He said the diffusion against him was engineered to keep him out of an auction that local officials wanted to control themselves. The bureau answered with detailed evidence — confessions, convicted accomplices, a documented scheme — and won on the merits. It then refused him any information at all, citing internal classification rules that do not apply to this procedure. That refusal, not the case itself, is what put the data at risk.
A well-evidenced case on the merits
He argued the diffusion existed to block him from an auction, pointing to former business partners arrested days beforehand who then gave testimony against a prosecutor known for anti-corruption work, apparently to secure their own release. The requesting bureau answered with specifics: convicted accomplices who had fully confessed without any release deal, witness testimony describing a scheme to defraud a victim through dummy companies, and evidence of unlicensed banking activity generating substantial proceeds over time. His lawyer had been kept informed throughout, and had access to the accomplices’ testimony.
On the merits, this was a strong file for the requesting state. The Commission found the description of criminal activity sufficient, the arrest warrant properly obtained with the applicant’s lawyer present at the hearing, and no political motivation established beyond general, undocumented assertions about a business dispute with local officials.
Where the case actually went wrong
The problem was entirely procedural, and it is a lesson worth extracting on its own. Asked to disclose even minimal information to the applicant, the bureau invoked its own internal data-classification framework — distinguishing “official use,” “restricted” and “confidential” categories, and citing rules that permit disclosure to third parties only with the source’s consent or in genuine emergencies.
- The Commission held that this framework, real as it is for ordinary police cooperation, is not the standard that applies once an individual has brought a request before it — that request is governed by the Commission’s own Statute.
- Under the Statute, a bureau seeking to restrict disclosure must do three specific things: name which of the listed reasons applies (security, an ongoing investigation, or the rights of the applicant or third parties), justify that reason on the actual facts of the case, and state whether even a minimum of information could be shared instead.
- Citing an internal classification scheme, without doing any of those three things, does not meet that standard.
- Because the restriction was not properly justified, the Commission conditioned its finding that the data were otherwise compliant: they would be deleted unless the bureau provided appropriate reasons and justification for its refusal to disclose.
What this decision teaches
- Winning on the merits does not protect a bureau that refuses to explain its secrecy properly. A strong evidentiary case can still be undone by an unjustified blanket refusal to disclose.
- Internal police classification rules are not the same as the Commission’s disclosure standard. A bureau must engage with the Statute’s specific three-step test, not its own domestic confidentiality framework.
- Ask, specifically, for the three things the Statute requires: the named reason for restriction, the justification tied to your case, and whether a partial disclosure is possible.
- A conditional deletion order is a real deadline, not a formality. Where compliance depends on the bureau properly justifying its secrecy, failing to do so converts an otherwise winning file into a deleted one.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2018-12 · 2018 · Diffusion · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If a bureau has refused to disclose anything to you by pointing only to its own internal confidentiality rules, that refusal likely does not meet the specific test the Commission actually applies. Send us the refusal you received and we will tell you whether it holds up.
When a bureau’s refusal to disclose is the problem
The evidence against me looks strong. Can I still win on disclosure grounds?
Yes, where the bureau’s refusal to share any information does not meet the Commission’s own three-part test — naming a specific reason, justifying it on the facts, and addressing partial disclosure — even a well-evidenced case can result in deletion unless that is fixed.
Is it enough for a bureau to cite its national confidentiality classification system?
No. The Commission has held that its own Statute, not a bureau’s internal data-classification rules, governs disclosure once an individual request is before it.
What exactly must a bureau show to justify withholding information from me?
It must identify which permitted reason applies, explain why that reason fits the specific facts of the case, and say whether at least some information — a summary, for instance — could be shared instead.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.