Personal liability, INTERPOL and extradition: what directors and officers of crypto companies need to know

If you are a director, founder or senior officer in a company operating in the cryptoasset space — particularly one with an international footprint — you should be aware of a significant change in the enforcement landscape over the past two years. As a consequence, the risk of liability has increased exponentially and is now greater than ever before. This requires urgent consideration and extremely careful planning.

Across a series of blogs, Gherson’s Criminal Litigation, Regulatory and Investigations team has been tracking INTERPOL’s efforts alongside those of national law enforcement agencies and regulatory authorities which have resulted in the progressive expansion of their toolkits for pursuing individuals involved in crypto-related activities both domestically and internationally. From Red Notices to Silver Notices, from extradition requests to domestic asset-freezing powers, the personal exposure of those in leadership positions has never been greater.

This article is aimed primarily at High-Net-Worth individuals who hold — or have held — senior positions in crypto businesses and who may be concerned about personal liability. Whether your concern relates to regulatory non-compliance, allegations of fraud, AML failures or simply the unpredictable jurisdictional reach of foreign authorities, this article explains the mechanisms by which you may be personally targeted, and what actions you should take now.

Why directors and officers are personally at risk

The borderless nature of crypto equals multi-jurisdictional exposure

Due to the borderless nature of crypto transactions, any allegation of criminality will inevitably involve multiple jurisdictions. Unlike traditional financial services, where regulatory boundaries are well-established, a single crypto transaction may affect servers, exchanges, customers and wallets in a dozen countries simultaneously. This means that as a director, you are potentially within the prosecutorial reach of multiple states — not merely the jurisdiction in which your company is incorporated or where you yourself reside.

The US, in particular, has demonstrated an aggressive willingness to assert jurisdiction over individuals outside its borders in cases where crypto-related activities have allegedly had an adverse effect in the US. As a result, several crypto operators, including Do Kwon (Terraform Labs) and Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX), have already been extradited and faced charges in the US.

The expanding UK corporate liability framework

The UK has recently witnessed one of the most significant expansions of the corporate criminal liability framework in modern history. From 29 June 2026, under Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, companies can be held criminally liable for any UK criminal offence committed by a “senior manager” when acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority. This extends far beyond the previous position under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which was limited to specified economic crimes.

This applies to both UK and non-UK companies and can capture the conduct of senior managers wherever they are based. There is no “reasonable procedures” statutory defence available under this Act.

For directors this constitutes a risk of being held personally liable because, whilst Section 250 establishes corporate liability, in practice, any corporate investigation triggered by a senior manager’s conduct will inevitably focus on the individual whose actions are in question. Corporate prosecutions generate disclosure, media attention and regulatory scrutiny that will inevitably cascade to the officers concerned. Furthermore, companies facing prosecution may refuse or be unable to fund a separate defence required for the individual director, leaving them personally exposed.

Separately, the failure to prevent fraud offence (section 199, ECCTA 2023), enforceable since September 2025, exposes large organisations to unlimited fines if it is found that employees or associated persons have committed fraud intending to benefit the organisation. Whilst this is a corporate offence and directors are not personally liable for the organisation’s failure, the underlying allegations of fraudulent conduct may additionally expose directors to individual criminal charges.

The INTERPOL toolkit: how it applies to you

Red Notices

An INTERPOL Red Notice is a request sent by a member state to all other member states (INTERPOL currently has over 190 members) to locate a suspect or a convicted person and take steps to facilitate their surrender to the requesting state — typically via extradition. It is not an international arrest warrant, and INTERPOL cannot compel any country to arrest the person in question. However, in practice, a Red Notice results in severe consequences:

• Restriction of movement: you cannot travel internationally without a significant risk of detention;
• Banking and financial access: in practice, financial institutions routinely screen against INTERPOL databases as part of their compliance processes. A Red Notice can trigger account freezes, enhanced due diligence checks and service termination;
• Reputational destruction: in an industry built on trust, a Red Notice is devastating and may result in severe and long-lasting consequences for both your business and private life.

Red Notices have been used against crypto founders and executives including Do Kwon (Terraform Labs) and Richard Heart (HEX). In one case, an INTERPOL Red Notice was requested to locate Hayden Davis, a US citizen who had allegedly been behind the launch of several memecoins.

Silver Notice – a new and growing threat

INTERPOL’s Silver Notice, introduced as a pilot in early 2025, enables member states to request the tracing and identification of assets — including cryptoassets — believed to be the proceeds of crime and located in other jurisdictions. The Silver Notice has been declared a “major success” by INTERPOL and the pilot programme has been extended to the end of 2026.

India has already issued several Silver Notices in crypto fraud cases, and the UK published its first Silver Notice in April 2025. Directors with assets spread across multiple jurisdictions should be aware of this mechanism, as it is specifically designed to locate and trace assets internationally. Whilst the Silver Notice does not constitute authorisation to freeze assets — that requires separate domestic legal proceedings in the relevant jurisdiction — identification of assets through a Silver Notice can facilitate domestic freezing and forfeiture applications, potentially across multiple countries simultaneously.

Purple Notices

INTERPOL has also issued Purple Notices to warn member states about emerging cryptocurrency fraud schemes. Notably, a Purple Notice was issued regarding the “USDT Token Approval Scam” involving stablecoins. Whilst Purple Notices do not target individuals by name, they can trigger investigations that subsequently lead to Red Notices and extradition proceedings.

