

Challenging the international search before the INTERPOL

The structure of the INTERPOL bodies, in addition to the General Secretariat, the General Assembly and the Executive Committee, includes the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (the Commission). This is a special body in the structure of the INTERPOL guided in its work by the new Statute, which entered into force on 11 March 2017. The Commission is vested with competency to verify that the data regarding the wanted person has been recorded and is processed in the INTERPOL database in accordance with the requirements of the Organization.

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, namely its Requests Chamber, is responsible for examination of individual requests for access to data, for deletion and correction of the data processed in the INTERPOL Information System regarding the persons subject to international search and INTERPOL’s notices, including a red notice or a diffusion.

The Commission holds its sessions, in general, four times per year, at which it takes decisions on deletion or correction of the data in the INTERPOL database. The Commission may also take decisions between the sessions, this mainly concerns decisions on providing access to data.

Deadlines for taking the decision by the Commission:

• requests for access to data, i.e. receiving information about whether a person is in the INTERPOL database and on what basis, - officially within 4 months (in practice, the terms are shorter) starting from the date these requests have been declared admissible
• requests for deletion or correction of the data – within 9 months (in fact around one year) starting from the date these requests have been declared admissible.

The request should be filed to the Commission in one of the INTERPOL’s working languages (English, French, Spanish or Arabic) accompanied with the relevant documents also translated into one of the INTERPOL’s official languages. The form and content of the request are subject to special admissibility requirements, failure to comply with which will lead to the dismissal of the request by the Commission on formal grounds. The Commission shall decide on the admissibility of the request within one month from the date of its receipt.

If the Commission rejects the request for deletion or correction of the data regarding the applicant, there is a mechanism for revision of the Commission's decision subject to availability of justifiable grounds and compliance with special requirements for such a revision.

For the period of examination of the request for deletion or correction of the data by the Commission, there is a possibility to request imposition of provisional measures aiming to suspend the validity of / block access to a notice or a diffusion until a final decision on the request is taken by the Commission. Subject to granting such a request for provisional measures by the Commission, the data about the applicant is not visible in the INTERPOL database for the period of the applicability of the interim measures. It should be noted though that the provisional measures are granted in exceptional cases (for example, the applicant’s extradition is imminent).

Preventive request

Even if there is no data about the applicant in the INTERPOL’s database, but s/he has concerns that the official authorities are conducting or may start criminal prosecution against him/her and use the international search through the INTERPOL Information System, it is possible and advisable in such cases to file a preventive request with the Commission. The preventive request is filed with the purpose to ensure that upon receipt of a request from the member state's NCB for the data about the applicant to be recorded and processed in the INTERPOL’s database, the Commission does not presume the lawfulness, reliability and correctness of the submitted information and verifies it on compliance with the Organization’s rules and procedures taking into account the arguments of the preventive request.

It should be noted that the Commission accepts such preventive requests and takes into account the applicant’s arguments if and when it receives the relevant request from the NCB. It may request the applicant to comment on the NCB’s request before deciding whether to grant or refuse the NCB’s request on recording and processing the data about the applicant in the INTERPOL’s Information System.

Practice of Yegor Boychenko Law Firm before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files

Representation of clients before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (the CCF) is one of the most complex and specialized areas of international legal practice.

Successful deletion of notices, Red Notices, diffusions or other data from the INTERPOL Information System requires an in-depth knowledge not only of the INTERPOL Constitution and INTERPOL's Rules on the Processing of Data, but also of international criminal law, extradition law, international human rights law, and the practice of the CCF itself.

Over the years, we have represented entrepreneurs, bank executives, financial professionals, political figures, public organizations, sea captains, creative professionals and private individuals from different parts of the world.

Each case is assessed individually. We do not use standard template applications to the CCF. Each request is based on a detailed analysis of the criminal case file, the legislation of the requesting State, the practice of the CCF and international standards for the protection of fundamental rights.

Representative Cases before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files

Over the years, we have represented clients before the CCF in cases of varying complexity involving the deletion of notices, Red Notices, diffusions and other data from the INTERPOL Information System. In particular, our practice has included cases involving:

• politically motivated criminal prosecutions;
• international commercial and corporate disputes;
• banking and financial offences;
• extradition proceedings;
• family conflicts;
• violations of the right to a fair trial;
• risks of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment;
• cases connected with applications for asylum.

