International search for timber smuggling: the Russia — China case and adjustment of Interpol data

Criminal cases related to the export of natural resources traditionally fall into the high-risk category for entrepreneurs conducting business between Russia and China. In this case, two applicants faced serious pressure: Russia initiated their international search through Interpol channels. One of them was issued a Red Notice, while a diffusion was issued for the second, which later also transformed into an arrest warrant.

The accusation was based on a large-scale scheme of smuggling strategically important resources—valuable types of timber. According to the investigation, from 2015 to 2019, the defendants, as part of an organized group, illegally exported timber to China using fictitious companies, forged customs documents, and falsified CITES permits. The damage was estimated at hundreds of millions of rubles, which classified the case as a serious economic crime. For the clients, this meant an inevitable risk of detention when crossing any borders and subsequent extradition to the Russian Federation.

The applicants approached the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF), seeking to prove the illegality of the prosecution. The defense strategy was comprehensive and built on several key arguments. Firstly, the lawyers insisted on the lack of individualization of guilt. In the case materials, the roles of the accused were described in a generalized manner, without a clear connection of the applicants’ specific actions to the incriminated episodes of smuggling.

Secondly, the defense pointed out that the dispute was more of an administrative and customs nature rather than a criminal-law one. Simultaneously, arguments were made regarding the political and corrupt undertones of the case. The applicants reported pressure from state structures and attempts at a corporate raid on their business, linking the criminal prosecution to their anti-corruption activities. The issue of human rights violations was also raised, including pressure on witnesses and the lack of guarantees for a fair trial in Russia.

The consideration of the case in the Interpol Commission led to complex and ambiguous conclusions, which, nevertheless, became an important procedural victory for the defense. The Commission rejected arguments that the case was purely administrative, recognizing the smuggling of strategic resources as a criminal offense. Additionally, after reviewing the materials, the CCF did not find convincing evidence of direct political motivation or systemic human rights violations sufficient for the complete deletion of data solely on this basis.

However, a key turning point in the case occurred during the analysis of the quality of the provided data. The commission agreed with the defense’s arguments that the information in Interpol’s database was presented incorrectly. It was established that the description of the applicants’ roles requires significant clarification, and the scope of the incriminated actions must be clearly delineated and supported by materials, rather than being declarative in nature.

This decision imposed strict obligations on the prosecution: to specify the role of each individual involved and to align the description strictly with the actual case materials. The commission set a clear deadline for making these changes. The most important aspect of this decision is the condition: if clarifications are not provided or are deemed insufficient, access to data in the Interpol system will be restricted or blocked. Thus, the defense achieved that Interpol refused to serve as a tool for disseminating generalized and unverified accusations.

This case clearly demonstrates that even in situations where the Commission does not completely remove the Red Notice, professional defense can achieve a significant revision of the wanted person’s status. The obligation to adjust data often undermines the prosecution’s position if it is based on general phrases rather than facts.

If you have become a subject of international search under economic articles (smuggling, fraud, tax crimes), especially in the context of business with China or other Asian countries, you should not rely on the situation resolving itself. Complex multi-episode cases require meticulous work with documents.

Contact experienced lawyers specializing in Interpol law. We will help analyze your file, identify procedural violations, and achieve either complete deletion or significant restriction of the use of your data in international search, protecting your freedom and reputation.