Most of us think of the international policing agency as an unbiased good cop—helping track down criminals around the world. But authoritarian governments have been using its Red and Blue Corner notices to hunt down anyone who opposes them. How did that happen?
First, a bit of background
Origin story: First called the International Criminal Police Commission, the Interpol was founded in 1923 in Vienna—with fifteen European members. That first avatar of the agency was hijacked by the Nazis in the lead up to World War II. It was rebooted in 1956—and given its current name. Today, it has expanded across the globe—and has 194 member countries.
Wtf is Interpol? Contrary to romantic imagination, Interpol is not a global cop—catching bad guys around the world. At its core, it is a “coordinating” institution—that promotes cooperation between law enforcement agencies:
It is not a police force in the traditional sense—its agents are not able to arrest criminals. Instead, it is more of an information-sharing network, providing a way for national police forces to cooperate effectively and tackle international crime ranging from human trafficking and terrorism to money laundering and illegal art dealing.
An ‘information clearing house’: Interpol performs two key functions. One, it operates global criminal databases that contain “fingerprint records, DNA samples and stolen documents: a treasure trove so valuable that police consulted it 146 times every second in 2017.”
Two, it issues notices—which are alerts to member states about wanted or missing persons. But no country is obliged to fulfil these requests. The Interpol issues eight kinds of notices—of which the Red and Blue Corner Notices are the most important for this discussion.
The infamous Red Notice: This is the most serious kind of alert—a global arrest warrant usually reserved for people who have already been convicted of crimes:
A red corner notice is issued by a member state to arrest a wanted criminal through extradition or any other similar lawful action. Such notices are issued against persons wanted by national jurisdictions for prosecution or to serve a sentence based on an arrest warrant or a court decision. The country issuing the request need not be the home country of the fugitive, Interpol acts even on the request of a country where the alleged crime has been committed.
The lesser Blue Notice: This is an “enquiry notice”—where a country can request information about a person’s location and criminal record. Example: Interpol issued a Blue Notice when India wanted to track down Swami Nithyananda—the godman who fled the country after being charged with rape and abduction.
Ok, so what’s the problem?
The problems initially involved the abuse of Red Notices. When Interpol tried to block the misuse, member countries found a new set of loopholes.
The Red Notice problem: In the early noughties, governments figured out a way to use Red Notices to track down and arrest anyone they didn’t like. In 2003, Interpol issued 1,277 Red Notices. By 2014, that number had jumped to 10,718. The chief offender: Russia.
Moscow would typically convict the person of a crime in absentia—and then request a Red Notice. Example: A financier named Bill Browder—who uncovered serious corruption in the upper ranks. The Putin government convicted him on fraud charges and used Interpot eight times to arrest him. He was arrested in France in 2018—and only escaped extradition because of social media pressure.
But Russia is hardly the sole offender:
Bahrain, for example, used Interpol to nab a professional soccer player, an outspoken critic of the government, at the Bangkok airport in 2018. He spent two-and-a-half months in a Thai prison. China used a red notice to arrest a Chinese Uyghur activist in Morocco in 2021. He remains in prison awaiting extradition. And Qatar issued a red notice for a Scottish engineer in 2022 over a disputed $5,000 bank loan. He spent two months in an Iraqi prison.
Key point to note: People often don’t know that there is a Red Notice issued against them—until they cross an international border. And their fate—when “caught”—depends on the whims of the local authorities:
A red-notice subject’s fate can vary wildly. Some countries see Red Notices as an alert system while others treat them as arrest warrants, incarcerating people or co-operating with extradition proceedings against them. People may have their assets frozen, their passports confiscated and their movements restricted – as well as the reputational damage from being designated as an international criminal.
Even if the person is not arrested, just being on the list affects their “ability to travel freely, normalise their immigration status, open bank accounts, rent property, and find work.” That’s why governments often use Red Notices to send a message.
Data points to note: The number of Red Notices have increased 10X over the past two decades. As of 2021, there were 66,000 active Red Notices. Russia accounts for nearly half of them. But it isn’t just the big boys who abuse the system—Tajikistan has issued 2,528 Red Notices.
But this problem has been fixed, right?
To a certain extent. Until 2017, Red Notice requests were automatically granted—without any investigation on the part of Interpol. The agency now reviews each request—to make sure they do violate its criteria for just cause. But governments have found new loopholes to track down and harass their critics.
