INTERPOL’s Recent Decision Gives Hope to Those Falsely Accused of Tax Evasion and Other Financial Crimes
In one of its recently published decision excerpts, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files considers a complaint filed by a business executive accused of fraud. In this case, the Commission ruled that the Red Notice at the center of the complaint must be deleted from INTERPOL’s files because it violated Article 83(2)(b)(i) of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD). Under Article 83(2)(b)(i) of the RPD, a Red Notice must include a “summary of facts of the case which shall provide a succinct and clear description of the criminal activities of the wanted person, including the time and location of the alleged criminal activity.” In its rulings over the years, the Commission has interpreted these provisions to mean that a country-source of data must produce information that is “concrete and specific in the sense that it must clearly identify the role of the [individual], her specific criminal actions, the time and the means to commit the infraction,” that such information “should be precise, detailed and demonstrate, when relevant, a benefit or the intention to commit the offence.”
In this case, the Commission reasoned that the criminal charge on which the Red Notice was based, “falsely issuing exclusive value-added tax invoices,” was “defined under the relevant criminal law provisions submitted by the NCB . . ., but could be considered to be an offence of an administrative or civil nature rather than of a criminal nature.” In this regard, the Commission requested that the country-source of data “provide additional elements which would highlight the possible effective participation of the [individual] to a serious ordinary-law crime.” The Commission asked the country-source of data “specific questions, including whether the individual personally benefited from the fraud, or how the sums of [xxx] million of price tax, [Company 1] earnings of [xxx] million of commission charges, and [Company 2] illegal deductions of [xxx] millions of taxes were calculated and arrived at” (emphasis added). The Commission received “no specific answer from [the country-source of data] on these issues” and concluded that the “information available [could not] be considered as sufficient to demonstrate any criminal act, criminal intent, or personal benefit, and consequently d[id] not satisfy the requirements of Article 83 of the RPD which call for a clear description of the criminal activities of the wanted person.”
This case is extremely important because in it the Commission has demonstrated its willingness to consider evidence that often requires specialized knowledge. Evidence in tax evasion and other financial crime matters is often highly complicated and requires expertise in national finance and tax laws as well as in accounting. It remains unclear how far the Commission is prepared to go in its consideration of such information. It is fair to assume that the extent of the Commission’s study depends on the circumstances of a particular case and on the Commission’s limited resources. Nevertheless, the Commission’s willingness to consider evidence on which the accusations of tax evasion and other financial crimes is often based gives hope to the victims of INTERPOL abuse falsely accused of such crimes.
