Access requests, deletion requests, and everything INTERPOL — prepared personally, on fixed fees. Every engagement runs on the same three words: open, honest, transparent.
You describe your situation — under any name, or none. I read it against INTERPOL's Constitution and its Rules on the Processing of Data, and tell you plainly, at no charge, whether there is a realistic basis on which to act. If there isn't, I say so, and you have spent nothing.
Where there is something real, we talk your case through in depth, and you receive a written grounds memo — delivered within five working days of our review call: your case and the strategy, mapped to INTERPOL's own rules. The fee is credited in full against your project fee if you choose to go ahead — and if you go no further, the memo is yours to keep, and to use anywhere.
Each of these is quoted with your grounds memo — one fixed figure before anything begins.
Most Red Notices are not public, and diffusions never are — so most people do not actually know what INTERPOL holds on them. I prepare a complete, admissible access request to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files: identity documentation handled correctly, scope drawn properly, and framed so the answer serves the deletion stage that may follow.
I build the file: an indexed exhibit bundle in which every assertion is proven before it is made, and a submission mapped to specific provisions — the private-dispute and political-character rules, human-rights grounds, data-quality failures, disproportionality, refused extraditions, and the rest.
Sometimes the goal is not erasure but accuracy: data that is factually wrong, allegations mischaracterised, or a record that fails to reflect what has since happened — a refused extradition, a dropped charge, a closed case. A correction request puts the record right under INTERPOL's own data-quality rules — and a corrected record can change how borders treat you even where a notice survives.
Less famous than Red Notices and never published anywhere, diffusions are alerts a country circulates directly to other countries through INTERPOL's channels. Many people are stopped, questioned, or refused entry because of a diffusion they have never seen and were never told about. The same remedies apply — access, correction, deletion — and I prepare those challenges with exactly the same discipline.
Most real matters are not a single request. Often the right strategy is access first — to see precisely what INTERPOL holds — then correction and/or deletion built on what the answer reveals, for notices and diffusions together. We scope the combination in your grounds memo, sequence it deliberately, and it arrives as one plan, with one fixed quote.
Where there are credible signs that a country may seek a notice against you, acting early still matters — even though the CCF's portal offers no "preventive" request type. The vehicle is a strategically framed access request: under the CCF's own Statute, the content of every request is made available to INTERPOL's General Secretariat — the body that vets new notices — so a disciplined early filing puts your side of the story, and your evidence, in front of the right eyes before anything is published.
Paired with readiness — a response pack prepared in advance, so that if a notice ever appears, the deletion request follows in days, not months. Quiet, early, and often the lowest-cost work you will ever commission.
Deleted notices sometimes come back in modified form, and adverse decisions can be revisited when material new facts emerge. I prepare revision applications, rapid responses to re-uploads, and — if you want an early-warning system — periodic monitoring after your matter closes.
Not every conversation has to be about filings. Some people simply need time with someone who has lived this — the dos and the don'ts of daily life with a notice: travel and borders, banks and paperwork, work, family, and state of mind. Practical insight, shared plainly from personal experience, in complete confidence.
These sessions are exactly that: one person's hard-won experience — what I would tell the 2019 version of me, on day one.
for the CCF to rule your request admissible
the CCF's target for access requests — in 2024, 70% took longer
the CCF's target for deletion decisions — in 2024, 30% ran past it
a realistic span from discovery to decision, preparation included — a practical estimate
Sources: CCF Annual Activity Report 2024. Every figure on this site carries its source.
I prepare clients for the true timeline rather than selling them a short one. You will know the realistic timeline for your matter before you commit — and you will hear from me throughout it, at a pace we set together.
A paragraph is enough to begin — under any name, or none. If there is no realistic case, I will tell you that too.
INTERPOL expert, chartered accountant, former CFO, and a Red Notice subject myself in 2019.
My case was reported by Reuters.