Silver bullet or Trojan Horse? INTERPOL’s new Silver Notice and the risks of asset tracing
Rebecca Niblock
Kingsley Napley, London
Ed Smyth
Kingsley Napley, London
On 10 January, INTERPOL issued its first-ever Silver Notice, marking a significant evolution in its approach to international asset tracing. The request, initiated by Italy, seeks to identify and locate assets allegedly linked to a senior mafia figure. While its immediate impact may be largely symbolic, the introduction of the Silver Notice signals an important development in cross-border financial crime enforcement.
Unlike the better-known Red Notice, which seeks the location and arrest of fugitives, the Silver Notice is focused specifically on asset identification, location and monitoring. Developed through a pilot programme involving 52 countries and territories, the initiative reflects growing international emphasis on non-coercive asset tracing measures. The Silver Notice will allow participating states to circulate targeted requests for information, supporting efforts to track and recover assets linked to illicit activity – whether for criminal confiscation, civil forfeiture or post-conviction enforcement. Importantly, Silver Notices will not be publicly listed on INTERPOL’s website, reflecting the confidential nature of asset-tracing operations.
Legal basis and procedural framework
The legal framework for the Silver Notice is rooted in INTERPOL’s Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD). Notably, Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution which requires adherence to international human rights standards, and Article 3 which prohibits politically motivated activities. The RPD (Articles 73–81, 97–100) sets procedural requirements for issuing Notices. The specific rules on Silver Notices state that they may only be issued where they relate to:
- a natural person subject to an ongoing criminal investigation;
- a serious criminal offence (punishable by at least four years’ imprisonment, in line with the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime); and
- it is supported by sufficient judicial data, including a decision confirming that the assets are subject to criminal or non-conviction-based restraint or forfeiture.
Unlike traditional Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), Silver Notices do not create legal obligations. Nevertheless, the fact that, in many jurisdictions, authorities treat INTERPOL notices as authoritative indicators of international concern means that they do still have the potential to have a substantial practical impact. They could, for example, trigger domestic asset freezing or monitoring.
Challenges and potential for abuse
The absence of judicial oversight at the time of issuance raises familiar concerns about procedural fairness and the risk of politically motivated use. INTERPOL’s Notice system has long been criticised for misuse, particularly regarding Red Notices, where governments have sought to pursue dissidents, and commercial or political opponents under the guise of economic crime allegations. Given the financial stakes involved in asset tracing, similar risks exist with Silver Notices. The potential for abuse will be particularly acute in jurisdictions with a weaker rule of law. Notably several such member states are participating in the pilot, for example: Venezuela (ranked 142nd out of 142 countries in the 2023 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index), Russia (ranked 107th) and Pakistan (ranked 130th).
INTERPOL has emphasised that Silver Notices will be subject to review by its General Secretariat before publication. However, the effectiveness of this safeguard will depend on transparent criteria and robust scrutiny mechanisms. The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), which hears challenges to Red Notices, is expected to have also jurisdiction over Silver Notices. Given the sensitivity of asset-related cases, further procedural clarity on how affected individuals can challenge Notices will be essential.
Next steps: key considerations
The pilot programme is being overseen by INTERPOL’s Expert Working Group on Asset Tracing and Recovery, which is responsible for assessing the legal, operational and financial impact of Silver Notices. A formal review is scheduled for November 2025 at INTERPOL’s General Assembly, following the issuance of up to 500 Silver Notices and Diffusions during the pilot phase. It remains unclear whether the findings of this review will be made public, or whether affected individuals, legal practitioners or civil society groups will have any opportunity to contribute. A lack of transparency creates a risk that procedural flaws or cases of misuse could go unaddressed. Legal practitioners representing clients in high-value asset seizure cases, financial crime investigations or politically sensitive disputes should monitor this development closely, particularly in jurisdictions where INTERPOL notices have been historically used as a tool of political or commercial pressure. If the review leads to the permanent adoption of the Silver Notice, ensuring that clear legal standards, procedural safeguards and independent oversight mechanisms are in place will be crucial to prevent politically motivated misuse.
As the system evolves, lawyers advising clients with international exposure (particularly in jurisdictions with aggressive asset recovery regimes) will need to anticipate how Silver Notices may shape cross-border investigations and asset forfeiture strategies.