Background
In our previous articles, we discussed how the borderless nature of crypto transactions has led jurisdictions to request INTERPOL to issue notices in an effort to locate individuals based in other jurisdictions who are accused of criminal activities. This is often done with a view toward potential extradition, and there have been several instances of subsequent extradition requests.
Indeed, the use of INTERPOL to pursue individuals accused of offences involving cryptoassets is becoming increasingly common.
Following earlier reports that South Korea had asked INTERPOL to issue a Red Notice for developer Do Kwon, the team wrote a blog titled “Can INTERPOL issue a Red Notice in relation to allegations involving crypto?”.
INTERPOL was also reportedly involved in attempts to locate Ignatova Bajatova, who was connected with the OneCoin scandal.
Jurisdictional setbacks
However, attempts to locate and extradite individuals across jurisdictions for crypto-related offences are not without setbacks.
Back in 2023, we highlighted how, following a jurisdiction-based challenge, the UK High Court blocked the extradition of an individual to the U.S. for crypto-related offences:
We shall now examine how the U.S. authorities have suffered a similar setback.
However, for reasons that we will explore, this is unlikely to be the end of the matter.
Why did a U.S. Court dismiss the SEC case against HEX Founder Richard Heart?
Another individual allegedly involved in the crypto sphere is Richart Heart, the founder of Hex. It is reported that he was accused of conducting unregistered crypto offerings, raising over $1 billion and misappropriating several million.
On 31 July 2023, the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a Press Release entitled “SEC Charges Hex Founder Richard Heart with Misappropriating Millions of Dollars of Investor from Unregistered Crypto Asset Securities Offerings that Raised more than $1 Billion”.
Subsequently, in December 2024, Mr Heart found himself subject to an INTERPOL Red Notice. However, it is reported that the Red Notice sought his location, potential arrest and extradition in relation to allegations, including tax fraud, in a non-US jurisdiction.
In a rare setback for the U.S. authorities, Reuters has reported that a Federal Judge has dismissed the SEC’s lawsuit against Mr Heart, ruling that the agency failed to establish jurisdiction over the Finland-based U.S. citizen.
What does this mean?
Although this demonstrates a further jurisdiction-based setback in establishing jurisdiction in these types of cases, and potentially the end of Mr Heart’s problems in the U.S., it will not mark the end of the matter for him.
Given that the Red Notice relates to offences in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, it will almost certainly remain in place. Therefore, the risk of arrest and extradition will remain a real concern.
Crypto and Extradition
As well as being at risk of INTERPOL measures such as Red Notices, those who fear that allegations involving crypto have been made against them could also be at risk of extradition.
As was discussed in a previous blog entitled “Can I be extradited for allegations involving crypto?” and “Another US crypto extradition”, due to the borderless nature of crypto transactions, any allegation of criminality will inevitably involve multiple jurisdictions. As such, numerous jurisdictions may assert their authority and try to extradite an alleged perpetrator to face justice within their borders. Indeed, there have now been two instances of individuals being extradited to the US in relation to allegations involving crypto.
The vast majority (if not all) of criminal allegations underpinning a crypto-related criminal investigation involve financial crimes, such as fraud, money laundering and insider dealing. They can also include alleged offences relating to breaches of financial regulations.
These offences, by their very nature, can take place across multiple jurisdictions, allowing multiple countries to assert jurisdiction, even in cases involving conduct outside their borders. As a result, extradition can be an option.
Indeed, due to the borderless nature of the effect of these crimes, a jurisdiction could assert authority over an individual who has never stepped foot in that jurisdiction.
Therefore, jurisdictions may also utilise INTERPOL to locate an individual and seek their arrest prior to issuing any extradition request.
Due to the nature of this technology, and as it becomes more prevalent, there will likely be a substantial increase in instances where INTERPOL is used to locate individuals accused of crypto-related offences.
INTERPOL and cryptoassets
We have previously written about INTERPOL’s specialist team developed to coordinate globally against digital assets crime.
As noted before, there have been increasing reports of countries using INTERPOL to pursue individuals alleged to have engaged in criminal activity related to cryptoassets.
Indeed, INTERPOL has recently been more active in seizing online digital wallets and exchanges, including the seizure of the exchange knows as Cryptonator for allegedly receiving the proceeds of crime.
Suitability of INTERPOL
There is no doubt that crime involving crypto presents unique challenges to authorities. The decentralised nature of crypto and its distance from more conventional financial institutions create significant hurdles in international policing.
The UK continues to pass legislation, recently enabling authorities to investigate and seize assets suspected of being used in criminal activities related to crypto (please see our other blogs on crypto regulation).
Other INTERPOL members, however, may not be as quick in establishing a regulatory framework, making international cooperation even more challenging.
Nevertheless, given the decentralised and borderless nature of some cryptoasset transactions, an organisation with global reach like INTERPOL is well-suited to coordinate the steps to both pursue individuals alleged to be involved in criminal offences involving crypto, and trace any associated proceeds of crime.
As always, it is essential to ensure that INTERPOL is always used in compliance with all its applicable rules and regulations.
International crypto dimension – criminal investigations, litigation and extradition
Those who fear that they may be subject to an extradition request from the UK, or who are just concerned about liability across multiple jurisdictions including the UK, should get in touch.
Gherson’s criminal litigation, regulatory and investigatory team combine an expert knowledge of criminal and regulatory law underpinned with a firm understanding of digital assets and blockchain technology. As such, the team are able to provide expert strategic advice to anyone facing investigation in relation to any allegation of criminality involving cryptoassets. Working alongside the extradition team, Gherson’s criminal litigation, investigations and regulatory team are able to provide an unparalleled service in any case with an international dimension. The team are also able to call upon lawyers in multiple other jurisdictions and build multi-jurisdictional teams to assist with any suitable defence.
INTERPOL, Red Notices and crypto
In addition, those who fear that a jurisdiction may have requested INTERPOL to process data relating to them for crypto-related offences, or are just concerned about potential liability, should get in contact.
Indeed, Gherson Solicitors continue to receive requests for expert advice and assistance from those who fear they may have outstanding financial issues arising. That advice tackles:
- How to best approach a possible INTERPOL red notice;
- Preparing for potential criminal proceedings / an extradition request;
- Preparing for a situation where a civil matter or commercial dispute could be used to initiate bogus criminal proceedings; and
- Exploring the possibility of instigating civil litigation proceedings to recover any misappropriated assets.
Gherson have previously written a series of blogs designed to assist those who fear they might be subject to INTERPOL measures (including a Red Notice):
- INTERPOL and Red Notice Challenges
- How to Remove an INTERPOL Red Notice
- INTERPOL Red Notices and Extradition
- How do I know if I am subject to an INTERPOL Red Notice
Regulation and compliance
In these constantly changing times, firms that deal with cryptoassets, and additionally have exposure to firms that do, will need to carefully consider all their systems and controls to ensure that they are able to comply with all relevant AML and sanctions regulations.
Updated: 13 March 2025
How Gherson can assist
Gherson’s white-collar crime and regulatory team are able to provide advice and assistance with AML and sanctions compliance, including in situations involving cryptoassets.
Additionally, the team have recently started a series on the regulation of crypto, with the aim of advising those who work in the compliance of this sector. In addition, for those who would like advice on relevant issues, including those who have had issues with the FCA registration process, our specialist regulatory and compliance team can guide individuals and companies through the process.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for further advice, send us an e-mail, or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, or LinkedIn to stay up-to-date.
The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.
©Gherson 2025