The examples below are based on real cases in which the CCF agreed with our legal position and decided to delete data from the INTERPOL Information System or to apply other protective measures.

Each case had its own specific features. However, they were all connected by one common objective: protecting clients against unjustified international searches, arrest, extradition and other adverse consequences arising from the processing of data in the INTERPOL Information System.

1. Accounting Company and Allegations of Banking Fraud

Our client was the owner and manager of a company providing outsourced accounting services. A diffusion was issued against her for the purpose of arrest and extradition on allegations of fraud connected with a bank loan obtained by one of her company's clients, allegedly on the basis of accounting documents prepared and provided by her company.

Result: On the basis of the arguments set out in our request for deletion of data, the CCF decided to delete the diffusion. The Commission found that the materials did not establish the client's personal involvement in the preparation of the documents, her knowledge of the alleged criminal plan, or her individual and actual participation in the alleged organized criminal group beyond the fact that her company had contractual relations with the relevant business entity.

As an additional ground for deletion, the CCF agreed with our argument that the conduct attributed to the applicant had been classified under a more serious provision of the criminal law than was justified by the factual circumstances of the case, which affected the quality of the data and compliance with due process requirements.

2. President of a Commercial Bank

Our client was the former president of a commercial bank. A Red Notice was published against him on allegations of misappropriation of the bank's funds through the issuance of allegedly fictitious loans to legal entities said to be under his control.

Result: The CCF decided to delete the Red Notice, referring to a number of violations of its rules and procedures. In particular, the Commission found that key elements concerning the applicant's alleged criminal intent and influence on the issuance of the loans were missing from the case file, while the circumstances could also indicate the existence of a private-law contractual dispute. The Commission also noted significant procedural irregularities, including the fact that the competent authorities had requested publication of the Red Notice before the issuance of a valid arrest warrant within the meaning of the CCF's requirements.

3. Commercial Dispute Presented as Criminal Fraud

Our client managed commercial companies involved in the sale and supply of goods in international trade. A diffusion was issued against him for the purpose of arrest and extradition on allegations of fraud against the owner of commercial companies and a supplier of goods.

Result: The CCF found the processing of the data to be non-compliant with INTERPOL's rules and procedures. The Commission noted serious doubts as to whether the applicant's conduct amounted to a criminal offence, since the dispute had arisen in a clearly commercial context, with the parties simultaneously using arbitration and civil proceedings to resolve contractual disputes and recover debts.

The CCF also took into account that the applicant had been deprived of the possibility of obtaining a review of a conviction rendered in his absence, and that the court of the requested State had refused extradition due to insufficient guarantees against torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of extradition and detention.

Following a separate request submitted by our firm, the CCF also decided to delete a diffusion issued to locate and obtain information about our client's spouse, who was a minority shareholder in one of the companies. The Commission found that there were serious doubts as to the genuinely criminal nature of the case and that the materials did not contain sufficient information to clearly identify any specific criminal acts attributable to her.

4. Managers of a Sports Non-Profit Organization

Our client headed a sports non-profit organization, while his spouse, also our client, was the manager and head coach of one of its sports teams. Diffusions were published against both of them for the purpose of arrest and extradition on allegations of large-scale fraud connected with the alleged misappropriation of public funds allocated to the sports organization.

Result: The CCF accepted our arguments concerning the political context of the prosecution, the conditions for processing diffusions and the alleged violations of the applicants' rights in the criminal proceedings. The Commission held that the processing of the diffusions did not comply with INTERPOL's rules and procedures.

In particular, the CCF found that the description of the alleged criminal acts individually attributed to each applicant did not meet the required standards of clarity and coherence. It also noted that the circumstances of the case did not sufficiently demonstrate criminal conduct and rather indicated an administrative dispute. The broader context, including the removal of the applicants from management positions and the subsequent transfer of control over the organization to persons more loyal to the regional political leadership, supported the conclusion that the prosecution had a political dimension.

