An extradition request lands in a foreign court. The requesting state alleges fraud. The court in the detaining country looks at the conduct described – and finds that, under its own law, that conduct is not a crime at all. The extradition fails. That outcome has a name: dual criminality was not satisfied. Understanding what that term means, and why it matters, is the first step for anyone facing a Red Notice or an extradition request abroad.
Dual criminality is the principle that extradition may only proceed where the conduct alleged by the requesting state constitutes a criminal offence under the law of both the requesting state and the state asked to extradite. It is not a procedural technicality. It is a substantive threshold, recognised across most extradition treaties and domestic extradition laws worldwide, that protects individuals from being surrendered for acts that their country of residence does not regard as criminal.
This page explains what dual criminality is, how it operates in practice, where it intersects with INTERPOL's notice system, and what it means for anyone assessing their position as of early 2026.
What does dual criminality actually require?
Dual criminality does not require the offence labels to match. Courts do not ask whether both states call the conduct "fraud" or "embezzlement" using the same word. They ask whether the conduct – the facts as alleged – would constitute a crime under the law of the requested state if it had occurred there. That distinction matters enormously in practice.
Consider a case where a requesting state criminalises a form of commercial activity that is entirely lawful in the requested state – certain currency transactions, for example, or a type of business arrangement that is regulated but not prohibited elsewhere. The names may differ. The conduct may overlap only partially. A careful analysis of the underlying facts, not the label attached to them, is what courts in the requested state will perform.
In our extradition practice, we regularly see requests where the stated offence sounds serious but the actual conduct, stripped of the requesting state's characterisation, either falls outside criminal law in the detaining country or falls into a category that would attract a very different penalty. Both matter. Some treaty frameworks require not only that the conduct be criminal in both states but that it carry a minimum sentence threshold in each.
The test is applied at the time of the extradition hearing, under the extradition law and criminal code of the requested state. There is no universal standard. Each requested state applies its own legal analysis to the facts presented.
How does dual criminality connect to INTERPOL Red Notices and diffusions?
A Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It is not an arrest warrant, and it is not a judicial decision. A diffusion is a similar alert circulated directly between national bureaux, outside the formal notice channel, and can also be challenged before INTERPOL's independent oversight body, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF).
INTERPOL's own rules do not apply the dual-criminality test directly. That test belongs to national extradition law. However, dual criminality is directly relevant at two points in the process.
First, when assessing whether a Red Notice should have been issued at all, the requesting state must assert that the conduct is criminalised under its law and that extradition is sought. If the conduct plainly fails dual criminality in most of the world's jurisdictions, that may inform arguments before the CCF about whether the notice meets the RPD's data-quality and processing conditions.
Second, and more practically: even if the CCF does not delete the notice, dual criminality provides a concrete defence at the extradition hearing itself. A person located in a state where the conduct is not criminal has strong grounds to resist surrender, whatever INTERPOL's file says. The two proceedings – CCF review and extradition defence – are distinct, and they can run in parallel.
The steps above are the general picture. Your situation turns on the specific conduct alleged, the requesting state, and the law of the country where you are located – which is exactly what a confidential assessment addresses.
To understand the realistic prospects before you act, reach us through our secure channel or write to info@northlarkfirm.com.
Does a weak dual-criminality argument harm a CCF filing?
This is an important practical question. A CCF deletion request and a dual-criminality defence in extradition proceedings are legally separate instruments. A poorly assembled CCF file, however, can signal weakness that a requesting state's bureau exploits in subsequent correspondence with INTERPOL. Equally, asserting dual-criminality arguments that are plainly inapplicable in the CCF context – rather than before the extradition court – wastes the file and may confuse the legal analysis.
The honest position is this: there is no appeal against a CCF decision. A fresh request requires new elements. A weak first file lowers the odds on any subsequent review. That is why the sequencing of arguments – what is said to the CCF, and what is reserved for the extradition court – requires careful thought before anything is submitted.
In a recent matter involving a CIS-origin notice (autumn 2024), the conduct alleged by the requesting state was entirely lawful commercial activity in the country of residence. The dual-criminality point was preserved for the extradition court, while the CCF file focused on the RPD's data-accuracy requirements and the political character of the prosecution. The two arguments reinforced each other rather than competing.
If a first CCF request or an earlier extradition defence produced a refusal, a second reading can identify what was missed and whether there are new grounds. There is no appeal, so a review must be built carefully. Write to info@northlarkfirm.com for a confidential assessment of the grounds in your situation.
What should someone in this situation do next?
The dual-criminality analysis is not something to attempt informally. It requires a side-by-side reading of the requesting state's criminal code (by branch – the relevant offence category), the extradition law of the requested state, and any applicable treaty. It also requires an honest assessment of the underlying facts, not the label the requesting state has attached to them.
Practically, the starting point is knowing what data INTERPOL currently holds. A data check – a formal access request to the CCF – tells you whether a Red Notice or diffusion is live and what the file contains. Under the applicable rules, an access request is to be answered within four months. That information shapes every subsequent decision.
From there, the options depend on the facts. Where dual criminality is strong, the extradition defence is the primary instrument, coordinated with allied counsel in the country of detention. Where the notice itself is vulnerable – because the prosecution is politically coloured, or because the underlying data does not meet INTERPOL's quality standards – a Red Notice removal filing before the CCF is the logical parallel step. Where Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution applies – because the offence is connected to a political, military, religious or racial motive – that ground can be argued directly before the CCF: see our analysis of the Article 3 political-offence ground.
One common myth is worth addressing directly: deleting the notice at source through the CCF is legally distinct from a national court finding. A CCF deletion removes the data from INTERPOL's systems and removes the international alert. It does not acquit the person in the requesting state's proceedings, and it does not prevent the requesting state from seeking extradition through bilateral channels. Both outcomes matter, and both must be planned for.
Related
- Data Check – find out what INTERPOL currently holds about you before you travel
- Red Notice Removal – build a CCF file on the grounds that actually work
- Article 3: Political Offence – the constitutional bar on politically-motivated notices
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same as an arrest warrant?
No. A Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It is not an international arrest warrant and not a judicial decision. No country is obliged to arrest anyone on the basis of a Red Notice alone; each state decides under its own law. Dual criminality is the additional test applied by the extradition court in the detaining state, separate from the existence of the notice itself.
Who decides the outcome?
Two different bodies are relevant. The CCF – INTERPOL's independent oversight body – decides whether to delete, correct or maintain the data INTERPOL holds. A CCF deletion request must be decided within nine months of being found admissible. The extradition court of the detained person's country decides whether surrender is lawful under national law and any applicable treaty. These are separate proceedings with separate criteria, and they can run concurrently.
What should I do with this information?
The most important immediate step is to understand what data INTERPOL actually holds – a formal access request answers that within four months. From there, the dual-criminality analysis, the CCF grounds and any extradition defence must be sequenced carefully. Every week the notice stands, the underlying file hardens. A confidential assessment costs nothing in terms of disclosure: our enquiry form does not require your real name, and we are reachable through a secure channel.
About NORTHLARK
NORTHLARK is an independent international boutique focused exclusively on INTERPOL proceedings, CCF review and cross-border extradition defence. We work in the language of the file and the requesting state, with allied counsel in the country of detention where proceedings require local representation. We are fully independent – there is no affiliation with any network, parent firm or regional group, which matters particularly where the requesting state is in the CIS or a jurisdiction where independence is a protective feature for the client.
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 – as well as by email at info@northlarkfirm.com.
Facing an unjustified Red Notice?
Free initial assessment. Challenging Interpol Red Notices and extradition defence.
Request an assessment