Machine Bias: How AI Misidentifies and Grounds Travellers
Amicus International Consulting Warns That Algorithmic Errors in Border Security Systems Are Costing Innocent Travellers Their Freedom
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
VANCOUVER, Canada – Artificial Intelligence is rapidly transforming the way borders are managed. Facial recognition cameras, predictive surveillance, and AI-driven immigration databases now control who boards a plane, who is flagged for inspection, and who is denied entry.
But in 2025, these automated systems are not infallible, and their mistakes are grounding innocent travellers.
Amicus International Consulting, a global authority on legal identity change, biometric resistance, and international relocation, has published an urgent report examining how machine bias is leading to travel bans, wrongful detentions, and permanent digital mislabeling of law-abiding individuals.
'We've seen a staggering rise in AI-driven misidentifications,' said a spokesperson for Amicus. 'Clients have been barred from flights, detained at borders, or added to watchlists simply because an algorithm made an assumption—and no human bothered to double-check.'
The Rise of Border AI: Fast, Scalable—and Flawed
Artificial intelligence (AI) is now a central component of border security across most developed nations. The shift toward automated clearance has been touted as a triumph of speed and safety.
At major airports, passengers walk through biometric corridors where cameras match faces against centralized identity databases. Algorithms assess risk, detect discrepancies, and generate alerts.
Examples of AI in Border Control: CBP's Biometric Entry/Exit system scans the faces of travellers entering and leaving the United States.
scans the faces of travellers entering and leaving the United States. The EU's ETIAS and EES systems use predictive algorithms to assess threat levels before issuing electronic travel authorizations.
use predictive algorithms to assess threat levels before issuing electronic travel authorizations. Singapore's Changi Airport uses facial recognition at every stage of the passenger journey.
uses facial recognition at every stage of the passenger journey. China's Skynet surveillance grid integrates facial, gait, and behavioural recognition with state security databases.
However, this level of automation comes with a critical flaw: machine bias.
What Is Machine Bias?
Machine bias refers to systematic errors in decision-making made by artificial intelligence systems due to flawed training data, design assumptions, or operational contexts. These biases disproportionately affect: People of colour
Women
Transgender and non-binary individuals
Children and elderly travellers
Individuals with medical conditions or facial disfigurements
Unlike human errors, machine bias can replicate itself across systems at scale, affecting thousands—or millions—before anyone notices.
Case Study: Wrongfully Flagged at Heathrow
In 2024, a U.K. citizen of Middle Eastern descent was detained at Heathrow Airport after facial recognition systems identified him as a suspected terrorist.
In reality, the man shared facial features with another individual whom Interpol had flagged, but the software failed to distinguish between them.
Amicus was contacted after the man missed his international connection, was interrogated for 11 hours, and faced travel bans from five partner countries—all based on an AI-generated false positive. It took months to clear his name.
How AI Gets It Wrong: The Technical Reality
1. Poor Training Data
Facial recognition algorithms are often trained on limited datasets. When these datasets underrepresent certain ethnicities or genders, the system becomes less accurate for those groups. A 2023 MIT study found that facial recognition software misidentified Black women at rates up to 35% higher than white men.
2. Static Rules in a Dynamic World
AI lacks context. It cannot account for recent legal name changes, updated citizenship, or medical changes in appearance, especially after gender reassignment surgery or reconstructive procedures.
3. Dependency on Legacy Systems
Border AIs are often linked to outdated or incorrect watchlists, including expired INTERPOL notices, unverifiable alerts, or flawed database merges.
4. Feedback Loop Contamination
When an individual is misidentified, the system often treats that error as confirmed data, reinforcing the false flag and pushing it across multiple countries' databases.
The Real-World Consequences of AI Error Missed Flights and Detainment
Innocent travellers are frequently stopped, interrogated, and denied boarding because their biometric scans generate false alerts.
Innocent travellers are frequently stopped, interrogated, and denied boarding because their biometric scans generate false alerts. Visa Rejections and Travel Bans
Once flagged by an AI system, individuals often face rejection on visa applications, even after the mistake is corrected.