The lesser known ‘diffusions’: Member countries can also send alerts called ‘diffusions’ directly to each other—without any vetting from Interpol. Think of it as an “all points bulletin”—which is just as damning. In 2002, only 7,500 new diffusions were issued. That number had jumped to more than 50,530 in 2017—right when Interpol changed its red notice rules.
The speed of injustice: Technology has also made it easier and faster for member countries to directly communicate with each other—without Interpol’s intervention:
Before Interpol launched its new I-24/7 web-based communication system in 2002, physical copies of notices were delivered to members in a process that required four to six months. Now, Interpol’s members can transmit diffusions over the web in a matter of seconds. Moreover, after a 2009 upgrade to Interpol’s online systems made it possible for states to upload “draft Red Notices” instantaneously visible to police in other jurisdictions, the number of [draft] Red Notices issued jumped 60%.
Weaponizing Blue Notices: These do not have to be vetted by an Interpol review before they are issued—since they are “enquiry notices.” As a result, their number has skyrocketed since 2017—along with diffusions. When checked later for veracity, at least 700 Blue Notices issued since that time have turned out to be illegitimate.
The ‘lost passport’ trick: This is when a government cancels a passport—by entering it into the database for lost or stolen passports. This immediately leaves the person stranded abroad. For example:
One father said in an interview that he had been separated from his wife and two children for more than a year after his Turkish passport was seized during a trip through Germany in 2022. Turkey had logged it in Interpol databases as lost or stolen… He [now] lives alone in an unfamiliar country, unable to travel without a passport.
The abuse of this system became so rampant that Interpol temporarily blocked Turkey from accessing the database. There are also special rules that limit access for other offenders like Belarus.
Where is India in all this?
New Delhi has relied heavily on Interpol to hunt down persons of interest. Last year, a record 24 fugitives were arrested and extradited with Interpol’s assistance. Another 184 were located in various countries allowing India to initiate formal requests for extradition.
But, but, but: Some lawyers say India is one of the serial offenders that misuse Blue Notices—which the government strongly denies. According to New Delhi, it put in only 58 Blue Notice requests in 2023. India is also among the member states unhappy with stricter reviews for red notices—because “the changes hamper police cooperation.” And it is seen as Western interference in a country’s internal affairs. And New Delhi’s relationship with Interpol has been a bit rocky in recent years.
The case of Pannun: New Delhi has most often used Interpol to target Khalistani separatists—but not always with success. In 2022, the agency rejected India’s second request to issue a Red Notice for Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on terror charges. The evidence did not pass Interpol’s review:
Sources said the Interpol also flagged that UAPA, under which the red corner was asked for, has been criticised for being “misused” to target minority groups and rights activists without “respecting” their right to due process and a fair trial… the Commission concluded that “insufficient information” has been provided by India’s National Central Bureau (NCB) to show the “terrorist nature of the crime” and Pannun’s “possible active and meaningful involvement in terrorist activities.”
In other cases, the roadblock isn’t Interpol. India is also unhappy with Canada for ignoring Red and Blue notices for known Khalistani extremists.
Eerie point to note: A year later—in November, 2023—US prosecutors filed charges accusing an Indian government official of orchestrating a plot to kill Pannun (context in this Big Story).
Also a setback: Last year, Interpol also withdrew the Red Notice against Mehul Choksi—the infamous uncle of Nirav Modi—who is charged with defrauding Punjab National Bank of Rs 135 billion (Rs 13,500 crore). The reason:
“There is a credible possibility that the applicant’s abduction from Antigua to Dominica had the ultimate purpose of deporting the applicant to India,” the Interpol order said... It also added that Choksi may face the risk of “not receiving a fair trial or treatment if returned to India.”
That’s a reference to Choksi’s allegation that Indian security officials tried to kidnap him in 2021 from Antigua—where he is a citizen (For more: check this crazy Big Story).
The bottomline: We vastly prefer Hollywood’s version of Interpol—so much cooler with fewer moral ambiguities.
Reading list
Journal of Democracy has the best, most detailed analysis of Interpol—placing its problems in the context of its history. The Guardian deep dive into the misuse of Red Notices is just as good but less nerdy. The Hindu has a good explainer on the various kinds of notices. Politico focuses on how Russia is misusing Interpol. For a China angle, check out The Diplomat. Economist (login required) looks at the internal politics within Interpol. New York Times reports on the latest trend of abusing blue notices—and the upcoming election of Interpol’s president.
