INTERPOL Red Notice & International Extradition國際刑警紅色通緝令及國際引渡程序
Guardrail of Confidentiality: Target persons anonymised.（保密原則：目標人士已作匿名處理）
Double criminality (also known as dual criminality) is a foundational legal principle of reciprocity in international extradition law which stipulates that a person may only be extradited from one country to another if the act they are accused of constitutes a criminal offence in both jurisdictions.[雙重犯罪原則]為國際引渡法中互惠的基礎法律原則，規定只有在被指控的行為於請求國及被請求國均構成刑事罪行的情況下，該人士方可被引渡。
Selected cases that we have handled over the years(我們歷年來處理過的部分案件)
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted an extradition request to the New Zealand Government after locating the accused in New Zealand with the assistance of an INTERPOL Red Notice issued for a global manhunt.美國司法部Department of Justice (DOJ) 經國際刑警(INTERPOL 發出紅色通緝令(Red Notice)全球通緝被告, 最後追蹤至紐西蘭, 並向紐西蘭政府提出引渡申請。
The accused was alleged to be a Hong Kong-born leader of the 14K triad and a core figure in a narcotics cartel.被告被指為香港出生的十四K三合會社團首腦，亦為毒品集團的核心人物。
The extradition request originated from the well-known "Hayward heroin bust" in Hayward, California in 1991, the largest seizure of No. 4 heroin in United States history, with an estimated street value of USD 30 billion. The operation was jointly conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The accused was alleged to be the mastermind overseeing the shipment of narcotics into the United States.該引渡申請源於 1991 年於美國加州Hayward市發生、著名的「海沃德海洛英大案」Hayward heroin bust, 美國有史以來最大的的第四號海洛英查獲行動，市值高達 300 億美元。該次行動由聯邦調查局（FBI）及緝毒署（DEA）聯合執行，被告被指為幕後主腦，負責監督毒品輸入美國。
Upon being instructed, Josiah Wong personally embarked on an extensive investigation, carrying out overt and covert inquiries with witnesses and informants in Hong Kong, Australia, and the United States. While in the United States, he secretly met with former FBI agents, former federal prosecutors and members of the criminal underworld in order to secure critical intelligence. Subsequent tracing of leads to a courthouse in Los Angeles uncovered serious evidentiary inconsistencies, ultimately resulting in the withdrawal of all charges by the United States.黃源通大律師接案後親自展開廣泛調查，於香港、澳洲及美國明查暗訪有關證人及線人。在美國期間，更秘密會晤前 FBI 探員、前聯邦檢控官及黑幫成員，以取得關鍵線索。其後追查線索至洛杉磯一所法院，揭發嚴重證據矛盾，最終導致美國撤銷全部控罪。
One of the charges was withdrawn during the New Zealand proceedings, and the remaining two were withdrawn after the accused was extradited to New York.其中一項控罪於紐西蘭法律程序期間被撤銷，其餘兩項則於被告被引渡到紐約後撤銷。
Upon completion of the legal process in New York, the accused voluntarily surrendered himself to the Hong Kong Police to face charges relating to drug trafficking in 1985.完成紐約的法律程序後，被告自願向香港警方投案，以面對 1985 年涉及毒品販運的控罪。
Hong Kong and the United States simultaneously submitted extradition requests to New Zealand.香港及美國同時向紐西蘭提出引渡申請。
Strategic advice was given for the accused to consent to the HKSAR extradition request, while allowing the United States request to take priority, in order to streamline legal proceedings and prevent "legal ambushes".就策略上建議被告同意香港特區的引渡請求，並容許美國請求優先處理，以簡化法律程序及防止「法律伏擊」。
Criminal law — Extradition proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. The accused was a foreign national. The Australian Government lodged an extradition request with a civil law jurisdiction. Within less than 24 hours of the accused's arrest, the extradition process was bypassed and the court formally terminated the extradition proceedings.刑事法 —— 海外司法管轄區的引渡程序 —— 被告為外國公民。澳洲政府向［A 國］（成文法國家）提出引渡申請，被告被捕後不足 24 小時即被繞過引渡程序法院正式終止引渡程序。
The common law doctrine of "abuse of process" in Australia — Application for a permanent stay of prosecution on grounds of illegality and procedural abuse.澳洲普通法中的「濫用司法程序」原則 —— 申請永久中止檢控，爭議非法性及程序濫用。
The accused was denied a committal hearing — Conflict of interest where prosecutors acted simultaneously as translators and legal advisers — The accused had no access to independent legal counsel or translator — He was inveigled to sign a statement in a language he did not understand, consenting to surrender from an entirely unrelated jurisdiction — Deprivation of personal rights.被告在［A 國］未獲引渡初步聆訊 —— 存在利益衝突，［A 國］檢察官同時擔任翻譯及法律顧問 —— 被告無法接觸自己的獨立律師及翻譯 —— 被誘使以不明白的［A 國］語言簽署聲明，同意由完全無關的［G 國］移交至［U 國］而非澳洲 —— 個人權利被剝奪。
Violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Whether Australia and the relevant jurisdiction colluded to bypass extradition procedures — Whether the manner in which the accused was delivered to Australia justified a permanent stay of prosecution — Whether unlawful or irregular acts of a foreign state may be reviewed and adjudicated by Australian courts under Australian law.違反《聯合國世界人權宣言》—— 澳州及［A 國］是否串謀繞過引渡程序 —— 被告被送往澳洲的情況是否足以永久中止檢控 —— 外國國家行為的非法違規手段是否可由澳洲法院按澳洲法律審查裁决。
The veracity of consent to extradition — The accused arrested may consent to his extradition but his consent must be voluntary and it must be made in full awareness of its consequences. Clearly, consent should involve the deliberate agreement or acquiescence by a person of full age, with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion. It must also involve a decision taken on a properly informed basis. If a person consents to surrender when he has been caused to believe that he has no option but to do so and where there are, in fact, grounds on which legitimate objection could be made, his consent cannot be described as voluntary in any true sense. This does not mean that a person deciding whether to consent must be made aware of every possible ground, however arcane or esoteric, on which he might withhold consent. But if he gives his consent on an understanding of the facts or legal position which is incorrect and if, had he been in possession of the accurate information, he would not have done so, then his consent cannot be said to be voluntary — The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance被告人可以同意被引渡，但其同意必須是自願的，且必須在充分了解其後果的情況下作出。顯然，同意應涉及一名成年人、具備必要的行為能力、且在不受脅迫或強迫的情況下，所作出的蓄意協議或默許。這還必須涉及在一份經正確告知的基礎上所作出的決定。如果一個人在被導致相信自己別無選擇，而實際上存在可以提出合法反對的理由的情況下同意引渡，那麼他的同意不能在任何真實意義上被稱為是自願的。這並不意味著決定是否同意的人必須獲悉每一個可能扣留同意權的理由，無論該理由多麼晦澀或深奧。但是，如果他在對事實或法律立場有錯誤理解的情況下給予同意，且如果他掌握了準確的信息就不會這樣做，那麼他的同意就不能說是自願的。
The accused was alleged to be the leader of a global drug cartel.被告被指為跨國毒品集團首腦。
Criminal law — Extradition proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. The accused was a citizen of a foreign country and was deported via a civil law jurisdiction, arrested during a flight layover. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) subsequently sought his extradition from that jurisdiction.刑事法 —— 海外司法管轄區的引渡程序 —— 被告為［C 國］公民，並由［A 國］經［B 國］（成文法國家）遞解出境返回［C 國］；在航班中途停留期間於［B 國］被捕。澳洲聯邦警察（AFP）其後向［B 國］尋求引渡。
The court of that jurisdiction ruled that the accused was extraditable and ordered his surrender to Australian authorities.［B 國］法院裁定被告可被引渡，並將其移交澳洲當局。
The common law doctrine of abuse of process in Australia — Consideration of application for a stay of prosecution on the basis that the deportation route constituted an abuse of process, allegedly pre-arranged between the AFP and the transit jurisdiction, in violation of the deportation order issued by the originating jurisdiction (the proper destination being the home country, not the transit jurisdiction).澳洲普通法中的「濫用司法程序」原則 —— 就被告被經［B 國］遞解至［C 國］的安排是否構成濫用程序作出終止檢控申請。該安排被指為 AFP 與［B 國］事先協調，違反［A 國］發出的遞解令（目的地應為［C 國］而非［B 國］）。
Issues in dispute included: whether the judiciary of the transit jurisdiction breached its constitution (the inviolability of the accused's person) by entertaining Australia's extradition request rather than allowing proceedings to occur in the home country; whether the AFP interfered with the internal affairs of the originating jurisdiction and perverted justice by orchestrating the layover and arrest; whether there was collusion between government agencies; whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was violated; and whether the legality of foreign governmental acts under foreign law is subject to review by Australian courts under Australian law.爭議包括：［B 國］司法機構是否違反其本國憲法（被告人身不可侵犯之權利），在未讓司法程序於被告本國［C 國］進行的情況下處理澳洲的引渡請求- AFP 是否透過安排中途停留及拘捕而干預［A 國］內政並構成妨害司法公正 - 是否存在政府機構間的串通 - 是否違反《聯合國世界人權宣言》- 以及外國政府行為於外國法下的合法性，是否可由澳洲法院依澳洲法律審查裁決。
Criminal law — Circumvention of extradition procedures in a foreign jurisdiction — Allegations that Australian and foreign authorities conspired to unlawfully procure the accused's return to Australia for prosecution.刑事法 —— 外國司法管轄區內繞過引渡程序 —— 爭議澳洲與外國政府是否共謀，透過非法手段將被告帶回澳洲受審。
The accused was allegedly forcibly taken by law enforcement officers and flown to a civil law jurisdiction without a valid entry visa, rendering his presence there unlawful from the outset.被告據稱於［A 國］被執法人員強行帶走，並在無有效入境簽證的情況下空運至［B 國］（成文法國家），其於［B 國］的存在自始即屬非法。
The common law doctrine of abuse of process in Australia — Despite the existence of an extradition treaty between that jurisdiction and Australia, the accused was deported to Australia without undergoing any extradition proceedings.澳洲普通法中的「濫用司法程序」原則 —— 儘管［B 國］與澳洲之間存在引渡條約，被告卻未經任何引渡程序即被遞解至澳洲。
Consideration of the issues of abduction, false imprisonment, "judicial kidnapping" and "extradition by the back door" in support of an application for a stay of prosecution.考慮是否涉及綁架、非法拘禁、「司法綁架」及「後門引渡」，並就此申請中止檢控。
Whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was violated — Whether the accused was returned to Australia in disregard of available extradition procedures, in breach of international law — Whether Australian courts have jurisdiction and supervisory powers to inquire into the bypassing of extradition procedures.是否違反《聯合國世界人權宣言》—— 是否在無視［B 國］可行的引渡程序下將被告帶回澳洲，從而違反國際法 —— 澳洲法院是否有司法管轄權及監督權，調查引渡程序被繞過的情況。
Second-opinion legal advice provided on whether the United States and two other jurisdictions had jurisdiction over the alleged conduct.刑事法 —— 引渡 —— 司法管轄權問題 —— 就美國、［A 國］及［B 國］對於在［B 國］發生的涉案行為是否具司法管轄權提供第二意見法律建議。
Double criminality — Sufficiency of evidence — Human rights — Whether a defence based on political motivation and abuse of process could be advanced.雙重犯罪 —— 證據充分性 —— 人權 —— 是否可提出案件具政治動機及［A 國］當局濫用程序的抗辯。
The concept of "deprivation" in fraud and the inapplicability of the "mirror principle" — Extradition does not require all elements of offences to align perfectly — Competing evidence raised in extradition proceedings must be determined by the trial judge, not the extradition judge — Consideration of alternative strategies to resist the US extradition request.詐騙中「剝奪」概念及「鏡像原則」不適用 —— 引渡毋須所有犯罪構成要件完全一致 —— 引渡程序中提出的相反證據必須由審訊法官（美國）審理, 而非引渡庭法官的審理範疇 —— 考慮抗衡美國引渡請求的另類策略選項。
Advice provided on double criminality, jurisdictional exposure, and response strategies under the New Zealand Extradition Act.
The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs refused the accused's citizenship application on character grounds.紐西蘭內政部因品格問題拒絕其公民身份申請。
Subsequent extensive investigations revealed that the allegations were fabricated with the complainant and government officials in collusion.其後經深入調查發現有關指控屬虛構, 由投訴人串通政府官員捏造羅列。
New evidence was submitted to INTERPOL leading to the removal of the Red Notice, which was fully deleted from INTERPOL's databases, and all member states were notified. The client's freedom of movement was restored, and the threat of extradition was successfully neutralised. The accused's citizenship application was ultimately approved.新證據提交國際刑警，紅色通緝令隨即被撤銷。紅色通緝令被完全從 INTERPOL 資料庫刪除，並通知所有會員國。客戶恢復全球旅行自由，引渡風險成功解除。客戶的公民身份申請最終獲批。
Consideration of double criminality, ad hoc extradition arrangements under the New Zealand Extradition Act, claims of political persecution and false allegations, and strategies to contest a potential extradition request.
Consideration of double criminality issues and ad hoc extradition arrangements under the New Zealand Extradition Act. Consideration was also given to the legal implications of the Pike River Mine Disaster on the West Coast of New Zealand's South Island on 19 November 2010, in which 29 men lost their lives.並考慮紐西蘭南島西岸於 2010 年 11 月 19 日發生、造成 29 人罹難的派克河礦災（Pike River Mine Disaster）之法律影響。
Consideration of double criminality, claims of political persecution, and ad hoc extradition arrangements and response strategies under the New Zealand Extradition Act.