Once flagged by an AI system, individuals often face rejection on visa applications, even after the mistake is corrected. Social and Financial Fallout
Some clients have lost job opportunities, had business contracts cancelled, or faced reputational harm due to travel disruption.
Some clients have lost job opportunities, had business contracts cancelled, or faced reputational harm due to travel disruption. Permanent Surveillance Labels
In many cases, an error that triggers machine alerting results in long-term inclusion in border 'alert' categories, even after the issue is resolved.
Case Study: Facial Mismatch Denies Family Reunion
A woman travelling from South Africa to Canada to reunite with her children was stopped at Pearson International Airport in 2023. The AI scanner failed to recognize her updated appearance following chemotherapy-related facial changes. Although she had valid documents and matching fingerprints, the system flagged her as a 'mismatch.'
It took 48 hours, legal intervention, and biometric reevaluation to clear her identity, delaying her travel and causing significant emotional distress.
Amicus' Response: Legal Identity and Biometric Strategy
Amicus International Consulting has developed an advanced suite of services designed to protect clients from AI-driven border control failures. These services include: Legal Name and Gender Change Documentation: Court-recognized changes supported by digital identity updates across systems.
Court-recognized changes supported by digital identity updates across systems. Second Citizenship Acquisition: Providing clean legal identities not associated with old errors or politically sensitive data.
Providing clean legal identities not associated with old errors or politically sensitive data. Facial Recognition Defence Using AI Tools: Use of tools like Fawkes and LowKey to subtly distort publicly available facial data and prevent AI learning.
Use of tools like Fawkes and LowKey to subtly distort publicly available facial data and prevent AI learning. Red Notice Review and Removal Support: Challenging and removing invalid Interpol Red Notices that fuel wrongful alerts.
Challenging and removing invalid Interpol Red Notices that fuel wrongful alerts. Human Rights Advisory: For travellers from vulnerable populations, Amicus provides documentation support and risk profiling to mitigate entry disputes.
'We don't just fix identities—we prevent errors before they happen,' said the Amicus spokesperson. 'In an AI-first world, the best protection is proactive legal and biometric management.'
Where AI Border Errors Are Most Common
Based on client case studies and Amicus research, the following regions pose the highest risk of machine bias and AI error at the border: United States: Particularly in major hubs like JFK, LAX, and Atlanta, where facial scanning is mandatory.
Particularly in major hubs like JFK, LAX, and Atlanta, where facial scanning is mandatory. European Union (Schengen Zone): Automated systems under EES frequently flag biometric mismatches.
Automated systems under EES frequently flag biometric mismatches. United Kingdom: Heathrow and Gatwick use controversial facial databases with high false-positive rates.
Heathrow and Gatwick use controversial facial databases with high false-positive rates. Singapore and South Korea: High-tech but inflexible systems unable to accommodate nuanced identity profiles.
High-tech but inflexible systems unable to accommodate nuanced identity profiles. United Arab Emirates: Broad data sharing and surveillance integration with allied states.
Countries with lower technological enforcement or more flexible human review tend to have fewer reported AI errors.
Case Study: Dual Citizen Blocked from Transit
A Canadian-Iranian dual citizen was flagged while transiting through Frankfurt due to name similarity with a blacklisted individual. The AI system failed to detect different birth dates and citizenships. He was removed from his flight, interrogated, and required to return to his point of origin.
Only after Amicus provided documentary proof of his name change, clean record, and legal travel authorization was he cleared to fly again.
AI Is Not the Judge—But It Decides Who Gets Judged
In 2025, border AI is not just an assistant to human officers—it is the first and sometimes only filter determining who gets a second look. Human oversight has been reduced as systems become more 'efficient.'
'If the algorithm flags you, you're already guilty until proven innocent,' said the Amicus spokesperson. 'Even if you prove it, the delay, damage, and data trail remain.'
Amicus' Solutions: Travel Risk Management in the AI Era
For high-risk clients, Amicus provides: Pre-travel biometric risk analysis
AI compatibility tests against known global systems
Biometric minimalism coaching for low-detection appearance and behaviour
for low-detection appearance and behaviour Client flag removal assistance in global watchlists
in global watchlists Emergency relocation strategy in the event of wrongful denial or detainment
Amicus acts as a legal firewall between clients and the machine errors that would otherwise derail their rights.
