Five separate convictions for bad cheques, all handed down in his absence, and he argued none of it should count: his whereabouts were known so the notices served no purpose, uttering a cheque is a civil matter everywhere, and he was never given a chance to defend himself. All three arguments failed, and the reasoning shows exactly where each one runs out.
Purpose: known location is not achieved purpose
He argued his location in another country was already known to the prosecuting authorities, so the notices had achieved everything they could. The Commission repeated the settled distinction: a notice exists not only to locate a person but to obtain their arrest with a view to extradition, and a known location does not by itself satisfy that second purpose. What mattered was that the requesting bureau had genuinely tried to secure cooperation from the country where he was thought to be, and had been rebuffed — a rebuff attributable to the other country, not to any lack of effort on the requesting bureau’s part.
The cheque threshold, and the exception that saved it
Cases built on unfunded cheques appear repeatedly in this catalogue, usually failing for lack of dual criminality: many legal systems treat inability to pay as a civil matter, not a crime, which limits the practical value of international cooperation on such charges. Here the Commission applied that same reservation but found it overcome by a specific fact — the applicant faced five separate convictions across different cases, involving significant sums, which together suggested a deliberate pattern rather than an isolated failed payment. Repetition across multiple cases, in other words, converted what might otherwise be a weak commercial-dispute argument into something closer to an organised scheme.
In absentia, five times over
His strongest-sounding argument was that he had never been notified and was tried without any chance to defend himself, in all five cases. The bureau answered that he had fled and absconded, that notice had been properly given under national law, and — critically — that he retained the right to appeal each in-absentia judgment upon surrender, obtain a fresh determination on the merits, and be assisted by counsel of his own choosing throughout.
- The Commission does not sit as an appellate court reviewing how a domestic trial was conducted; it asks whether the applicant has convincingly demonstrated the likelihood of a flagrant denial of due process.
- Copies of all five court decisions were sufficient to show possible effective personal participation, proper implementation of national procedure, and the availability of a fresh trial in his presence.
- A guaranteed retrial with a lawyer of his choosing was, on these facts, enough to answer the in-absentia complaint — the door back into the process had not been closed.
What this decision teaches
- A cheque case is not automatically weak. Repetition across several convictions and significant sums can overcome the ordinary reservations about dual criminality that usually protect against this kind of notice.
- Known location answers only half the purpose test. The other half — a genuine attempt to secure arrest and extradition — has to be shown separately, and a rebuffed request counts as an attempt, not a failure.
- A guaranteed retrial defeats most in-absentia complaints. Where the file shows the door back into the process stays open, the due-process argument rarely succeeds on its own.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2018-02 · 2018 · Red Notice · data maintained. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your notice rests on multiple cheque or debt convictions, the number of cases and their combined value matter more than any single one in isolation. Send us the full list of cases behind your notice and we will tell you how the pattern reads.
Multiple convictions and in-absentia trials
Does having several unpaid-cheque cases make things worse than having one?
It can, counterintuitively, for the purposes of this challenge. A pattern across several cases and significant sums has been read as suggesting an organised scheme rather than an isolated commercial failure, which defeats the usual dual-criminality objection.
I was convicted in my absence in every case. Is that automatically a violation?
No. Where the file shows you retain the right to a full retrial, with counsel of your choosing, upon surrender, the Commission has treated that guarantee as answering the complaint.
The authorities know exactly where I live. Does that end the case?
Not on its own. The purpose of an arrest notice also includes seeking your arrest with a view to extradition, and a state that has tried and been refused cooperation elsewhere has not failed that test.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.