Latest Posts
How Do I Know If I Am Subject To An INTERPOL Red Notice?
When a member state asks INTERPOL to publish information about a suspect or convicted person, INTERPOL distributes this information to the databases of all member states. There is a publicly available list, but sometimes the requesting member state specifically asks for the suspect’s or convicted person’s information to be excluded from this public list, which can be accessed here.
The first step is to check the public list. However, you can also inquire with INTERPOL to find out if you are on the private list. It is important to seek expert advice before doing so, as this could reveal your location to the requesting member state.
Additionally, INTERPOL is not always required to disclose whether they hold any information about you.
There Are Four Ways To Challenge A Red Notice Issued By INTERPOL:
The first approach is to question the validity of the Red Notice itself. According to INTERPOL’s rules, the offense must be “a serious ordinary-law crime.” Therefore, Red Notices should not be issued for private or civil disputes. There are also specific criteria regarding the length of the applicable sentence. Although INTERPOL has some discretion in these matters, this may be the weakest challenge, but it is still an avenue for recourse.
The second method is to challenge the Red Notice based on another rule that requires sufficient details to be provided. Given the high volume of Red Notice requests INTERPOL receives, it is worthwhile to ensure that INTERPOL has conducted thorough inquiries to meet these requirements. There is often significant room to argue your case by making representations to INTERPOL that the necessary thresholds have not been met.
The third way to contest a Red Notice is by arguing that cooperating with the requesting member state’s request is not “in the spirit” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). For instance, this could involve demonstrating that the requesting state would not provide the individual with a fair trial, in line with Articles 6 and 10 of the UDHR.
A fourth route is to invoke Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution, which explicitly prohibits INTERPOL from engaging in any activities or interventions of a political, military, religious, or racial nature.
There is no single “best” way to challenge a Red Notice. Instead, the strategy must be carefully tailored to the specifics of the request and the particular circumstances of the case.
Quastels is able to offer expert legal advice if you have, or you fear you may have, an outstanding INTERPOL Red Notice.
If you or your connections require legal advice, please contact Jayesh Jethwa or fill out our enquiry form below.
Marcus v Marcus (2024): Trusts, Family Secrets and the Power of Intention
Overview of the Case
The Marcus v Marcus case (EWHC 2086, 2024) essentially relates to a dispute over the status of Edward Marcus as a beneficiary of a family trust created by his legal father (the deceased). The trust, settled in 2003, was established as an arrangement designed to postpone capital gains tax in relation to shares in a family company. It listed the deceased’s (or settlor’s) ‘children and remoter issue’ as discretionary beneficiaries. The dispute arose when it was revealed that Edward was not the biological son of the deceased, though he had been raised as the deceased’s son. It is worth noting that the deceased never knew this.
Jonathan Marcus, Edward’s brother, discovered this fact in 2023 after their mother had revealed it to Edward years earlier in 2010. Following a family fallout, Jonathan took steps to remove Edward as a beneficiary.
Legal Argument
Jonathan’s key argument rested on the interpretation of the term ‘children’ in the trust deed. He argued that since Edward was not biologically the settlor’s son, he should not qualify as a beneficiary. Jonathan asserted that the trust’s language implied a biological connection and that Edward’s inclusion was improper because the deceased was unaware of Edward’s true parentage at the time of settlement.
Edward, on the other hand, argued that the deceased had always treated him as his son, raising both him and Jonathan as brothers without distinction. He claimed that biological parentage was irrelevant to the settlor’s intention and that he should remain a beneficiary due to the deceased’s clear intention to provide for both sons.
Court’s Conclusion
The court rejected Jonathan’s application, maintaining Edward’s status as a beneficiary. The ruling highlighted that in trust law, the settlor’s intention is paramount when determining beneficiary eligibility. In this case, the court emphasised that the deceased had consistently treated Edward as his child and had shown no intention to exclude him based on biology. The wording of the trust, which referred to ‘children’ without specific qualifications, was interpreted in the broader context of the family dynamic, in which Edward had been accepted as part of the family unit.
The court concluded that the biological connection was irrelevant to the deceased’s intention at the time of the trust’s creation. The trust was constructed with the understanding that both brothers, Jonathan and Edward, were equal in the eyes of the deceased. Consequently, Edward remained a discretionary beneficiary, and Jonathan’s attempt to remove him was denied.
Key Takeaways
- Settlor’s intent is crucial and the courts will look beyond strict legal definitions of family relationships to determine a settlor’s true intention, especially in cases where family dynamics are more complex;
- Clear definitions in trusts to avoid future disputes, and the use of clear and precise language when defining terms like ‘children’ or ‘issue’. Where non-biological relationships are involved, explicit wording should clarify the settlor’s wishes; and
- Being aware of the potential for family disputes, although in this case matters were complicated by the settlor’s ignorance as to biological status. However, generally speaking, trusts involving non-traditional family structures or unresolved familial tensions can give rise to disputes and advice should be sought to overcome any perceived or future challenges.
This case ultimately highlights the importance of considering family dynamics and the settlor’s intention in trust law, particularly where biological connections do not reflect the family unit’s reality.
For Private Wealth & Tax advice and services, please contact Ben Rosen via our contact form below.
Pay 5% Deposit With The Own New Rate Reducer Scheme
Launched in February 2024, the Own New Rate Reducer scheme is designed to make purchasing a new build home more affordable. Through this scheme, buyers can secure a lower mortgage rate compared to traditional options on the open market.
How It Works
When you choose a new build property, the developer agrees to contribute either 3% or 5% of the purchase price as an incentive. This contribution, similar to other perks like discounted upgrades or stamp duty coverage, is directed to your mortgage lender via Own New.
As a result, your interest payments are reduced by the equivalent value for the first 2 to 5 years, depending on your mortgage term, resulting in lower monthly mortgage payments. The scheme is even available to those with a high deposit, of up to 40% which could produce an interest rate as low as 0.99% for an initial period.
Developer-Friendly Incentives
House builders have traditionally offered incentives or discounts to buyers to secure a sale. Own New has joined up with over 60 leading homebuilders, including Barratt Developments, Berkeley Group, and Persimmon Homes, to provide this alternative incentive option.
Available Lenders
The Own New Rate Reducer scheme launched with Halifax and Virgin Money, with other lenders expected to join soon.
Downsides?
A scheme that sounds almost too good to be true and helps thousands of young professionals and other first-time buyers to get onto the property ladder. We are expecting to see a lot more use of the scheme.
Buyers should consider some downsides:
- The scheme only applies to purchasing a new-build property from a developer approved by the scheme.
- If your equity in the property is low, difficulties could be encountered when the buyer comes to remortgage the property, especially if prices have not risen over the period.
- Buyers will have to budget for a potential jump in interest payments when the initial period ends.
- Often buyers of new builds are paying a premium price for having a brand new home, as such older properties may still remain more affordable.
- Only a limited number of lenders are currently partaking.
Eligibility
This scheme is open to anyone purchasing a new build property through a homebuilder approved by the scheme and not just first time buyers.
Get In Touch
Quastels’ real estate team brings extensive experience in handling new build purchases. We have collaborated with many of the home builders and mortgage brokers involved in the Own New Scheme.
Our team is qualified to guide you through the process of purchasing a new build property.
For financial information and eligibility, you must of course, contact your mortgage broker.
To discuss any of the points raised in this article, please contact Gabrielle Barnaby or fill out the form below.