Conclusion: In the Age of AI, Mistaken Identity Is a Matter of Code
AI-powered borders may promise security, but their errors are increasingly a threat to lawful travellers. The risk is not just technical—it's existential for those seeking freedom from political targeting, surveillance, or violence.
Amicus International Consulting stands at the intersection of privacy, legality, and human dignity, offering those most vulnerable the ability to move safely, legally, and free from algorithmic discrimination.
In a world where machines make the first call, having Amicus on your side may be the difference between being cleared or permanently flagged.
📞 Contact InformationPhone: +1 (604) 200-5402Email: info@amicusint.ca
Website: www.amicusint.ca
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street reports 65% chance that U.S. will intervene in Iran—Goldman Sachs says OPEC will be key buffer in oil volatility
Rising tensions between the U.S., Iran, and Israel have fueled speculation about possible U.S. military intervention, with Wall Street reporting a 65% chance of action against Iran by July, leading to increased oil price volatility and shipping costs, especially around the critical Strait of Hormuz. However, OPEC+'s substantial spare capacity is seen as a key buffer against major supply disruptions, while the surge in oil prices has also strengthened the U.S. dollar amid global uncertainty. Questions are continuing to mount about how far tensions in the Middle East will spiral, with President Trump refusing to rule out U.S. intervention between Israel and Iran. Indeed, the rhetoric out of the White House is stoking theories that America may take military action in the Middle East, with Goldman Sachs now placing the probability as more likely than not. Overnight White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested the Oval Office will take a view in the coming fortnight, relaying to reporters a direct message from the president: 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' President Trump has kept spectators largely in the dark about his intentions, saying Wednesday 'I may do it … I may not. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' In a note Wednesday—published by Goldman ahead of Leavitt's announcement yesterday—commodities researchers Daan Struyven, Ephraim Sutherland and Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby wrote there is a 65% of U.S. military action against Iran by July, citing a Polymarket survey. That being said, the analysts left the chances of a U.S.-Iran deal this year at 50%. As a result, the trio write 'the term structure of implied volatility, and call skew suggest that oil markets believe that much higher prices are likely in the next few months, but see limited changes to the long term outlook.' The note seen by Fortune adds: 'Our global indices of oil shipping rates have increased over the past week as increased risks have lifted rates for Middle Eastern routes.' Per Goldman's research, the rate in U.S. dollars per barrel increased in the recent-term from $4.5 to $5.5 for clean stock and approximately $2.8 to $3.1 for dirty. The projected volatility in Middle Eastern shipping costs comes down to the Strait of Hormuz, located on the southern border of Iran. The oil flow through the strait accounts for about 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption, writes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Iran has—in the past—threatened to close the strait in a bid to curb Western intervention into its affairs, with reports already emerging about shipping companies avoiding the waters. This, in turn, has ramifications for costs given the lag in delivery times and the use of less efficient routes. Trump's threatened intervention into Iran has gone as far as saying he knows where the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is hiding. Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday: 'He is an easy target, but is safe there. We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' However the conflict plays out, strategists at Macquarie expect oil prices to continue to shift over the coming weeks, writing in a note earlier this week seen by Fortune: 'We expect oil prices to remain volatile with an upward trend for the next few weeks as both Iran and Israel maintain their military intensity. 'Regardless of military or diplomatic progress, we expect Brent to rally towards the low $80 level before hitting a plateau as the perceived risk of actual oil supply disruption becomes largely discounted.' Goldman also said OPEC+ could provide a much-needed buffer amid the volatility, undoing some of the cuts it has announced previously. Reports have already surfaced that OPEC+ is considering a large production increase, with members considering potentially increasing output of 411,000 barrels a day (bpd) in July. 