Government announces Lasting Power of Attorney “revamp”
This came moments before the Ukrainian minister of internal affairs, Denis Monastyrsky, made a public statement demanding Russia’s immediate expulsion from the organisation for “violating its basic principles and massive misuse of tools and services to cover up its crimes and persecute political enemies, particularly in Ukraine.”
These strong statements come as further sanctions are applied to Russia and represent a further attempt to isolate Russia from the international community. Although, Russia’s abuse of INTERPOL’s systems has persisted for years, it is notable that the comments from the Home Secretary come as a result of the current invasion rather than as a reaction to Russia’s continued misuse of the INTERPOL system. Nonetheless, we must ask whether expulsion or suspension from INTERPOL is a realistic aim.
INTERPOL is an international organisation dedicated to sharing law-enforcement information among its 195 member countries. While Interpol cannot arrest or prosecute individuals, it facilitates efforts to find these individuals when they are abroad. This is primarily through the use of Red Notices, international alerts notifying law enforcement authorities in the member countries that those of another country are seeking a person’s arrest. In addition, while a Red Notice requires approval from INTERPOL, countries can also circulate alerts called ‘diffusions’ which are requests for co-operation circulated directly among member countries.
This is not the first time that calls have been made for Russia’s membership of INTERPOL to be revoked. Since it joined the network in 1990, there have been long standing claims that Russia abuses INTERPOL’s systems to attack its critics abroad.
The most well-known example of this strategy is the very well-publicised case of Bill Browder, who was subject to seven illegitimate Red Notice requests made by Russia, but there have been countless others. Critics of the Russian government who move abroad can be charged in absentia for all sorts of offences, usually fabricated accusations of financial crimes, and a Red Notice request will then follow.
The General Secretariat has the power to suspend member nation’s access to their systems. In 2012 Syria’s access to INTERPOL’s systems was suspended and ‘corrective measures’ applied to the NCB in Damascus. In taking this measure, INTERPOL stated that the measures did not affect the status of Syria as a member country of INTERPOL and, in a move which was widely criticised, Syria was allowed to re-join the network in October 2021. As is common with INTERPOL’s opaque systems, we do not know the basis on which Syria’s access was suspended and then reinstated but it is conceivable that INTERPOL could take the same step against Russia.
The complete removal of Russia from INTERPOL, as demanded by Ukraine, seems unlikely and unrealistic. If Russia is to be expelled from INTERPOL for its actions against Ukraine it would set a precedent that might be difficult to follow for an international organisation that depends in part upon its wide-ranging and inclusive membership (and is dependent on its member countries for funding). Suspension seems like the most likely option for INTERPOL to take if they are going to take any action at all.
In any event expelling or suspending Russia for its actions does not address the more fundamental systemic issues with the INTERPOL system. Most notably, the lack of an effective internal review of red notice requests, before publication, which can eliminate those Red Notices which do not comply with INTERPOL’s own rules must be addressed.
While INTERPOL plays an important role in international policing, the more it is abused, the less reliably it can do its job. Although suspending Russia may be a short term solution, the UK should also put its efforts into pushing for more tangible, long term reforms which can address the inadequacies in the system rather than simply calling for suspension as a form of further sanction.
For further information on issues raised within this blog, please contact a member of our criminal team.
Maeve Keenan is an Associate in the Criminal Litigation team. Maeve has a particular interest in the international dimension of criminal cases and advises individuals in respect of extradition requests and challenging INTERPOL red notices.
In March 2021 the Chancellor announced the establishment of a taskforce to investigate those who may have fraudulently made use of government schemes set up to protect individuals and businesses against the economic impact of COVID-19 – such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) (widely referred to as the Furlough scheme), the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ Scheme.
The devastating economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented levels of government support aimed at keeping jobs intact and businesses afloat. Although the news is beginning to promise a path out of lockdown and a gradual return to some degree of normality, equally as prominent are reports of fraudulent abuse of the COVID-19 support schemes and the government’s planned response.
In late February 2021 a news article reported that a care home worker had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a patient died of COVID-19. In late March 2021, two further care home workers were arrested on suspicion of wilful neglect. We look at how those working in care homes can potentially face criminal liability in respect of COVID-19 cases.
