On December 16, 2019, the European Union (EU) Whistleblower Protection Directive was adopted.[1]  The directive intended to cure whistleblower protection that was viewed as fragmented and inconsistent.  Within the framework, the directive set out minimum EU-wide standards for: “reporting channels for organizations of a certain size; and the level of protection afforded to persons that report breaches of Union law.”[2]  Since the initiation of the directive, member states were provided with a period of two-years to implement these policies into their respective constitutions, statutes, and treatises.[3]  With the two year deadline quickly approaching, it is prudent to check in on the progress of the member states and discuss the benefits and obstacles this directive may face.  In addition, this article will interweave the Jonathan Taylor case, a U.K. native and whistleblower that exposed bribery at his old firm SMB Offshore, into the analysis of the directive.[4] 
 

On May 20, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed a federal grand jury indictment in Washington, D.C. against the Republic of Chad’s former Ambassador to the United States and Canada and Chad’s former Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. and Canada with soliciting and accepting a $2 million bribe from a Canadian start-up energy company, and conspiring to launder the bribe payment in an effort to conceal it.[1]

Recently, the Malawi courts have denied Shepard Bushiris’ defense in response to South Africa’s extradition request.[1] Shepard Bushiri was arrested in South Africa for money laundering and fraud charges. Shortly after he was granted bail by the Pretoria Central Magistrate’s Court under strict conditions. Once released from bail, he fled to his home country, Malawi. In response, South Africa sent a formal extradition request to Malawi, which the Malawian government received bin December 2020.[2] Since December 2020, South Africa has been trying to have Bushiri extradited under the Southern African Development Community Protocol (SADC Protocol).[3]

On May 20, 2021, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO)  publicized a request from the U.S. Embassy’s legal attaché requesting information on Garcia Cabeza de Vaca as part of a U.S. money laundering investigation.[1]

From March 28 to April 2, 2021, more than 195 arrests occurred as a result of Operation Weka, or “Stop” in Swahili.[1] Operation Weka was an effort to crackdown on human trafficking and migrant smuggling in Africa and Europe and helped rescue more than 500 human trafficking victims. The effort was cross-continental and involved police from 24 different countries as well as information from multiple international organizations and their intelligence sources.[2] As a result, there have been 195 arrests.[3] Crimes have varied from human trafficking and people smuggling to environmental crimes and fraud.

The International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, is an international organization dedicated in large part to aiding its 194 member countries in detecting and extraditing fugitives to face criminal charges or serve sentences. Its member countries each have access to INTERPOL’s databases as needed to assist in finding criminal suspects and convicts. INTERPOL accepts, maintains, and circulates the personal data of a wanted person until he or she is captured.^[1]

            Rather than addressing the basic functioning of INTERPOL and its databases,^[2] the aim of this article is to focus on cases wherein INTERPOL’s member countries have abused their access to those databases; the most common types of charges alleged in abusive cases; and strategies that practitioners can utilize to increase their likelihood of success in cases of INTERPOL abuse.

The Cayman Islands financial services sector is experiencing significant tension after the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) putting the jurisdiction on its greylist, in part for lack of enforcing anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) regulations.  The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) imposed a fine of more than CI$4.2 million on one of its largest financial services providers for breaches of its AML regulations. Meanwhile, one of its gold star financial services providers has obtained a judicial review of how CIMA interprets and applies certain provisions of the AML regulations after the provider has accused CIMA of changing without prior notice the way it applies certain provisions of the AML regulations.

On May 10, 2021, the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability Against Da’esh/ISIL (UNITAD) found that the crimes committed by ISIL against the Yazidis, a religious minority in northern Iraq, constitutes genocide. In a briefing to ambassadors, the head of UNITAD and soon-to-be head International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Karim Khan, said there is “clear and convincing evidence that the crimes against the Yazidi people clearly constituted genocide.”[1] Evidence showed that ISIL committed a range of inhuman acts, including extermination, rape, murder, torture, enslavement, persecution, and other war crimes against the Yazidis. The crimes that ISIL committed “shocked the conscience of humanity,” said Khan.[2] The UN report is crucial because it identified and preserves evidence of the atrocities that will help prosecute ISIL perpetrators. [3]

On May 12, 2021, The European Union Advocate General opined that a decision by a German telecom company to cancel a contract with an Iranian bank, subject to U.S. primary sanctions, should be regarded as invalid if the German company cannot justify it on any basis, other than the desire to comply with U.S. legislation providing for secondary sanctions against non-U.S. undertakings trading with an Iranian person, which falls under the EU blocking statute.  The opinion puts the German telecom company in a real dilemma.[1]

On May 14, 2021, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a criminal information charging Swiss Life Holding AG (Swiss Life Holding, Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG (Swiss Life Liechtenstein), Swiss Life (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Swiss Life Singapore), and Swiss Life (Luxembourg) S.A. (Swiss Life Luxembourg), collectively the “Swiss Life Entities,” with conspiring with U.S. taxpayers and others to hide from the IRS more than $1.452 billion in offshore insurance policies, including more than 1,600 insurance wrapper policies, and related policy investment accounts in banks around the world and the income generated in these accounts.[1]