'While the exact magnitude is uncertain, we believe that above-average global spare capacity (worth around 4-5% of global demand) is the key buffer to Iran-only disruptions via larger-than-otherwise unwinds of OPEC+ production cuts,' added the Goldman analysts. Already the volatility has lit a fire under the U.S. dollar, which has been caught in a tug-of-war between better-than-expected inflation expectations and a flee to safety amid rising geopolitical tensions. As Antonio Ruggiero, senior FX and macro strategist at Convera wrote in a note to Fortune yesterday: 'Behind the façade of safe-haven appeal lies the true driver of the dollar's rebound: rising oil prices, now hovering near a five-month high. 'Since most global oil trades are settled in U.S. dollars, surging crude demand tends to drive additional demand for USD. This rebound in sentiment is also reflected in the options market, where—for the first time since April—traders have backed off from bearish dollar positions.' This story was originally featured on
Time Business News
2 days ago
- Time Business News
Captured by the Colour: Five Fugitives Caught Through INTERPOL Red Notices
VANCOUVER – When a person becomes the target of an INTERPOL Red Notice, their name, photo, and alleged crimes circulate across 194 countries in seconds. Though not an arrest warrant, the Red Notice remains one of the most potent tools in international law enforcement. It can prevent travel, freeze bank accounts, alert border authorities, and in many cases, lead to arrest and extradition. Despite criticisms of political abuse and human rights violations, Red Notices have also been instrumental in tracking and capturing high-profile fugitives, including white-collar criminals, corrupt officials, terrorists, and alleged war criminals. In this press release, Amicus International Consulting explores five real-world cases where Red Notices were effectively used to capture fugitives—and how these examples expose both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the system. What Is a Red Notice and Why Does It Matter Issued at the request of a member country, a Red Notice is a request circulated by INTERPOL to locate and provisionally arrest a wanted individual pending extradition. It is not a binding international warrant, but many countries treat it as sufficient grounds for arrest, primarily if a bilateral or multilateral extradition treaty exists. While INTERPOL itself has no enforcement power, the visibility and reach of a Red Notice create serious consequences, including: Detention during international travel Asset freezing by global banks Immigration issues and residency denials Loss of access to global business or employment Red Notices can result in immediate arrest or prolonged detention, even before a formal trial has commenced. Case Study 1: Jho Low – The 1MDB Scandal Architect Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, known globally as Jho Low, is perhaps one of the most infamous economic fugitives of the last decade. He is the alleged mastermind behind the 1MDB financial scandal, in which over $4.5 billion was embezzled from Malaysia's sovereign wealth fund and laundered through global banks, real estate deals, and high-profile parties. Malaysia and Singapore both issued warrants for his arrest in 2016. INTERPOL subsequently circulated a Red Notice. Low evaded capture for years, reportedly living in China, Hong Kong, and the Middle East. Despite the Red Notice, his exact whereabouts remain unknown, raising questions about the limitations of the system when political interests override cooperation and transparency. However, the Red Notice had real effects: Banks closed accounts linked to him or his shell companies. His travel options narrowed significantly. Diplomatic efforts escalated between Malaysia and foreign governments. Though not yet captured, Jho Low's Red Notice played a crucial role in limiting his financial and physical mobility. Case Study 2: Félicien Kabuga – Rwandan Genocide Financier In one of INTERPOL's longest-running manhunts, Félicien Kabuga, a Rwandan businessman accused of financing and inciting genocide, was captured in 2020 in a suburb of Paris after 26 years on the run. Kabuga allegedly used his fortune to fund the Hutu militias that massacred over 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu in 1994. A Red Notice was issued by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), later continued under the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. What worked in this case? Decades of intelligence sharing between European states. Use of biometric data to match Kabuga's aliases. Surveillance of family members led investigators to his location. His arrest and extradition to The Hague marked a significant victory for international justice, and INTERPOL's Red Notice played a crucial role in maintaining global pressure and ensuring data visibility. Case Study 3: Anne-Elisabeth Falkevik Hagen – An Abduction Gone International In a rare case blending Red Notices with domestic mystery, Anne-Elisabeth Falkevik Hagen, the wife of one of Norway's wealthiest men, disappeared