https://www.alexandrotirelli.it/en/

Alexandro Maria Tirelli, Via Montenapoleone 8, Milan (2026)

03/09/2026

Why I Chose the Rock: Gibraltar as an Observatory on International Law

In international criminal law, borders are not simply geographical lines.

They are where legal systems, sovereignty, State interests and individual rights meet — and sometimes collide.

Il Roma, an Italian newspaper, has published an extensive profile of my professional activity, the work I have developed between Italy and Gibraltar, and the path that, over the years, has led me to focus on extradition and some of the most complex issues in international criminal law.

🇮🇹 Read the full article in Italian:

🔗 https://www.ilroma.net/news/costume/864587/il-personaggio-pubblico-che-ha-scelto-la-rocca.html

My choice of Gibraltar was not accidental.

It is a territory where the Atlantic and the Mediterranean meet, where Europe looks towards Africa, and where different legal systems and international interests coexist within an exceptionally concentrated space.

From 66/1 Main Street, the headquarters of Rock Nexus, a growing part of my international work is analysed, coordinated and connected with the activities of law firms across different countries, including International Lawyers Associates, which I lead in Italy.

But Italy remains the centre of gravity of my profession.

Because beyond publications, academic work and international relations, first and foremost, I continue to practise as a criminal defence lawyer.

In more than twenty-five years of practice, I have learned that extradition proceedings are never merely about transferring a person from one State to another.

Behind every case are different legal systems, diplomatic relations, mechanisms of international cooperation and, above all, a person whose liberty depends on the ability of the law to function effectively even across national borders.

That is why I consider it essential to study not only legal rules, but also political systems, international relations and the broader dynamics surrounding every cross-border proceeding.

Understanding international law means learning to interpret what happens when different legal systems meet.

Gibraltar gives me the necessary distance to observe this landscape from a broader perspective.

Italy remains the place where that perspective returns every day to the courtroom.

My thanks to Il Roma and Alberto Marini for this in-depth portrait of my professional journey.

31/08/2026

Extradition: should a judge assess only the charges, or also the context in which those charges arose?

When a person’s extradition is at stake, I believe this question is fundamental.

The case of Maria Violeta Agüero Bravo, which I am handling together with attorney Francesca Gerboni, now presents a further element that deserves careful consideration.

Leggo examines the case and the position of the defence:

🔗 https://www.leggo.it/italia/milano/30_agosto_2026_maria_violeta_aguero_bravo_arrestata_milano_estradizione_venezuela_truffa_chi_e-9732297.html

Maria Violeta, a 38-year-old Venezuelan entrepreneur, has been detained in San Vittore prison since 26 April. Venezuela is seeking her extradition in connection with proceedings concerning an alleged fraud involving more than $200,000.

But extradition proceedings cannot stop at the mere formal existence of a criminal charge.

As reported in the article, the defence has brought several elements before the judges that it considers relevant: the international protection granted to Maria Violeta in Spain, the previous refusal of the extradition request by the Spanish courts, and the broader Venezuelan judicial and political context involving her brother as well.

There is also a particularly sensitive additional element.

According to Leggo, citing Il Giorno, the Venezuelan prosecutor who brought the fraud charge against Maria Violeta was subsequently arrested in connection with allegations involving obstruction of justice and corruption aimed at obtaining procedural advantages.

This fact alone does not prove that the original charge is unfounded.

But it would be equally wrong to consider it irrelevant.

When one State asks another State to surrender a person, judicial scrutiny must be concrete and substantive. It is necessary to assess not only the offence alleged, but also the reliability of the elements underlying the request, the procedural safeguards in place, and the actual risk the person may face following surrender.

This is precisely the purpose of the safeguards governing extradition: to prevent international judicial cooperation from becoming an automatic process.

Extradition does not simply mean transferring a person from one State to another. It means entrusting that person to another judicial system.

That is why every relevant element must be examined before surrender — not afterwards.

As defence counsel, we have asked the court to refuse the extradition of Maria Violeta Agüero Bravo to Venezuela.

The decision will rest with the Milan Court of Appeal.

