London Firm Puts Red Notices Under Scrutiny

A London-based firm with offices in New York, the UAE and Europe, 365Alteram, announced on October 13, 2026 that it is offering independent forensic review services to criminal defence lawyers and individuals contesting the factual basis of INTERPOL notices. The firm says its work centres on examining the evidence behind an allegation rather than the allegation itself, reconstructing financial, digital and documentary records that often span multiple jurisdictions and languages.

Inside the Forensic Model

According to the announcement, international cases frequently involve records scattered across countries, languages and technical systems, with financial transactions, communications, witness accounts and procedural documents needing to be reconstructed into a verifiable chronology. 365Alteram lists its capabilities as case review, financial and corporate forensics, digital evidence analysis and international defence support.

The firm describes its methodology as built around traceable sources, testable assumptions and independent conclusions. Notably, it states that findings must remain independent even where they challenge a client's own account, and that it cannot guarantee any particular outcome, including deletion of disputed data.

That distinction matters because the firm positions itself as an evidentiary support service rather than an advocacy operation. Legal strategy, the announcement makes clear, remains with instructed counsel; 365Alteram's role is to supply the factual material that counsel can use.

What a Red Notice Actually Establishes

The release is explicit about the limits of the alert it addresses. A Red Notice requests the location and provisional arrest of a person pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action; it is not an international arrest warrant, and individual countries determine its legal effect under their own laws. Where a person is sought for prosecution, the notice does not establish guilt.

Independent reporting on INTERPOL's structure supports the broader premise that a notice is a coordination tool rather than a verdict. 365Alteram's own materials stress that different notices and diffusions serve different purposes, and that an effective response has to address both the specific mechanism involved and the underlying national proceedings behind it.

This framing is significant for defence teams operating across borders, where a single alert can trigger consequences — travel restrictions, frozen accounts, reputational damage — well before any court has tested the underlying claim.

The Role of the CCF

The announcement places particular weight on the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, the CCF, which examines requests concerning access to, correction of and deletion of personal data in INTERPOL's systems. Its assessment concerns compliance with INTERPOL's rules, including data protection principles, human rights requirements and neutrality — not criminal guilt, and it does not replace the authorities responsible for extradition decisions.

365Alteram says it can help build the factual record supporting counsel's assessment of a potential CCF request, which may include documenting inaccurate information, analysing omitted context or establishing the significance of subsequent developments. The firm frames the value of this work plainly: a disputed account becomes more useful to the defence when each material assertion can be connected to a document, an identifiable source or a reproducible analytical finding.

The firm is careful to note that a successful challenge to INTERPOL-held information does not itself resolve separate national proceedings or guarantee unrestricted travel — a distinction it says should be built into any assessment from the outset.

A Global System With Uneven Enforcement

INTERPOL's network spans nearly the entire community of nations. Independent reporting describes INTERPOL as an intergovernmental organization with 196 member countries, which gives any notice entered into its systems a reach that few other law-enforcement mechanisms can match. That scale is precisely why scrutiny of a notice's factual basis carries weight across so many jurisdictions at once — an error or omission in the underlying file does not stay contained to one country's courts.

It also explains why specialist review work of the kind 365Alteram describes has become a distinct niche within international criminal defence: lawyers handling extradition and Red Notice matters increasingly need investigative capacity that can operate across borders, languages and record-keeping systems simultaneously, rather than relying solely on domestic case files.

For Individuals, Not Just Counsel

365Alteram says it welcomes confidential enquiries directly from individuals, not only from law firms. Where someone approaches the firm without a lawyer already engaged, the forensic scope is coordinated with appropriately qualified counsel so that any investigative work supports the relevant legal strategy rather than operating apart from it.

The firm recommends a structured assessment that separates the INTERPOL data question from any underlying national warrant or criminal proceeding — two issues that can run on entirely different timelines and before entirely different bodies. Every matter, it says, requires its own individual assessment, with no standard guarantee of outcome.

The announcement adds a service layer to a process that has long been criticised for its opacity: understanding exactly what information about a person is circulating internationally, and why. For lawyers managing extradition risk across jurisdictions, and for individuals caught in the middle of a cross-border allegation, the pitch is less about winning a case outright than about ensuring the underlying facts are properly tested before anyone else acts on them.