He held the title of commercial director, but company records showed someone else held the actual legal signing authority and responsibility for tax matters. The requesting bureau insisted he personally benefited from the alleged tax evasion — and never once addressed the documented evidence that he was not, in fact, the person the law makes responsible for it.
A title, and the documents that complicated it
He had been appointed commercial director of a foreign company’s local branch, but produced an official company registry extract naming a different individual as the branch’s actual legal representative and manager — the person whose signature controlled the company’s activities and who bore responsibility for fiscal matters. He admitted ordering certain fund transfers, but said he did so on instructions from the company’s board abroad, and that responsibility for the branch’s tax position belonged to its actual director and controlling company, not to him.
A legal argument about who can even commit the offence
He raised a specific point of the requesting country’s own law: according to that country’s highest court, only the person actually receiving income from an entrepreneurial activity can be held liable for tax evasion connected to it. He said he received only a salary — not proceeds of the activity itself — and therefore fell outside the category of people who could even be charged with the offence, regardless of what tasks he had carried out on instruction.
- He also produced a business licence he said the company had actually obtained, directly contradicting the allegation that the underlying construction activity was unlicensed.
- He pointed to the arrest warrant’s own language classifying the offence as a “less serious crime,” and to a tax-authority finding that the conduct originated in administrative violations of tax law and government decrees rather than criminal wrongdoing.
- He said officials had told him the charges would be dropped if the amounts owed were repaid — consistent, he argued, with a fundamentally financial and administrative matter rather than a criminal scheme.
A bureau that asserted, but never engaged
The requesting bureau’s answer was confident but conclusory: it stated that his direct participation and personal benefit were clearly described in its charging decision, and separately noted that he was named as the branch director in that decision. What it never did was address the specific documentary evidence he had put forward — the registry extract naming someone else as the actual legal representative and signatory, the licence he said the company held, or the domestic tax authority’s own characterisation of the conduct as administrative.
What this decision teaches
- An operational title is not the same as legal responsibility. Where corporate records identify a different person as the actual legal representative and signatory, that documentary gap is worth pressing specifically.
- A domestic legal rule about who can even be liable for an offence is a serious, checkable argument. If the requesting country’s own courts limit liability to a defined category of person, argue directly whether you fall within it.
- Producing a licence or permit that contradicts the “illegal activity” allegation is concrete evidence a bureau has to answer, not just deny.
- A bureau that repeats its conclusion without addressing your specific documents has not actually met its burden. Confident assertion is not the same as engagement with the evidence you put on the table.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2025-02 · 2025 · Red Notice · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your notice names you by a title while corporate records show someone else held the actual legal authority, that documentary gap is exactly the kind of specific evidence worth pressing. Send us your company records and the notice and we will help you frame the comparison.
Nominal titles versus actual legal responsibility
I held a director title, but someone else was the actual legal signatory. Does that matter?
It can matter significantly. Where official company records identify a different person as the legal representative and signatory responsible for the relevant obligations, that documentary evidence directly challenges an assumption that your title alone made you liable.
Can I argue that a country’s own law limits who can be charged with a tax offence?
Yes, and it can be a strong, specific argument — particularly if you can cite the requesting country’s own case law defining who qualifies for that liability, and show you fall outside it.
Is it enough for a bureau to simply repeat that I personally benefited, without addressing my evidence?
No. Where a bureau asserts personal benefit but never engages with specific documents contradicting that assertion — such as company records or a licence — that gap has been treated as a real failure to meet its burden.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.