Extradition: the jurisdictional long arm

The US approach

The US has become the most active jurisdiction in pursuing the extradition of individuals for crypto-related offences. Key examples include:

• Do Kwon extradited from Montenegro to the US; sentenced to 15 years in prison in December 2025 for a $40 billion stablecoin fraud;
• Sam Bankman-Fried arrested in the Bahamas following reports of US authorities seeking extradition; subsequently extradited and convicted;
• BTC-e operator: a Russian national extradited from Greece to the US on allegations of operating a cryptocurrency exchange that laundered more than $4 billion in criminal proceeds;
• Russian national extradited from Portugal to the US for alleged involvement in a conspiracy to manipulate cryptocurrency markets on behalf of client crypto companies.

Extradition requests are not always successful

The US does not always succeed. In Hamilton v Government of the United States of America [2023] EWHC 2893 (Admin), the UK High Court blocked the extradition of a UK national to the US in respect of money laundering and wire fraud charges linked to the cryptocurrency OneCoin. The Court applied the “forum bar” under section 83A of the Extradition Act 2003, ruling that Hamilton should face prosecution in Britain rather than being extradited to the US.

This demonstrates that extradition can be challenged — but only where the right legal strategy is deployed at the right time.

UK domestic asset seizure powers

Since 26 April 2024, UK law enforcement agencies have significantly expanded their powers to freeze and seize cryptoassets under amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”), as introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“ECCTA”).

Key features include:

• No arrest required: assets can be seized during the investigatory stage before proceedings have been initiated and without the requirement for arrest;
• Crypto Wallet Freezing Orders (CWFrOs): a magistrates’ court can rule on the balance of probabilities to freeze cryptoassets held in a wallet administered by a UK-affiliated cryptoasset service provider for up to two years;
• Physical seizure of hardware: officers can seize cryptoasset-related items including hardware wallets, devices and anything that could assist in accessing unhosted wallets;
• Recreation of wallets: officers can take steps to recreate crypto wallets and transfer unhosted cryptoassets into law-enforcement-controlled wallets;
• Forfeiture: if the law enforcement authorities conclude that assets constitute proceeds of crime, they can apply for forfeiture and realisation.

So far, over £6 million has already been frozen under CWFrOs, including holdings on major platforms such as Coinbase, with enforcement activity still underway.

To illustrate the broader trajectory of UK enforcement appetite: even before April 2024, when the UK authorities’ powers expanded under ECCTA, the law enforcement agencies had already demonstrated a willingness to seize substantial cryptoassets under the pre-existing POCA regime. In one case, over £2 billion worth of Bitcoin was seized in connection with a money laundering prosecution — the largest cryptocurrency seizure by UK authorities to date.

What should you be doing now?

1. Understand your personal exposure

Do not assume that your liability is limited to the jurisdiction in which you or your company are based. Conduct a thorough cross-jurisdictional risk assessment considering every country in which your company has operated, held assets, served customers or processed transactions.

2. Check whether INTERPOL holds data on you

It is possible to enquire with INTERPOL whether a Red Notice or other data relating to you is held in its systems. A pre-emptive approach — before a Notice is published — can be highly effective. Gherson regularly makes these applications on behalf of our clients.

3. Review your AML and sanctions compliance

With the FCA’s new cryptoasset regime commencing in October 2027 and the authorisation gateway opening in September 2026, firms that are deemed non-compliant with existing AML obligations face heightened scrutiny. Non-compliance with the financial promotions regime is a criminal offence. The FCA has demonstrated its willingness to prosecute, and non-compliance could jeopardise future authorisation applications.

4. Prepare for the expanded corporate liability regime

From 29 June 2026, any criminal offence committed by a senior manager acting within the scope of their authority can be attributed to the company. There is no cap on fines and, critically, no reasonable defence procedures against this provision. Your governance arrangements, compliance systems and records of decision-making may play a pivotal role in protecting you against charges.

5. Consider your travel plans

If there is any risk that a jurisdiction has already requested or may request that INTERPOL process data relating to you, your international travel plans may expose you to detention and potential extradition. This includes transit through third countries that may act on a Red Notice.

6. Seek specialist legal advice early

Whether you are facing an active investigation, have received a tip-off that you may be the subject of INTERPOL’s measures or simply wish to understand your risk profile, early advice is critical. The difference between proactive engagement and reactive crisis management can be the difference between freedom and incarceration.

How we can help

Gherson has over 38 years of experience in assisting with all aspects of INTERPOL, Red Notice challenges and extradition. Our Criminal Litigation, Regulatory and Investigations team combines expert knowledge of criminal and regulatory law with a firm understanding of digital assets and blockchain technology.

Our advice covers:

• Identifying the best approach to handle a possible INTERPOL Red Notice;
• Preparing for potential criminal proceedings or an extradition request;
• Challenging the issuance of a Red Notice or seeking its deletion from INTERPOL’s databases;
• Managing asylum and extradition requests in tandem;
• Ensuring AML, regulatory and sanctions compliance, including in situations involving cryptoassets;
• Exploring the possibility of instigating civil litigation to recover misappropriated assets.

If you would like to speak to us in respect of any of the issues raised in this article, or about your specific circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram 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 2026