29/08/2026

INTERPOL Red Notices and pre-trial detention: an automatic link we need to overcome

An international alert can activate mechanisms of cooperation between States.

But it should never automatically result in the deprivation of a person’s liberty.

This is one of the issues I consider central to the case of Maria Violeta Agüero Bravo, currently detained in Milan’s San Vittore prison while the Milan Court of Appeal considers Venezuela’s request for her extradition.

Today, Libero Quotidiano examines the case in detail, including the position taken by the defence:

🔗 https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/esteri/48985745/il-caso-auguero-bravo-il-sospetto-sulla-richiesta-di-estradizione/

The case originates from allegations of fraud concerning the transfer of company shares worth more than $200,000.

But when examining an extradition case, it is not enough simply to read the charges.

It is necessary to establish what concrete evidence those allegations are actually based on.

As reported by Libero, the defence has identified the absence from the case file of a number of elements considered essential, including the original complaint, witness statements, evidence relating to the alleged delivery of $140,000 in cash, banking documentation and the agreement for the transfer of the company shares.

According to the article, the $63,000 bank transfer referred to in the case also appears to have passed between accounts held by individuals other than my client.

There is also a precedent that cannot be overlooked: in December 2025, the Spanish courts had already refused the extradition of Maria Violeta Agüero Bravo to Venezuela.

These elements must be examined together, without prejudging the merits of the allegations.

And this is precisely where a broader issue arises.

We need to overcome the automatic link between an INTERPOL Red Notice and pre-trial detention.

International cooperation mechanisms are indispensable, but they are not infallible and cannot replace judicial scrutiny.

Even systems created to combat crime can be used instrumentally. This is why every international alert must be assessed critically, individually and in light of the specific circumstances of the case before it produces consequences as serious as the deprivation of liberty.

A Red Notice is not a judgment.

On its own, it does not establish the responsibility of the person concerned.

And above all, it should never replace effective judicial scrutiny.

In the case of Maria Violeta Agüero Bravo, the defence has requested that the extradition be blocked and that the pre-trial detention order be revoked.

The decision now rests with the judges.

28/08/2026

Extradition to Venezuela: when an ordinary criminal charge may conceal a far greater risk

A fraud charge may provide grounds for an extradition request.

But no extradition request can be assessed without considering what may happen to the person once they are surrendered to the requesting State.

This is one of the central issues in the case of Maria Violeta Aguero Bravo, a Venezuelan entrepreneur who has been detained in Milan’s San Vittore prison since last April and whom I represent, together with attorney Francesca Gerboni, in the extradition proceedings initiated at Venezuela’s request.

The case has been examined today by Il Giorno:

🔗 https://www.ilgiorno.it/milano/cronaca/mistero-maria-violeta-venezuela-lz5ytdzu

The Venezuelan request arises from allegations of fraud and criminal association.

But extradition proceedings cannot stop at the formal classification of the alleged offences.

In our defence, we have brought to the Court’s attention a number of elements which, in our view, require a much broader assessment.

Maria Violeta has been granted international protection in Spain.

Her brother is involved in proceedings in Venezuela in which he faces accusations of terrorism and treason.

According to the documents referred to by the press, Maria Violeta herself is also mentioned in an accusatory context that extends well beyond the financial matter underlying the extradition request.

There is another particularly sensitive element: according to Il Giorno, the Venezuelan prosecutor who brought the fraud allegations against her was subsequently arrested on charges including corruption and obstruction of justice.

Venezuela has provided diplomatic assurances regarding the treatment my client would receive.

The legal question, however, is whether those assurances are sufficient in light of the concrete risks we have raised.

Risk of persecution.

Risk of treatment incompatible with fundamental rights.

Risk of not receiving a fair trial.

In extradition proceedings, the role of the defence is not limited to asking:

“What offence is this person wanted for?”

Another question must also be asked:

“What will actually happen to this person if they are surrendered?”

That distinction is fundamental.

International judicial cooperation is essential in the fight against crime, but it must never become a means of circumventing the protection of fundamental rights.

