In April 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of D.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Michigan man that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) placed on a no-fly list because he refused to become an informant.

On March 19, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles unsealed a criminal complaint charging 10 Iranian nationals with operating an approximately 20-year-long scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on the Iranian government by concealing more than $300 million worth of transactions.  The transactions including buying two $25 million oil tankers for Iran through front companies in the San Fernando Valley, Canada, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. [1]

On March 19, 2021, the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), adopted the resolution and recommendation on strengthening financial intelligence units to improve illegal asset confiscation. The debate as well as recommendation and resolution were based on the report prepared by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.^[1]

On March 30, 2021, the United States Tax Court granted summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service with respect to a taxpayer debtor/physician’s constitutional challenge to the IRS’ certification of the delinquent tax debt under IRC, § 7345. [1] The taxpayer’s outstanding tax balance was close to $500,000 and so the IRS turned to a new tool in its collection toolbox - § 7345.1.  Under this section, the IRS certified that Robert Rowen, the taxpayer, had a seriously delinquent tax debt to the Treasury secretary, who then transmitted the certification to the State Department.  The IRS notified Rowen of the certification.  At the time of the suit and the Tax Court’s opinion, the State Department had not taken any action concerning Rowen’s passport.  Nevertheless, Rowen petitioned the Tax Court, challenging the IRS’s certification as unconstitutional and a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[2]

On March 23, 2021, the United Nations Council voted to open an inquiry into Sri Lanka’s alleged war crimes resulting from the three decades civil war.

On April 1, 2021, United States prosecutors announced the arrests of Adalberto Fructuoso Comparan-Rodriguez, also known as “Fruto,” and Alfonso Rustrian in Guatemala on March 30, 2021, on U.S. criminal charges.[1]

On February 24, 2021, a German court convicted former Syrian secret police officer Eyad al-Gharib of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity during the Syrian Civil War. The landmark decision is the first example of a national court – as opposed to the International Criminal Court – convicting a relatively high-ranking officer for war crimes committed during the now decade-long conflict in Syria.

On April 1, 2021, United States President Joseph R. Biden terminated the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13928 of June 11, 2020, which blocked property of certain persons associated with the International Criminal Court (ICC).[1]

On March 2, 2020 the United Nations released a Report on Financial Integrity For Sustainable Development (the “Report”). Although the Report is lengthy and wide-ranging, we will focus here on the portions of the Report which target the humanitarian toll of Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs) from money laundering, tax abuse, cross-border corruption, and transnational financial crime – all of which can drain resources from sustainable development, worsen inequality, fuel instability, undermine governance, and damage public trust.   We also will focus on the portions of the Report which make recommendations designed to expand anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance.

While Interpol has published the revised RPD, it has neither itemized the revisions nor provided a red-line version of the RPD. This article summarizes the 2019 revisions and assesses their significance, both for attorneys seeking the knowledge they need to effectively advocate for their clients when an Interpol issue arises and for practitioners concerned to ensure that Interpol is used only for purposes of legitimate law enforcement. Finally, it provides a practical illustration of the importance of Interpol’s rules on data protection for attorneys advocating before the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (the “CCF”).