in 2018. What initially appeared to be a kidnapping for ransom eventually evolved into a murder investigation with international implications. When suspicions fell on people outside of Norway, INTERPOL issued Red Notices to track down foreign accomplices. Multiple Red Notices were reportedly circulated across Europe, including countries where crypto wallets connected to the ransom demands had been accessed. Although the case remains partially unresolved, INTERPOL's involvement helped uncover complex cross-border digital transactions and track suspects through international cooperation, which only Red Notices could facilitate. Case Study 4: Carlos Ghosn – From Extradition to Escape While not a capture, the story of Carlos Ghosn, former chairman of Nissan and Renault, underscores the power—and the limits—of a Red Notice. After his arrest in Japan for alleged financial misconduct, Ghosn fled to Lebanon in a dramatic escape concealed inside an audio equipment box. INTERPOL issued a Red Notice at Japan's request. However, Lebanon has no extradition treaty with Japan, and does not extradite its citizens (Ghosn holds Lebanese citizenship). Although Ghosn was never recaptured, the Red Notice: Severely restricted his ability to travel. Forced him to remain in Lebanon indefinitely. Created a diplomatic rift between Tokyo and Beirut. This case shows that even when a Red Notice cannot lead to arrest, it can confine a fugitive within political or geographic boundaries for years. Case Study 5: Luka Bojić – Serbian Crime Boss Captured in Greece In 2021, INTERPOL issued a Red Notice for Luka Bojić, a high-ranking figure in the Balkan drug cartel responsible for smuggling cocaine across Europe. Greek authorities detained Bojić in Thessaloniki after the Red Notice triggered a routine passport database scan at the airport. He was held for over a year as Serbia filed an extradition request, ultimately leading to his transfer back for trial. This case illustrates the effectiveness of Red Notices when coordinated with border enforcement systems and regional judicial cooperation. Red Notice Success Rate and Impact According to INTERPOL, more than 10,000 Red Notices are issued annually. While most never make headlines, they contribute to thousands of arrests globally, particularly in regions where border controls and digital systems are linked to INTERPOL databases. Red Notices have successfully aided in: Combating human trafficking and child exploitation rings Apprehending white-collar criminals in tax havens Tracking fugitives involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity Capturing terrorism suspects on global watchlists However, Red Notices are only as strong as the political and judicial cooperation behind them. Countries that choose not to honour extradition requests can render notices symbolic. Furthermore, politically motivated notices can erode trust in the system and hinder genuine enforcement. Amicus Commentary: Legal Tools with Geopolitical Consequences 'INTERPOL Red Notices function at the intersection of law and diplomacy,' said a spokesperson for Amicus International Consulting. 'They can be powerful instruments of justice or subtle weapons of repression.' Amicus assists individuals facing unjust Red Notices and supports governments and organizations with compliance, defence strategies, and cross-border legal coordination. Whether used to track real fugitives or as political instruments, Red Notices require meticulous legal interpretation and proactive strategy. Legal Analysis: When Red Notices Work—and When They Don't Success often depends on: Strength of local extradition law Political neutrality of the originating charges Diplomatic cooperation between NCBs (National Central Bureaus) Biometric and travel database integration Existence of a valid arrest warrant in the issuing country When these conditions align, capture and extradition can proceed smoothly. When they don't, the Red Notice may linger in digital limbo—visible, intimidating, but legally inert. Red Notices in the Private Sector: Beyond Law Enforcement Private sector entities—especially banks, airlines, and visa-processing agencies—use Red Notices as compliance triggers. A published or even internal Red Notice can result in: KYC/AML flagging by financial institutions Corporate travel bans Rejection of immigration or asylum applications Reputational damage in mergers and acquisitions Amicus advises companies with global mobility teams, compliance departments, and risk officers on how to navigate employee or client issues related to INTERPOL notices. Red Notice Deletion and Defence: The Legal Lifeline When a Red Notice is believed to be politically motivated or erroneous, individuals may petition INTERPOL's Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF). Amicus has successfully assisted dozens of clients in navigating this complex and legally opaque process. The CCF will consider appeals based on: Lack of due process in the home country Political, religious, or