The New Zealand Extradition Act permits extradition without a treaty. Claims of political persecution considered. Given the nature of the case, the prospect of an extradition request is minimal.
Jurisdictional issues — Even if the accused had become a permanent resident of another city at the time the arrest warrant was issued, the requesting country retained absolute jurisdiction over the alleged offences — Regardless of nationality, the government of the requesting country has undisputed jurisdiction over the alleged crimes.司法管轄權問題 —— 即使被告於發出拘捕令時已成為他城市永久居民，［A 國］仍對涉案罪行擁有絕對司法管轄權 —— 即使被告為外國公民，［A 國］政府對其涉嫌罪行仍具無可爭議的司法權限。
Advice was given to apply to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) for deletion of the Red Notice on grounds of non-compliance with Article 83 of the Rules on the Processing of Data — Other applicable INTERPOL rules and provisions — Risk of deportation — Whistleblower claims — Fabrication of evidence by officials — Human rights issues — Political persecution — Double criminality — No bilateral extradition treaty between the requesting country and Australia, though ad hoc regulations may allow non-treaty extradition on a case-by-case basis — Consideration of whether the charges were ostensibly bribery but substantively political in nature, rendering them non-extraditable.建議向國際刑警檔案控制委員會（CCF）申請刪除紅色通緝令，理由為不符合《資料處理規則》第 83 條 —— 其他適用的國際刑警規則及條文 —— 被告面臨遞解出境風險 —— 宣稱吹哨人 – 官方捏造證據 - 人權問題 – 政治迫害 - 雙重犯罪 —— ［A 國］與澳洲之間無雙邊引渡條約，但澳洲政府可透過總督制定臨時法規，以個案形式允許非條約引渡 – 考慮有關的指控是否表面是貪污受賄但骨子裏卻是政治檢控，不符合引渡原則。
Absence of double criminality — No bilateral extradition treaty — Abuse of process — Procedural fairness — Fabrication of evidence.不存在雙重犯罪 —— ［A 國］與紐西蘭之間無雙邊引渡條約 —— 濫用司法程序 —— 程序公義 —— 捏造證據。
Commercial disputes arising from mergers, acquisitions and share buy-back arrangements — Examination of the relationship between the accused and the shareholder-complainant — The complainant acted as a proxy for a government official — Allegations not made in good faith, weaponisation of the INTERPOL system to pursue private civil disputes as a form of retaliation — Violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the INTERPOL Constitution.商業爭端源於公司收購合併程序及股權回購問題 - 審視被告與同一公司股東投訴人之間的關係 - 該投訴人實為某政府官員的代理人持有公司股權—— 並非基於司法公義而提出指控 —— 將國際刑警制度作為武器以處理私人民事糾紛作為報復手段 —— 違反《聯合國世界人權宣言》及《國際刑警憲章》。
Serious doubt as to double criminality, jurisdictional issues, abuse of the INTERPOL system, criminalisation of private credit card debt to trigger an international arrest warrant.
Consideration of double criminality, the feasibility of ad hoc extradition arrangements, and response strategies under the New Zealand Extradition Act.
The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance still permits extradition on a one-off basis. Section 3 empowers the Chief Executive to make surrender orders to jurisdictions with which Hong Kong has no bilateral treaty or agreement, subject to scrutiny by the Legislative Council and judicial review. Legally possible, but assessed as highly unlikely in the current political climate.然而，《逃犯條例》仍容許以「一次性」方式進行引渡 —— 條例第 3 條賦權行政長官，就與香港並無雙邊條約或協議的國家作出移交逃犯命令 —— 該命令須接受立法會審議及司法覆核 —— 法律上可行，但在現時政治環境下發生機會甚低。
Examination of feasibility of ad hoc extradition arrangements and response strategies. Issues concerning human rights, fair trial and judicial independence in the requesting country, reference to the legal implications of Minister of Justice v Kyung Yup Kim [2022] NZSC 44.涉及人權、公平審訊及［A 國］司法獨立問題 —— 參照案件 Minister of Justice v Kyung Yup Kim［2022｜NZSC 44］的法律影響。
Examination of feasibility and response strategies. Issues concerning human rights, fair trial and judicial independence in the requesting country, reference to the legal implications of Minister of Justice v Kyung Yup Kim [2022] NZSC 44.涉及人權、公平審訊及［A 國］司法獨立問題 —— 參照案件 Minister of Justice v Kyung Yup Kim［2022｜NZSC 44］的法律影響。