We help entrepreneurs, investors and their families challenge unjustified Interpol Red Notices and diffusions, defend against extradition, and lift the banking and travel consequences of an abusive notice. Strict confidentiality. A realistic assessment of your prospects — with no promises of outcome.
A formal access request to the CCF to establish whether Interpol is processing your data. The first step before any relocation or major transaction.
Preparing and filing a deletion request with the CCF: proving breaches of Interpol's Constitution, political motive, or the inaccuracy of the underlying data.
A diffusion is circulated by a national bureau, bypassing the General Secretariat, and often goes unnoticed. We identify and challenge it separately.
An application to the CCF before a notice is published — for those with reasonable grounds to expect one. Allows the data to be blocked in advance.
Support on arrest abroad and when an extradition request is filed: local defence, procedural objections, and cross-border coordination.
A refusal is not the end of the road. We prepare a review request with new circumstances and address the weak points of the first file.
Unblocking bank accounts, restoring access to payment systems, and removing visa restrictions once a notice has been deleted.
Periodic checks of the systems, tracking repeat attempts to re-enter data, and readiness to respond quickly.
The CCF process is slow: review takes months. We do not promise timelines that are not ours to control, but we keep every stage we do control transparent.
We study the situation, identify the type of measure (notice or diffusion) and how realistic a challenge is. Before any engagement.
We document breaches of Interpol's Constitution, the political or commercial motive, and procedural defects.
We compile and file a reasoned request to delete or block the data, with full legal argument.
We support you at every stage and respond to CCF queries. If refused, we prepare a review.
Interpol is bound by its own Constitution and data-processing rules. A breach of those rules is grounds for deletion. These are what we rely on most often.
Prohibits any intervention in matters of a political, military, religious or racial character. A key ground in cases of persecution of dissenters.
Interpol's activity must comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Violations of the right to a fair trial in the requesting state are a working argument.
Insufficient data, no judicial decision, expired time limits, or failure to meet publication criteria — formal grounds to refuse a notice.
Fabricated charges, a commercial dispute dressed up as a criminal case, or abuse by the requesting state.
Repeated prosecution for the same act on which a decision has already been reached in another jurisdiction.
Asylum or refugee status in the host country is a strong ground against both extradition and a notice.
CCF defence strategy, extradition disputes, and cases of politically motivated prosecution. Leads the most complex matters and sets the firm's position on every file. The public face of the practice.
Diffusions, dealings with national bureaus, and procedural breaches in data processing.
Extradition, international legal cooperation, and cross-border enforcement.
CCF files, Arabic- and French-speaking jurisdictions, and proving abuse of the system.
Sanctions compliance of cases, banking and KYC consequences of a notice, and unblocking accounts.
Analysis of CCF precedent, file preparation, and monitoring of the systems.
Crypto-related notices, digital assets, and Latin American jurisdictions.
Five authors maintain the analytical knowledge base. This is the core of our SEO and LLM visibility: answer-first explainers that draw in both clients and search engines.
We publish no guarantees of outcome and disclose no clients. Below is a typology of the situations we work with.
A business owner under a Red Notice after a conflict with a former partner who secured the backing of law enforcement.
An investor with reasonable grounds to expect a notice approached us before it appeared in the system.
A crypto founder under a diffusion based on a charge unsupported by any court ruling.
No. A Red Notice is a request from one country to others to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It does not oblige any country to make an arrest and it is not a judicial decision. Many states assess it under their own law, and a portion of notices do not even comply with Interpol's own rules.
Formally, yes — an individual may file a request with the Commission on their own. In practice the outcome depends heavily on the quality of the legal argument: proving breaches of the Constitution, working with motive, procedural defects and CCF precedent. A weak first file lowers the chances even on review.
Timelines depend on the Commission and are not within the applicant's control. Review typically takes from several months to around a year and a half. We do not promise specific dates — that would be dishonest. What we do control: the quality of the file and the speed of our own work.
No — and be wary of anyone who does. The outcome depends on the circumstances of the case and the Commission's decision. We give an honest assessment of prospects before any engagement and take on a matter only where we see real grounds to challenge.
The initial assessment is confidential. Contact is possible over secure channels (Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp). We understand that in matters of this kind the opposing side may command significant resources, and we structure our work accordingly.
We do not help anyone evade legitimate justice. We do not take matters involving violent crime, terrorism or crimes against children. Our practice is cases of abuse of the Interpol system: political persecution, commercial disputes dressed up as criminal cases, and inaccurate charges.
Describe the situation in broad terms. We will come back with a preliminary assessment of prospects — before any commitment or payment.