ethnic targeting Evidence of asylum or protected status Conflict with existing international protections The appeal process may take 6 to 12 months, during which individuals remain at risk of arrest unless precautionary measures are taken—a core service Amicus provides. The Road Ahead: Reform, Transparency, and Technological Checks As INTERPOL modernizes its Red Notice protocols, reform advocates call for: Greater transparency on notice issuance and removals Stronger pre-publication review of politically sensitive cases of politically sensitive cases Real-time integration with refugee databases Mandatory legal oversight by host countries before arrest These steps are crucial to ensure that Red Notices maintain their legitimacy as instruments of justice, not instruments of geopolitical coercion. 📞 Contact Information Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402 Email: info@ Website: Follow Us: 🔗 LinkedIn 🔗 Twitter/X 🔗 Facebook 🔗 Instagram TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Time Business News
2 days ago
- Time Business News
Exonerated but Still Wanted: Red Notices That Outlive Legal Cases
VANCOUVER – You win your case. The charges are dropped. A judge clears your name. But months—or even years—later, you find yourself arrested at a border, denied a visa, or blocked by a bank. Why? Because a Red Notice issued by INTERPOL continues to circulate globally, even after the legal grounds for it no longer exist. In a justice system increasingly dependent on digital alerts and automated databases, exoneration doesn't always mean freedom. Amicus International Consulting investigates how outdated or unresolved INTERPOL Red Notices continue to punish the legally innocent, raising urgent questions about due process, data synchronization, and international cooperation. When Innocence Isn't Enough A Red Notice, once issued, can outlive the legal case it was based on. Although it is meant to be temporary—pending extradition or resolution—INTERPOL notices are often not automatically removed even when: Charges are dropped A court rules in favour of the accused A statute of limitations expires A conviction is overturned on appeal This creates a legal phantom: a person who is no longer wanted by law, but still flagged globally as a fugitive. Case Study 1: British Banker Cleared, But Detained in Dubai In 2022, a British national previously accused of fraud in Southeast Asia was acquitted after evidence emerged that a business rival had fabricated the case. Despite the dismissal, he was arrested at Dubai International Airport during a layover, due to a Red Notice that had never been withdrawn. Although the arresting country had no jurisdiction and the extradition request was void, he was held for four days, missed a major business summit, and suffered reputational damage when local media reported on the story. His legal team, working with Amicus, later succeeded in having the Red Notice deleted by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL Files (CCF). Still, the incident cost him professional contracts and exposed systemic failures in Red Notice management. Why Red Notices Outlast Legal Proceedings There are several reasons why Red Notices persist even after exoneration: Member States Must Notify INTERPOL INTERPOL does not actively monitor ongoing court cases. It relies on the issuing country to voluntarily request removal. Some countries delay or intentionally fail to update INTERPOL on dropped charges. INTERPOL's Bureaucratic Lag Even when removal is requested, data purging can take months . . The General Secretariat in Lyon handles the process and requires a formal internal review. Data Duplication in Third-Party Systems Many private firms (banks, airlines, visa services) mirror INTERPOL databases . . These may not update in real time—or at all—even when a Red Notice is deleted. Legal Limbo: The Digital Consequences Even after being cleared in court, an individual listed in INTERPOL's system may: Be detained at international borders Lose banking relationships due to KYC/AML compliance Have visa applications rejected or delayed Be barred from working in regulated industries Suffer reputational loss, especially if their Red Notice was publicly visible The human and economic cost of this 'residual criminality' can be devastating. Case Study 2: Journalist Exonerated, Still Flagged in Europe In 2021, a Middle Eastern journalist exiled in Europe won asylum and later had criminal defamation charges against her dismissed by the Supreme Court of her home country. Yet a Red Notice remained active, and she was detained during travel to Switzerland for a media conference. Authorities initially resisted her release, citing INTERPOL's alert. Only after Amicus submitted a dossier with court records and asylum documentation was she allowed to continue her journey. It took another seven months for the CCF to delete the outdated notice. Who Is Responsible for Removal? The responsibility to remove a Red Notice lies with: The Issuing