In the Budget 2021, presented to Parliament on 3 March, the Chancellor announced that HMRC will establish a taskforce to investigate those who have fraudulently made use of government schemes set up to protect individuals and businesses against the economic impact of COVID-19 – such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) (widely referred to as the Furlough scheme) and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS).
FCA focuses on risks associated with unmonitored communications, including the use of unencrypted apps, such as WhatsApp, for sharing potentially sensitive or confidential information when working from home.
The top five most stressful events in life are commonly regarded as death of a loved one; divorce; major illness or injury; job loss; and moving house (in that order). Some might argue that the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns should be a new addition to this list. Not only does it make life more stressful but also the first four events more likely.
The headlines of 23 October 2020, reported the staggering estimate that between 5 and 10 per cent of the £39 billion paid under the Government’s job retention scheme has been claimed fraudulently.
In response to the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic, the government introduced a number of loan schemes in order to assist businesses struggling financially. Recent reports suggest that these schemes, as outlined below, have become a target for fraudulent loan applications, by both genuine businesses and also organised criminal enterprises. This blog briefly examines the various loan schemes in place and the criminal offences which are likely to be the focus of investigating authorities in the coming months.
Furlough has undoubtedly been a huge success. According to the British Chamber of Commerce, since March the scheme has been used by two thirds of British businesses supporting approximately 9.4 million jobs. Yet at a cost approaching an eye-watering £30 billion to the taxpayer, it is understandable that the Government has confirmed it is now “using every tool and piece of intelligence to prevent, detect and disrupt fraud” in relation to the scheme.
The impact of Coronavirus is significant and far-reaching for all children and young adults. For a youth justice system creaking under strain with serious delays, the lockdown has only compounded the problems and brings a raft of serious consequences. Timely justice is ever more important.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”), Alok Sharma, announced this week that non-essential shops will be allowed to open from 15 June. Mr Sharma also stated that if shops do not follow COVID-secure guidelines they could be subject to enforcement notices. What does this mean?
As we move through the phased easing of lockdown, employers and employees will be anxious to ensure that the return to the workplace does not exacerbate the risk of infection. Businesses do not want to find themselves falling foul of the law, and with news last month that the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE” – the body responsible for regulating and enforcing health and safety legislation) has been bolstered with £14m extra funding, it is more important than ever to manage the risks.
The impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic left no part of the UK untouched. The criminal justice system was no exception.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be preparing to gradually wind down the Coronavirus Job Creation Scheme in the summer but its legacy will be felt for many years.
With an estimated 25 per cent of the UK workforce now furloughed, it has arguably been a runaway success. But is it open to abuse – and what are the likely consequences? Lawyer Richard Fox explains
The National Crime Agency (NCA) issued its Action Plan for 2020-21 earlier this month, alongside a Strategic Threat Assessment. The Annual Plan sets out the NCA’s operational priorities for the year ahead and sets out how it will lead a “whole-system response to serious and organised crime”. At the heart of this is the objective to “reduce the harm from economic crime to individuals, the UK Economy and its Institutions, tackling fraud, money laundering and cybercrime”.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has this week published its annual Business Plan. Unsurprisingly, the emergence of COVID-19 has significantly impacted the organisation’s ability to set out its strategic focus for the next three years. While the Plan sets out the areas of priority on which it intends to focus in this period, it recognises that it may be months before the FCA is able to focus fully on the activities set out in the Plan and that the issues to be addressed may change significantly over the coming months.
With more and more interactions between police and the public now occurring at the threshold of a private premise, members of the public and the police may want to remind themselves of the rights and powers they have during such an encounter.
Employers and HR managers have a myriad of issues to think about in the wake of Covid-19 and understandably may even have postulated that #metoo related challenges might fall down the list. In fact, however, misconduct and harassment risks have not entirely disappeared. They have merely morphed into another form, now largely online.
The National Police Chief Council (NPCC) has published guidance in conjunction with the CPS titled “Interim CPS Charging Protocol – Covid-19 Crisis Response". The document provides guidance on how cases will be investigated and prosecuted by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility