A Red Notice accused the applicant of forgery in connection with a high-value commercial transaction. It never explained what he personally was supposed to have done, and its dates contradicted the national charge sheet: the notice gave a seven-year window, the charge sheet a two-year one. The data were deleted for want of a clear description and for inaccuracy.
The defect
Under INTERPOL’s rules a notice must supply facts that link the wanted individual to the charge and a clear description of the criminal activities alleged. The description has to be concrete: the person’s role, the specific acts, the timing and the means. Separately, data in the system must be accurate and up to date.
This notice failed both requirements at once, and the failures were demonstrable from the documents the requesting bureau itself supplied.
The argument that carried the case
- He had no authority to act for either company involved in the transaction, and produced the registration records to show it.
- The notice described a scheme and named him among those involved, without stating what he was said to have done himself.
- The period of the alleged offence differed between the notice and the national charge sheet — a seven-year span in one and roughly two years in the other.
- The bureau supplied a one-page arrest warrant and a charge sheet directed at a co-accused, in which the applicant appeared only as a name in a list.
What the Commission decided
The Commission recalled the requirements: sufficient facts linking the individual to the charge, a clear description of the criminal activities, and data that are accurate, relevant, not excessive and up to date. It repeated that it does not investigate, weigh evidence or decide the merits — that belongs to the national courts. Judged against the rules, the material did not meet the standard, and the data were deleted.
What this case shows
- Compare the notice with the national file line by line. Dates, the period of the offence, the list of accused and the description of roles are all checkable, and discrepancies are concrete rather than argumentative.
- Being named among co-accused is not a description. If the file describes what others did and only lists you, that is the defect.
- Corporate records do real work. Registration documents showing you held no authority to act are objective and hard to answer.
- Thin supporting material tells its own story. A single-page warrant and a charge sheet aimed at someone else invited the conclusion the Commission reached.
From one of our own files. Company names, the courts and all personal names have been removed. What is set out is the defect the Commission acted on.
If you are one of several accused, obtain the charge sheet and set it against the notice. Differences in dates, in the description of roles and in who is alleged to have done what are the most productive place to start, and they can be checked without arguing about guilt. Send us both documents if you have them.
Descriptions and inaccuracies
What counts as a clear description?
One that states your role, the specific acts attributed to you, when they occurred and by what means. A charge label, or an account of a scheme in which you are merely named, does not meet it.
The dates in my notice are wrong. Is that enough on its own?
Rarely on its own, but it is powerful in combination. Inaccuracy is a separate requirement under the rules, and a discrepancy with the national file also casts doubt on the care taken over the rest.
How do I obtain the national charge sheet if I am abroad?
Usually through local defence counsel, who can obtain the case file. Where co-accused are being tried, their proceedings may also be a route to the same documents.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.