5. Opposition Political Figure

Throughout his political career, our client had actively participated in regional public life: he took part in local parliamentary elections, worked as an assistant to several deputies and was one of the founders of a regional opposition political movement.

A criminal case was initiated against him and several persons with whom he had carried out political activities. On the basis of that criminal case, a Red Notice was published against him.

Result: The CCF concluded that the publication of the Red Notice violated Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution. The Commission considered that, even if the alleged offence was formally classified as an ordinary-law crime, the case had a predominantly political dimension and the information provided by the National Central Bureau did not meet the requirements of Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution. The Red Notice was deleted.

6. Fabricated Criminal Prosecution on Drug-Related Charges

Our client, a local entrepreneur with critical political views, was accused of drug-related offences after the relevant substances had allegedly been planted on him. A Red Notice was published against him.

After his arrest, he was subjected to coercive questioning, detained, and later forcibly placed in psychiatric institutions. Following his release from a psychiatric institution due to a bureaucratic error, he managed to leave the country and apply for international protection in another State.

Result: We submitted a request for deletion of data while his asylum application was still pending before the competent authorities of the host State. In our request, we argued that the criminal proceedings were carried out in serious breach of national law and fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and security, and the absolute prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The CCF first decided to temporarily block access by INTERPOL member countries to the data concerning our client. Following further review, the Commission decided to delete the Red Notice, agreeing with our arguments concerning violations of procedural guarantees and fundamental human rights, and taking into account confirmation from a third State that the client's asylum application was under examination.

7. International Family Dispute Concerning a Child

A Red Notice was published against our client, while a Yellow Notice was published in respect of her son as a missing person. The publications were based on allegations that our client had abducted her own child and taken him to another State.

The request for deletion of data was submitted while both parents had initiated court proceedings concerning custody and parental rights in the relevant States. The father of the child, unlike our client, had not informed her of the proceedings he had initiated.

Result: The CCF concluded that INTERPOL is not the appropriate mechanism for resolving competing family-law disputes concerning the residence of a child, custody or the exercise of parental rights. The Commission held that such issues fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of national courts and that the continued processing of data concerning our client was not compliant with INTERPOL's rules.

The CCF also decided to delete the Yellow Notice after establishing, on the basis of the materials we submitted, that the child's whereabouts were known both to his father and to the competent public authorities.

8. Maritime Accident

A Red Notice was published against our client, the captain of a sea vessel, in connection with a collision of vessels at sea that resulted in loss of life.

We submitted a request for deletion of data, arguing that our client was not responsible for the incident and drawing the CCF's attention to violations of due process in the criminal proceedings.

Result: The CCF decided to delete the Red Notice, also taking into account the effective refusal of the competent authorities of the requesting State to cooperate with the Commission and respond to its questions.

9. Well-Known Photographer Persecuted on Religious Grounds

Our client, a well-known photographer working in the fashion industry, became the subject of a Red Notice published at the request of a State with a totalitarian religious regime.

In our request for deletion of data, we argued that the criminal prosecution was linked to the applicant's professional activity as a photographer and was motivated by his failure to comply with a religious way of life imposed by the State's official religious doctrine.

Result: We demonstrated that, if returned to the requesting State, the client would face a real risk of torture, the death penalty and denial of a fair trial. The CCF initially decided to block access to the relevant data and subsequently found the Red Notice to be non-compliant with INTERPOL's rules and procedures, taking into account both the arguments submitted and the fact that the client had applied for asylum in a third State, where his application was under consideration.

10. Business Conflict between Former Partners

Our client, an entrepreneur, became the subject of a Red Notice on allegations of large-scale fraud in criminal proceedings initiated following a complaint by his former business partner.

Result: The CCF finally resolved the case in favour of our client, finding that the criminal case materials did not contain a clear and coherent description of the applicant's alleged individual criminal conduct.

The Commission noted that, despite the applicant's detailed explanations and arguments that the investigation file did not make it possible to determine which specific acts on his part were unlawful and how they could have contributed to the alleged offence, the National Central Bureau failed to provide sufficient information confirming the applicant's individual role or specific actions. As a result, the Red Notice was deleted.