Old Theft Case and Interpol Diffusion Initiated by the Russian Federation

Prosecution’s Position and State Demands

The Russian side argued that:

• in 2016, construction equipment was stolen;
• the damage amounted to about 106,000 rubles;
• an arrest warrant was issued in the case;
• the crime falls under criminal liability.

On this basis, Russia insisted on retaining the diffusion in Interpol’s database.

Defense Arguments and Key Circumstances

The defense built its position on several key aspects:

1. Lack of Interest for International Search

It was pointed out that:

• it was a minor property crime;
• the act was non-violent;
• the amount of damage was insignificant;
• the case was not connected to organized crime.

2. Expiration of Statute of Limitations

The key argument was the decision of the Hungarian court:

• the client was detained in Hungary in 2022;
• the Hungarian court denied extradition;
• the court established that the statute of limitations had expired;
• further prosecution was deemed impossible.

3. Disproportionality of Measures

The defense pointed out that:

• an international search for a minor crime from 2016 violated the principle of proportionality;
• further retention of the data in Interpol was not serving the purpose of international cooperation;
• maintaining the search was formal and repressive in nature.

Interpol Commission Assessment

The Commission carefully analyzed the case materials and came to the following conclusions:

• the crime does not fall under the category of serious crimes;
• the damage is minimal;
• there is no international public danger;
• extradition has already been officially rejected by the Hungarian court;
• the statute of limitations has expired;
• the retention of data is contrary to the principles of necessity and proportionality.

It was specifically noted that:

this case is not of interest to international police cooperation.