A co-accused was described in precise detail — dates, funds, a specific role. He was named mainly because that same co-accused later implicated him, after first omitting him entirely and then invoking the right to silence. The Commission left several of his other complaints unresolved and deleted the data on this narrower point alone: his own role was never described with the same precision.
Two people, one detailed description and one thin one
The requesting bureau’s account of the scheme named a co-accused specifically: particular dates, particular funds received and disposed of, a defined role. When it came to the applicant himself, the file rested on the same general assertion repeated rather than a comparable level of detail — his name appeared, but the specific acts, timing and means attributed to him personally were never set out with the same precision as his co-accused’s.
Why the source of the accusation mattered so much
- The co-accused’s own witness statement, when first given, did not mention the applicant at all.
- She implicated him only later, after having already exercised her right to remain silent in between.
- He also pointed to interrogation records suggesting the disputed funds had actually been transferred to a different individual — the person he said had supplied the forged document at the centre of the case — not to him.
- The bureau’s answer to all of this was general: it asserted that his involvement was confirmed by two victims, two witnesses and other case materials, without engaging with either the timing problem in the co-accused’s statement or the claim that the funds went elsewhere.
The rule the Commission actually applied
A Diffusion requires information that is concrete and specific enough to identify the person’s own role, their specific acts, the timing and the means — precise and detailed, and where relevant showing a benefit or an intention to offend. Measured against that standard, the file described the co-accused’s conduct but not the applicant’s with the same rigour, and the bureau’s response did not close that gap: it restated its position without addressing the two specific points he had raised. That mismatch, on its own, was enough to find the data non-compliant.
What the Commission chose not to decide
This case is also a useful illustration of how narrowly these decisions are sometimes reasoned. The applicant had raised real, substantial arguments about procedure — a search conducted in his absence without a lawyer present, an arrest warrant he said wrongly characterised a pre-emptive medical departure as flight from justice, and a genuine dual-nationality deadlock in which neither country could extradite him nor formally transfer the case to the other. The Commission expressly declined to reach a conclusion on any of that, citing the complexity of the case, and disposed of the matter entirely on the separate, narrower point about the description of his personal role. None of the procedural or purpose arguments were rejected — they were simply never reached.
What this decision teaches
- Compare how you are described against how any co-accused is described in the same file. A stark difference in precision — detailed dates and roles for one person, general assertions for another — is itself a data-quality argument.
- Trace exactly when and how you were first named. A co-accused who omitted you initially and implicated you only later, especially around an exercise of the right to silence, is a timeline worth setting out precisely.
- A specific claim that funds or evidence point to someone else has to be answered specifically. A bureau that responds only with a general assertion that “evidence exists” has not actually engaged with that claim.
- Do not assume every argument you raise was actually decided. Where a case turns on one narrow point, other serious arguments can go unaddressed entirely, which matters if the same notice or a related one is challenged again later.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2023-03 · 2023 · Diffusion · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If a co-accused in your file is described in specific detail while your own role is described only in general terms, that contrast is worth setting out explicitly, alongside exactly when and how you were first named. Send us the file and the co-accused’s statements and we will map the gap precisely.
When a co-accused is described precisely and you are not
Does it matter if the file describes my co-accused’s role in detail but only asserts mine in general terms?
Yes, significantly. The rules require a concrete and specific description of each person’s own role, and a stark contrast in precision between two people in the same file is itself a data-quality argument.
I was only named after a co-accused changed her story. Is that relevant?
It can be very relevant, particularly where the co-accused’s first statement omitted you entirely and named you only later, especially around an invocation of the right to silence in between.
If the Commission does not rule on my procedural arguments, does that mean they failed?
Not necessarily. Where a case is resolved on one narrow ground, the Commission can and does leave other arguments entirely unaddressed rather than rejecting them.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.