You could be listed in INTERPOL's databases without even knowing it — and a single border crossing could change everything. We verify your status across INTERPOL, SIS, and other international databases, strictly through confidential and official legal channels.
We verify your status across INTERPOL notices and diffusions, regional law enforcement databases, and private risk intelligence systems — and act immediately if a listing is found. National Police Databases are checked as part of every verification.
May result in detention at border crossings and indirect complications with banking and visa applications, subject to each country's domestic law.
What it is
Issued when a country requests that INTERPOL member states locate and provisionally arrest a person suspected or convicted of a serious criminal offence, pending extradition proceedings. A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant — it is a request each member country evaluates according to its own laws.
May prompt national authorities in member states to gather information on a person's movements and contacts. May precede a Red Notice.
What it is
Issued to collect information about a person's identity, location, or activities in connection with a criminal investigation.
May prompt border authorities to report a person's location or movement. In parental abduction cases, may be issued alongside other enforcement mechanisms.
What it is
Issued to help locate missing persons, including in cross-border parental abduction cases (to locate the missing child). In parental abduction cases, the removing parent is typically subject to separate criminal proceedings.
Depending on the type of alert, a SIS entry can result in detention, refusal of entry, or seizure of travel documents at any Schengen border.
What it is
A shared alert database used by 27 European countries at all border crossings.
Detention upon entry to any participating CIS member state. Extradition may proceed under bilateral CIS agreements without a parallel INTERPOL notice.
What it is
A law enforcement database covering Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and other former Soviet states participating in CIS cooperation mechanisms.
May lead to rejected transactions, frozen accounts, or denied access to financial services — often without any formal legal proceedings.
What it is
Private risk intelligence databases used by banks and compliance departments worldwide. Individuals have the right to challenge and correct inaccurate entries under applicable data protection law, including GDPR.
* The information provided is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The feasibility of removing a record and the consequences of its existence depend on the specific circumstances of the case, the laws of the requesting country, and the policies of the relevant state authority or financial institution.
Actual cases handled by our attorneys — all outcomes verified by CCF Commission decisions — names and jurisdictions withheld per INTERPOL confidentiality rules
Our client was placed on INTERPOL's wanted list while the investigation was still at an early stage — no formal charges had been filed, and no extradition request had been made. The authorities were attempting to use a mutual legal assistance treaty, an instrument with a completely different purpose.
Our attorneys argued before the CCF that the Red Notice was premature and legally unfounded under RPD Art. 83 and 84. The Commission accepted the argument in full and recommended deletion of all data from INTERPOL's files.
Our client, a company representative, was wanted in connection with a post-dated cheque signed within a contractual arrangement. When the commercial relationship broke down, the other party filed a criminal complaint — bypassing standard dispute resolution entirely.
Our attorneys demonstrated to the CCF that the conduct was a private commercial dispute, not a criminal act, and that the NCB had provided no evidence of fraudulent intent. The Commission ordered full deletion under RPD Art. 83.1.
Following a change of power in his home country, our client — a prominent opposition politician — became the subject of criminal proceedings and an INTERPOL Red Notice. The timing and context pointed strongly to political motivation rather than genuine law enforcement.
Our lawyers assembled decisions from courts in multiple countries and international bodies confirming the political character of linked prosecutions. The Commission found political elements dominant and ordered full deletion.
Our client, a former minister and MP, was the subject of a Red Notice based almost entirely on a co-accused's confession that had been officially withdrawn — with a detailed account of the torture used to extract it. The NCB itself acknowledged cross-examination was impossible.
Our attorneys argued that evidence obtained under torture cannot form a valid basis for an INTERPOL notice. The Commission ordered full deletion — a rare and significant finding on the inadmissibility of torture-derived evidence before INTERPOL.
Our client held refugee status precisely because his home country's prosecution was recognised as politically motivated. The requesting NCB nonetheless used INTERPOL channels and imposed absolute restrictions on information disclosure, preventing any effective challenge.
Our lawyers contested both the information restrictions and the substance of the notice. The Commission found the restrictions unjustified and ordered full deletion.
Our client suffered from severe chronic lung disease and haematological complications. A court had refused extradition after medical experts testified that any form of transport — by air, road, or sea — carried a high probability of causing irreversible harm to his health.
Our attorneys argued before the CCF that this refusal was grounded in fundamental human rights under ECHR Article 3, not procedure. The Commission agreed and ordered the Red Notice deleted.
Our client was wanted for alleged large-scale fraud. He held refugee status on religious and political grounds. A court had refused his extradition citing documented torture, unlawful detention, and absence of fair trial guarantees — confirmed by UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch reports.
Our lawyers presented all three grounds simultaneously before the CCF. The Commission accepted each independently and ordered all data removed from INTERPOL's files.
Our client, a company director, was accused of false VAT invoicing. The company that actually benefited was acquitted while our client was pursued. ECHR case law confirmed a real risk of torture in detention in the requesting country.
Our attorneys raised human rights risks and the inconsistency of the prosecution. The requesting NCB failed to respond to the Commission's specific questions on three separate occasions. The Commission treated that silence as an inability to justify the notice and ordered full deletion.
Our client was convicted and sentenced to exactly six months — the bare minimum threshold for a Red Notice — for allegedly mismanaging estate funds. Only two of nine beneficiaries had filed a complaint. He was tried in absentia with no documented evidence he had ever been notified.
Our lawyers argued the case was a family matter excluded from Red Notice eligibility, the offence fell below the required seriousness threshold, and due process was violated. The Commission accepted all three grounds and ordered deletion.
Our client, a father with court-granted sole custody in his country of residence, faced a Red Notice and two Yellow Notices for his children — issued at the request of the mother's country. Both parents had participated in proceedings in both jurisdictions with conflicting outcomes.
Our attorneys demonstrated that INTERPOL rules prohibit notices derived from family matters, and that INTERPOL is not a forum for resolving competing custody decisions. The Commission ordered all three notices deleted simultaneously.
Our client, a commercial director, was wanted for alleged tax evasion and operating without a construction licence. He had no authority over tax filings — those rested with the parent company's board. The licence had in fact been obtained. He received no personal benefit beyond his salary.
Our lawyers argued the conduct fell within INTERPOL's own list of offences ineligible for Red Notices. The NCB could not demonstrate individual criminal intent. The Commission ordered full deletion.
Our fees are published openly — no hidden costs, no surprises. The right service depends on your situation: whether you need to verify your status, act preventively, or remove an existing notice.
First consultation free — up to 30 minutes · All fees are fixed, not hourly · Full pricing on status.law →
Answers to the questions we hear most often. If your situation is not covered here, contact us directly — the first consultation is free.
Submit your details using the secure form. All inquiries are handled under strict attorney-client confidentiality. We will contact you to confirm the scope and provide a quote.