Recent Developments
Updated July 2026
The INTERPOL Silver Notice, launched as a pilot in 2025 and already extended across 52 member jurisdictions, represents the most significant expansion of INTERPOL's cross-border reach since the Red Notice. Unlike a Red Notice — which targets persons — a Silver Notice targets assets: bank accounts, real property, corporate structures, and explicitly, cryptocurrency wallets.
The mechanism allows a requesting state to circulate a request for asset information to all 52 pilot jurisdictions simultaneously, without any court order in the receiving state. Financial institutions and authorities in receiving countries are expected to identify and report assets matching the request. The practical effect can be a de facto freeze — counterparties who discover a Silver Notice routinely terminate relationships pending clarification, even where no legal obligation to do so exists.
Key development: cryptocurrency is in scope. INTERPOL has confirmed that Silver Notices explicitly cover digital assets, including cryptocurrency wallets and exchange accounts. This is the first time INTERPOL has formally included crypto assets within a systematic tracing mechanism. Clients holding significant digital asset positions across multiple jurisdictions are exposed in ways that were not contemplated even twelve months ago.
Grounds for challenge. Silver Notices are issued by member states, not by INTERPOL itself — but they pass through INTERPOL's rules compliance review. Challenges can be mounted on two tracks: before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF), which can order deletion, correction, or temporary blocking; and before the domestic courts or data protection authorities of the receiving jurisdiction. The Article 3 prohibition on INTERPOL involvement in political, military, religious, or racial matters is a live ground in a significant number of current matters.
Full Silver Notice analysis →The mass interception of EncroChat and Sky-ECC encrypted communications — covertly hacked by French and Dutch authorities — has generated tens of thousands of criminal prosecutions across Europe. In 2026, that edifice is showing structural cracks. Courts in Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands have reached conflicting conclusions, and the question of whether the underlying evidence is admissible at all has not been definitively resolved in any jurisdiction.
Spain. A Spanish court delivered acquittals across an entire cocaine prosecution in which EncroChat data formed the primary evidence. The court found that the interception authorisation — issued by a French investigative judge without notification to Spanish authorities — failed to satisfy the requirements of the European Investigation Order framework, and that the evidence had been obtained in breach of the defendants' rights under the Spanish Constitution and the ECHR. The acquittals covered every defendant in the matter.
Germany. A Berlin court ruled that Sky-ECC data obtained through the joint French-Dutch operation was inadmissible on fundamental rights grounds — specifically, that the absence of a German judicial authorisation for the interception of communications of German suspects violated the defendants' rights under the German Basic Law. The decision is under appeal and has generated a significant split in German jurisprudence, with other chambers having admitted the same evidence in parallel proceedings.
Netherlands. Dutch courts, which have generally been more receptive to the evidence given the Netherlands' role in the original interception operation, have nonetheless acknowledged serious questions about the completeness of the data provided to defence counsel. Several ongoing prosecutions have been stayed pending resolution of disclosure disputes.
ECHR. Multiple applications are pending before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the EncroChat and Sky-ECC operations under Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Convention. The Court has not yet ruled on any of the admissibility applications, but communications issued to respondent governments in several cases signal that the Court considers the questions raised to be of sufficient legal weight to warrant examination.
For defendants. If you or a client have been convicted or are facing prosecution in any European jurisdiction on the basis of EncroChat or Sky-ECC evidence, the developing jurisprudence across multiple legal systems creates real grounds for challenge. The window for some appeal routes is time-limited. We advise on whether the specific basis on which evidence was admitted in your jurisdiction is open to challenge, and act as co-counsel alongside domestic criminal lawyers in the relevant jurisdiction.
Our criminal defence practice →