Interpol Diffusion

The primary function of a diffusion is to promptly request assistance: determining the location of a person, obtaining information about their movements, or applying temporary measures in accordance with national legislation. Diffusions are often used as a temporary measure before issuing a Red Notice or in parallel with other international requests. Despite its less formal status, a diffusion can lead to the same practical consequences as Interpol notices, including detention, border crossing restrictions, and the initiation of extradition procedures.

It is fundamentally important to understand that diffusions are never displayed in the public database on the interpol.int website. Unlike certain Red Notices, which can be published in open access, diffusions remain completely closed for public search. Only law enforcement agencies have access to them through Interpol’s secure channels, and the individual themselves is not automatically notified of the request’s existence.

Interpol uses a system of color-coded notices for standardized information exchange between law enforcement agencies of different countries. Each type of notice has a strictly defined legal purpose and is not an international arrest warrant in itself.

In the practice of international search for American law enforcement agencies, both Red Notice and Interpol Diffusion are used. Both tools are applied for information exchange and the search for individuals at the request of foreign states; however, their legal nature, level of verification, and practical consequences in the USA differ significantly.

In the USA, neither Red Notice nor Diffusion by themselves grant automatic authority for arrest: a national warrant or a separate judicial request within the framework of extradition proceedings is required for detention. At the same time, both tools are actively used by federal agencies for coordinating actions, verifying a person’s status, strengthening immigration and banking compliance, as well as initiating subsequent procedural steps.

Information about an international search may be visible in USCIS systems and related agencies during the review of immigration cases. This often leads to denials or delays in extending visa status, significant delays in processing Green Card applications, as well as denials of naturalization or requests for additional evidence of reliability. Even in the absence of a conviction, foreign requests can serve as grounds for enhanced scrutiny of the applicant’s reliability.

Information about the search may be considered by ICE and DHS as part of national security measures. In practice, the following are possible:

American banks and financial institutions apply strict compliance procedures and use global databases. When such systems are triggered, the following are possible:

Financial restrictions are often introduced preventively, without a court decision, which can significantly complicate business and personal activities.

The presence of diffusion or a Red Notice may complicate the procedure for obtaining asylum in the USA. The applicant will need to prove that the persecution is political in nature and not related to ordinary criminal prosecution. Otherwise, immigration authorities and courts may classify the request as a sign of a criminal case, which significantly reduces the chances of being granted protection.

Any attempts to “check yourself” through dubious services, private databases, or personal contacts with the police are unsafe and legally risky. In the U.S., inquiries to government systems are recorded and may attract the attention of ICE and DHS, even if the person was not previously on the authorities’ radar. Moreover, unofficial checks do not provide reliable data: private databases do not have access to Interpol systems, and information obtained through third parties is often outdated or incorrect, which only increases legal risks.

The only legal way is an official request to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files. This is an independent body authorized to confirm the presence of data in Interpol’s system and assess the legality of its processing. The request is submitted in the prescribed format and must contain the minimum necessary amount of personal data to avoid disclosing location and sensitive information.

At the same time, even an official request requires proper legal preparation. Careless wording, excessive information, or contradictions can provoke additional interest from American authorities and intensified checks by immigration services or bank compliance. Therefore, contacting the CCF should be part of a well-thought-out legal strategy with a preliminary risk assessment for U.S. jurisdiction.

Diffusions of Interpol present an increased legal risk due to the non-public and operational nature of such requests, which can lead to migration, financial, and criminal law consequences in various jurisdictions. Effective defense in such cases requires not only knowledge of Interpol’s formal rules but also a practical understanding of how international requests are integrated into national law enforcement systems. Mistakes at an early stage often result in heightened attention from migration and law enforcement authorities and complicate the subsequent legal position.

Anatoly Yarovoy specializes in complex cross-border cases related to international search, diffusions, and Interpol notices. In his practice, he uses the mechanism of a preventive request as a tool for early legal protection: this allows for checking the presence of data in the Interpol system and preemptively declaring the illegality of prosecution before U.S. authorities take procedural measures. This approach reduces the risk of sudden restrictions, blockages, and detentions, as well as enables the development of a defense strategy before practical consequences arise.

Challenging the diffusion of Interpol is possible in the presence of violations of the Interpol Constitution and the Rules on Data Processing. The CCF evaluates such requests individually, based on the legality, proportionality, and objectives of the international request. In practice, the grounds for challenging diffusion include the following key categories:

Our team specializes in challenging international Interpol requests, including diffusions and notices, in proceedings before the CCF Commission. We conduct an initial legal assessment of the grounds for contesting based on the Interpol Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data, identifying signs of politically motivated persecution, disproportionate measures, procedural violations, and distortion of facts. Based on this, we develop a legal position and evidence base for submitting a deletion request or preventive request, taking into account the jurisdictions where the client is most likely to face migration and extradition consequences.

As part of our support, we prepare procedural documents for CCF, coordinate the defense strategy in parallel national procedures, and work to minimize practical risks for the client. This comprehensive approach not only allows us to challenge unlawful data in the Interpol system but also to manage the associated consequences before a decision is made. Contact us for an initial confidential consultation, as an early legal assessment significantly increases the chances of successful challenging and risk reduction.