An extradition resisted on dual-criminality grounds

A provisional arrest at an airport is not the end of the matter. In this case, it was the beginning of a defence that succeeded.

An INTERPOL Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It is not an arrest warrant and not a judicial decision. Where the conduct described in the request does not constitute a criminal offence in the state where the person is detained, the principle of dual criminality provides a recognised basis to resist surrender – and, in appropriate cases, to challenge the underlying notice itself before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF).

This matter illustrates how that argument was built, tested and ultimately resolved. As of early 2026, the outcome remains the position on record.

The situation

Our client was a national of a MENA-originating country, resident in Western Europe for several years. A Red Notice had been circulated against him by the requesting state's national bureau. The stated basis was a commercial matter characterised domestically as fraud.

He was provisionally detained following a routine border crossing in winter 2024. Local authorities received the notice through the INTERPOL channel and placed him before an extradition court within the statutory period required under the requested state's extradition law.

The requesting state's file described conduct centred on the non-performance of a contractual obligation. Under the commercial and criminal law of the requesting state, this was prosecuted as a criminal offence. Under the law of the state of detention, the same conduct would have been a civil matter. No criminal counterpart existed.

Every week the notice stood, the file hardened. Additional records were being compiled by the requesting state's bureau. A parallel CCF request was urgent.

The strategy

We were instructed within days of the provisional arrest. The dual-criminality point was immediate and strong, but it required careful construction. Two parallel tracks ran concurrently.

First, in the extradition proceedings, we instructed allied counsel in the state of detention. The core submission was that the conduct described in the requesting state's file did not meet the dual-criminality requirement under that state's extradition law. We reviewed the underlying contractual dispute in detail. The evidence showed no misrepresentation, no intent to deceive and no unjust enrichment of the kind that would support a fraud allegation under the requested state's criminal law. The conduct was, on any honest analysis, a commercial dispute taken to a criminal forum.

Second, we filed a request before the CCF directed at the data-accuracy requirements of the RPD. The RPD's data-accuracy provisions require that information processed by INTERPOL be accurate and that the characterisation of the conduct in the notice file correspond to the legal standard. Where the requesting state labels conduct as fraud when the facts do not support that characterisation, the notice file itself fails to meet those requirements. We submitted the contractual record, the absence of any prior criminal history, and an expert analysis of the relevant law of the requesting state.

In a related matter (a CIS-origin notice, autumn 2025), we used a materially similar dual-track approach and obtained deletion after the CCF concluded the underlying file failed the RPD's data-quality standard. The pattern is not unique to any region.

The steps above are the general picture. Your situation turns on the specific file, the requesting state and the timing – which is exactly what an assessment looks at.

To understand the realistic prospects before you act, reach us through our extradition defence service or write to info@northlarkfirm.com.

The outcome

The extradition court refused surrender. The ruling rested on dual criminality: the conduct as described did not constitute a criminal offence under the requested state's law, and the court declined to accept the requesting state's framing. Our client was released from provisional detention.

The CCF process ran concurrently. Within nine months of admissibility, the CCF determined that the notice data did not meet the RPD's accuracy and data-quality requirements. The notice was deleted.

The interaction between the two tracks mattered. The extradition decision provided contemporaneous evidence that a competent court in a third state had found the dual-criminality requirement unsatisfied. That finding formed part of the CCF submission and strengthened the data-accuracy argument materially.

There is no appeal against a CCF decision. Once deleted, the data is removed from INTERPOL's systems. The client was able to travel normally again. Banking relationships that had been disrupted during the notice period required a further, separate process – but the notice deletion was the prerequisite for everything that followed.

It should be said plainly: this outcome was fact-specific. Dual criminality is a strong ground when the conduct gap is genuine and evidenced. Where the facts support a criminal characterisation in both states, the argument does not arise in the same form. An honest assessment of the file comes first.

If an earlier CCF request or extradition defence produced a refusal, a second reading can identify what was missed and whether new grounds exist – remembering there is no appeal, so any review must be built carefully.

For an honest view of whether there are grounds to challenge a notice in your case, write to info@northlarkfirm.com or contact us through our secure channel.

Related

• Red Notice removal – Challenge and deletion before the CCF on verified grounds
• Extradition defence – Contesting surrender at the hearing and on appeal
• Data inaccuracy as a ground – How RPD data-quality requirements support deletion

Frequently asked questions

What are my options from here?

The options depend on where you are in the process. If a notice is active and no extradition proceeding has started, a CCF request is usually the first step. If provisional arrest has occurred, an extradition challenge and a CCF request can run in parallel – as they did in this matter. If a first CCF request was refused, new elements are needed before a review can succeed, since there is no appeal against a CCF decision.

How long might this take?

Extradition proceedings run on the timetable set by the requested state's courts, which varies considerably. A CCF deletion request is, under the applicable rules, to be decided within nine months of being found admissible. In practice, the overall process from instruction to resolution can take considerably longer, depending on the complexity of the file and the requesting state.

What decides the outcome?

The quality of the first file is the single most important variable. A weak first submission to the CCF lowers the odds on any later review. For extradition, the conduct gap between the two states' laws must be genuine and supported by evidence, not merely asserted. In both forums, the strength of the legal argument and the quality of the supporting documentation are what move the decision.

About NORTHLARK

NORTHLARK is an independent international boutique. We act before the CCF and in extradition proceedings for individuals facing unjustified Red Notices and diffusions. We are not affiliated with any national firm or network – a deliberate feature for clients whose notice originates from states where independence matters most. Our team builds CCF files on INTERPOL's own rules, not promises.

We act only on lawful mandates. We do not help anyone evade legitimate justice, and we take on a matter only where we see genuine grounds. The first assessment is confidential. Our enquiry form does not require your real name, and you can reach us through a secure channel – Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp. Write to info@northlarkfirm.com to begin.