Logroño, the capital of Rioja, inevitably brings echoes of the 2009 WineFuture seminar held here in early November 2009 organised by Pancho Campo. It reminds me that although I directed a number of questions to Pancho and his lawyers back in the latter part of July when Campo's name was removed from the Interpol wanted list. I have been seeking clarification of this annoucement - an example from the Indian Wine Academy site here:

'The message received late last night, ‘it gives me great pleasure to inform you that Interpol has accepted our request to take Pancho from their Red Notice list. We have managed to prove that Pancho´s case was not handled well, the accusations were wrong and he should have never been listed in Interpol’s website. He is now a free and innocent man,’ does not need any further explanation.' 23rd July 2010.

Questions sent to Pancho Campo and the Spanish Wine Academy:

21st July 2010

'Does this mean that your conviction and sentence in Dubai from June 2003 has been quashed or set aside? I'd be very grateful if you could clarify this for me please? '

22nd July 2010, resent 29th July 2010

A) Why did Interpol remove Pancho Campo MW's name from the Interpol wanted list? What evidence was provided that persuaded the authorities that his name should be removed.

B) What is current status of Campo's conviction in Dubai on 1st June 2003 for breach of trust/fraud and sentence to a year in prison. Has this conviction been quashed or set aside or does it still stand?

C) Are there any further legal cases involving Pancho Campo MW in the United Arab Emirates?

29th July 2010: to Paulina Campo-Bacque: Executive Director of Spanish Wine Academy
Unfortunately I have not had a response to the questions (see below) I sent
you on 22nd July asking for them to be forwarded to the Butler lawyer (James Butler is Campo's father-in-law and it was his lawyer I was told on 22.7.10 would handle all questions relating to this case).

I have subsequently been in contact with Interpol in France who cast doubt on Pancho Campo's claim that Interpol had accepted his request for the Red Notice to be removed from their site.

Their explanation (below) of how the Red Notices work appears to be at variance with Pancho Campo's claim that Interpol accepted his request to be removed from the Interpol site.

'As there is no Red Notice published on the INTERPOL website for this person, this means that either the Notice is restricted to law enforcement access only, or the country which requested the issue of a Red Notice has cancelled this request.

A Red Notice is issued by the INTERPOL General Secretariat in Lyon, France at the request of a member country on the basis of a valid national arrest warrant.'

I would be grateful if the Butler lawyer would comment on this.

It would appear likely that the request to remove Pancho Campo's name came from the United Arab Emirates. Was this as a result of a deal concluded with Jackie Wartanian? And, if so, what were the terms of this deal?

I would be very grateful if you would pass these further questions onto the Butler lawyer.

*

To date I have had absolutely no response to these questions, which is surprising as Pancho Campo promised earlier this year that I would be the first to know when he was cleared and he would give me the full story. Furthermore if Campo is correct and Interpol did remove his name at his request and admitted the mistake one would imagine that he would be keen to provide further information to bolster his claim.

My final email to Campo-Bacque did, however, appear to trigger an intriguing and unexpected response: the pressure group Detained in Dubai sent a near hysterical email (30th July) to one of the wine magazines I contribute on the entirely erroneous belief that I had been asked to write a follow up story on Interpol's response. The email warned that 'our legal team in the United Kingdom are presently exploring whether to pursue legal action for damages against Jim Budd for his unprofessional conduct (harassment and defamation). We thought it appropriate to inform you of possible impending litigious action.'

I have no idea whether 'Detained in Dubai' acted entirely independently here or whether the email was sent at the request of someone associated with the Spanish Wine Academy. In September 2009 American wine and food journalist was threatened with legal action by one of Campo's lawyers for looking into the Interpol red notice.

To date I have heard nothing from 'Detained in Dubai' and certainly not as much as a bat's squeak from them about 'imminent legal action'.

*

I have to say that the continuing silence from Doctor Campo and his legal team suggests to me that Interpol's explanation is correct and that rather than Interpol 'accepting' Campo's request some sort of deal was concluded in Dubai, possibly involving Jackie Wartanian, Campo's previous business partner, which led to Campo's name being removed from Interpol's wanted list.

In a message to his supporters sent on 21st July 2010, Pancho Campo asserted:

'I have been informed today that Interpol accepted my request to take my name out of their list. They have found that a mistake was made and an injustice was committed against me.

'Finally my name is out of their website and I am no longer a "wanted" person.'

A similar message was sent to The Indian Wine Academy:

'It gives me great pleasure to inform you that Interpol has accepted our request to take Pancho from their Red Notice list. We have managed to prove that Pancho´s case was not handled well, the accusations were wrong and he should have never been listed in Interpol’s website. He is now a free and innocent man,’ (http://www.indianwineacademy.com/item_3_396.aspx)

However, a response from Interpol's press office to my enquiry indicates that this is not how the system of Red Notices work:
  
'Dear  Mr Budd,

Thank you for your email.

In response to your enquiry, it is not appropriate for INTERPOL to comment on individual cases.

As there is no Red Notice published on the INTERPOL website for this person, this means that either the Notice is restricted to law enforcement access only, or the country which requested the issue of a Red Notice has cancelled this request.

A Red Notice is issued by the INTERPOL General Secretariat in Lyon, France at the request of a member country on the basis of a valid national arrest warrant. We would therefore advise you to contact the authorities of the country which issued the original warrant as they will be able to update you on its status.'

It would appear then that Pancho Campo's name could only have been removed at the request of the authority – Dubai/United Arab Emirates – that issued the request for a Red Notice in the first place. This suggests that Campo's claim that Interpol have admitted that a mistake was made in issuing the Red Notice may well be unlikely as they would have been responding to 'a request of a member country on the basis of a valid national arrest warrant'.  

Unfortunately it remains unclear what was the actual process of removing Pancho Campo's name from Interpol's website. Did this process perhaps involve an agreement with Jackie Wartanian, his former business partner who had filed the original complaint back in 2002?  

See other recent posts on Pancho Campo here and here.

Following the news (21st July 2010) that Pancho Campo's name had been removed from list of fugitives on the Interpol website I sought clarification from Campo about the current status of his conviction in Dubai in June 2003. 

I received the following reply (22nd July 2010): 

'Pancho, his wife and children left yesterday evening for their summer holidays overseas.

Also, The Wine Academy closes for the summer vacation until September the 1st.

I shall forward your email to the lawyer of the Butler family who will be handling all matters related to the case.

Regards,

Paulina Campo-Bacque
Executive Director'

I sent (22nd July) some questions to be forwarded to the lawyer:

I would be very grateful if you would pass on the following three questions to the Butler family lawyer who is handling these matters.

A) Why did Interpol remove Pancho Campo MW's name from the Interpol wanted list? What evidence was provided that persuaded the authorities that his name should be removed?

B) What is current status of Campo's conviction in Dubai on 1st June 2003 for breach of trust/fraud and sentence to a year in prison. Has this conviction been quashed or set aside or does it still stand?

C) Are there any further legal cases involving Pancho Campo MW in the United Arab Emirates?

Alternatively could you let me have a name and contact details, including an email address, for the Butler family lawyer please?


To date I have received no response.

*

Detained in Dubai

The Pancho Campo case features on this site, which claims that the issuing of a red notice for Pancho Campo was as a result of a 'UAE Interpol Blunder'. 

I have asked Interpol to comment.