Country : They must notify INTERPOL of legal developments. : They must notify INTERPOL of legal developments. The INTERPOL General Secretariat : Must process removals efficiently. : Must process removals efficiently. The CCF May act independently if a formal complaint is filed. May act independently if a formal complaint is filed. The Subject or their legal team must often initiate contact to push for deletion. This fragmented process creates a bottleneck, especially when legal representation is absent or under-resourced. The CCF: The Last Hope for the Wrongfully Listed The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) is the only body authorized to review and delete Red Notices. Its process is confidential, written, and can take 6–12 months. Grounds for deletion include: Case dismissal or acquittal Violation of due process in the origin country Political or discriminatory motive Expiry of the statute of limitations Contradiction with asylum or refugee status While the CCF plays a vital role, its slow pace and limited enforcement power often mean that individuals remain trapped in legal uncertainty. Case Study 3: Businesswoman Exonerated in U.S., Flagged Abroad A dual citizen of the U.S. and West Africa was exonerated in a high-profile corporate embezzlement case in 2020. A federal court found the charges unfounded and politically retaliatory. However, INTERPOL had already issued a Red Notice. Although the U.S. courts cleared her, she was denied entry to Canada, where the Red Notice still appeared in immigration systems. It took Amicus and a Canadian legal team three months to coordinate with authorities and have her travel clearance reinstated. The Red Notice was eventually deleted, but her ability to operate in global finance remained impaired. Amicus Intervention: Legal Strategy Against Old Alerts Amicus International Consulting works with clients whose legal cases are resolved but whose Red Notices remain active. Our services include: Petitioning the CCF for deletion Requesting post-resolution updates from issuing countries Coordinating with immigration and banking compliance units Advising on travel and visa risks during review periods Reputation and media management for high-profile individuals 'Red Notices don't die just because the case does,' said a legal advisor at Amicus. 'You need to bury them legally—or they'll bury your freedom.' Private Sector Fallout: When Banks, Airlines, and Visa Services Don't Get the Memo Even after a Red Notice is deleted, the ripple effects continue: Banks may keep compliance flags for years , fearing future liability. , fearing future liability. Airlines may block bookings from blocked names via API-PNR systems. from blocked names via API-PNR systems. Visa systems, such as ESTA, ETIAS, and eTA, may automatically reject applicants with past INTERPOL flags. may automatically reject applicants with past INTERPOL flags. Background check companies may cite old or archived Red Notices. Amicus offers digital hygiene audits and private-sector erasure campaigns to mitigate ongoing risk. Case Study 4: Interpol Notice Deleted, But Identity Still Tainted In 2023, Amicus represented a Balkan IT executive who had a Red Notice removed after being cleared of charges in Croatia. Yet, his LinkedIn, banking apps, and even air ticketing profiles continued to reject verification due to cached data from third-party vendors. A year-long campaign of legal requests and GDPR filings finally removed the last traces of the outdated notice, but not before he lost clients and had to close his consultancy firm. Policy Recommendations: Preventing Post-Exoneration Injustice To prevent future harm, Amicus and human rights partners advocate for: Automatic removal protocols triggered by issuing countries upon exoneration triggered by issuing countries upon exoneration Real-time data syncing between INTERPOL and third-party users between INTERPOL and third-party users Mandatory Red Notice expiration after legal closure, unless extended by judicial order Red Notice review board with faster appeal windows for cleared individuals Global standard for data privacy and reputation restoration Until then, legal vigilance remains the only defence against a system that exceeds its mandate. Case Study 5: Politician Cleared, Still Blocked from Travel A former Central Asian diplomat, acquitted of corruption charges by an international court in 2021, continued to face travel restrictions in the EU and Asia-Pacific because his Red Notice had not been removed. Despite repeated requests, the issuing country refused to notify INTERPOL. Amicus filed an independent appeal with the CCF, resulting in the deletion nearly a year later. The gap between legal reality and INTERPOL's records had cost him three years of international engagement and stalled the humanitarian work he led. 📞 Contact Information Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402 Email: info@ Website: Follow Us: 🔗 LinkedIn 🔗 Twitter/X 🔗 Facebook 🔗 Instagram TIME BUSINESS NEWS
