The long route from finding stolen money to getting it back

Governments meeting in Abu Dhabi have adopted a new international agenda for tackling cross-border crime. The declaration, agreed on September 26, arrives as police agencies are expanding the tools they use to find money that has crossed a border. The practical question is how far those tools can carry an investigation once the money is found.[1][3]

A case described by INTERPOL this summer shows the distance a deception can travel. In Eswatini, investigators found a replica Brazilian police station, complete with uniforms and signs. According to the agency, criminals used video calls to impersonate Brazil’s Federal Police and persuade people to transfer funds supposedly for safekeeping. Police arrested 82 people and seized 240 electronic devices. The operation was part of a wider crackdown conducted from January through April, not a raid announced at this weekend’s congress.[4]

The deception could appear local even when the people and equipment behind it were abroad. Recovering its proceeds adds another task: locating the wealth, then securing the legal authority to act.[4][5]

Finding an asset does not recover it

At a regional meeting in Guyana last week, police leaders recommended closer work among investigators, financial-intelligence units, asset-recovery offices and judicial authorities. Their September 25 account emphasized sharing information on illicit finances and making greater use of INTERPOL’s stop-payment mechanism, I-GRIP, and its Silver Notices. The meeting brought together around 80 officials from 27 countries.[3]

Silver Notices help countries seek information about assets linked to criminal activity. Those assets can include a bank account or business, but also a house, vehicle or other property. The first notice, issued in January 2025 at Italy’s request, concerned a senior mafia figure. Information gathered through the system can support subsequent bilateral requests for seizure or recovery, which remain subject to national law.[5]

That distinction matters for reading the results. INTERPOL’s current account of the pilot says it has traced or identified more than $40 million in assets. It does not describe that total as money returned to victims. In the first Italian case, information from Brazil identified more than $1.7 million in assets, including real estate, vehicles and cattle. The agency says the countries concerned then handle the legal work of freezing, confiscating and repatriating property.[6]

Identifying an asset establishes neither a repayment date nor who will receive it. National authorities still have to complete the legal process.[5][6]

When stopping a payment is possible

Some interventions occur before the money has been turned into property. In its July account of Operation First Light, INTERPOL said Singapore and Oman used I-GRIP to block a $6.6 million transfer after criminals impersonated a supplier to a Singapore commodity trader. Across the broader operation, the agency reported $293 million in intercepted assets. Intercepted funds, like identified assets, should not automatically be counted as compensation paid to victims.[4]

The contrast is useful: one investigation follows wealth that may already have been converted into buildings or businesses; another tries to interrupt a transfer. Both need authorities to reach counterparts who can act in the relevant jurisdiction. The Guyana recommendations address that practical connection between financial information and an operational response.[3][5]

The commitments—and their safeguards

The Abu Dhabi text calls for stronger parallel financial investigations, better access to information about who ultimately owns companies, and cooperation to trace, freeze, recover and return criminal proceeds. It specifically names the Silver Notice pilot among the available tools. These are commitments to improve national and international action; the declaration itself does not seize an account or decide an individual case.[2]

Its treatment of digital justice also includes limits. Alongside support for technologies such as artificial intelligence, the text calls for human oversight, transparency, explainability, personal-data protection and due process, including fair trial and effective review. Faster information exchange is therefore only part of the stated ambition. The institutions acting on that information must also be accountable for how they use it.[2]

Governments are being encouraged to translate the declaration into time-bound actions through the voluntary Pledge4Justice initiative, running through 2031. The congress continues until October 1. For people whose savings have disappeared, the meaningful evidence will come after the announcements: whether investigators can locate the proceeds, whether courts and agencies can act on that information, and whether recovered money reaches those entitled to it. The police examples show routes through that process, without guaranteeing recovery.[1][6]