For these reasons, we have asked that Maria Violeta Aguero Bravo not be extradited to Venezuela.

The decision now rests with the Milan Court of Appeal.

21/08/2026

INTERPOL Red Notice and arrest in Italy: why an international alert cannot replace judicial scrutiny

Abzas Media has published an in-depth report on the case of Tural Mammadov, an Azerbaijani citizen arrested in Rome on the basis of an international request.

The full article is available here:

https://abzas.org/az/2026/8/kecmis-xususi-teyinatli-komand-26c35b50

The case brings back into focus an issue that I consider fundamental in my international criminal defence practice: an INTERPOL alert, including a Red Notice, should never automatically become a decision affecting an individual’s personal liberty.

A Red Notice is an instrument of international cooperation.

It is not, in itself, a judgment, nor can it replace the independent assessment of the judicial authorities in the State where the person is detained.

In the case of Tural Mammadov, I believe it is necessary to assess not only the formal content of the request, but also the context in which it was issued.

The nature and origin of the allegations, the time elapsed since the alleged events, the political and judicial situation in the requesting State, and all relevant elements concerning the individual’s personal and professional background must be carefully examined.

When information emerges concerning previous roles within a State’s security or intelligence structures, these circumstances cannot simply be ignored.

If supported by evidence, they may also require an assessment of whether internal conflicts, political interests or power struggles could lie behind an international request in ways that are not apparent from the arrest request itself.

This does not mean prejudging whether the allegations are well founded.

It means applying an essential principle of the rule of law: before restricting a person’s liberty, every international request must be subject to effective, individual and independent scrutiny.

International judicial cooperation is essential in the fight against transnational crime.

But precisely because these instruments are so powerful, they must be accompanied by equally strong safeguards.

A Red Notice should trigger scrutiny. It should not replace the judgment of a court.

I thank Abzas Media for bringing attention to this case and to the broader issue of how INTERPOL alerts are used in international proceedings.

19/08/2026

INTERPOL Red Notices and Political Persecution: When an International Cooperation Tool Becomes a Risk to Fundamental Rights

Today, HuffPost addresses an issue that I have been dealing with for years in my professional practice: the use of INTERPOL Red Notices against individuals who have been granted international protection, hold refugee status, or are now permanently residing in Europe.

The full article by Federica Olivo is available here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.it/politica/2026/08/19/news/interpol_rifugiati_oppositori_red_notice-22556936/

Recent cases in Italy have made the problem particularly clear.

A Red Notice is designed as an instrument of international police cooperation to locate a wanted person. But it is not an international arrest warrant and, above all, it should never become an automatic mechanism capable of bypassing the safeguards granted to individuals at risk of political persecution.

This is precisely where the most sensitive issue arises.

When a Red Notice originates from a State where there are serious concerns about the independence of the judicial system, or when the person concerned has already been granted refugee status or another form of international protection, relying solely on the formal content of the request is not enough.

It is essential to examine who issued the request, the alleged offence behind it, the political and judicial context in which it originated, and the potential consequences of an arrest or subsequent extradition.

In my professional experience, one of the greatest concerns is the time that can pass between a police check and an effective assessment of whether the alert is legitimate.

For the person involved, even an arrest that is subsequently found to be unjustified can mean days or weeks of deprivation of liberty, together with serious personal, family and professional consequences.

International cooperation against crime is essential.

But its effectiveness cannot depend on the automatic enforcement of an alert.

There must be an effective filter capable of distinguishing a legitimate judicial request from the misuse of INTERPOL mechanisms for purposes incompatible with the protection of fundamental rights.

I would like to thank Federica Olivo and HuffPost for bringing greater attention to an issue that deserves a much wider public debate.

19/08/2026

Money Laundering vs Self-Money Laundering in Italy: What Is the Difference?

In my practice, I often see money laundering and self-money laundering treated as if they were the same offence.

Under Italian criminal law, they are not — and the distinction can significantly affect the defence strategy.

Article 648-bis of the Italian Criminal Code concerns money laundering: in general terms, it applies when a person carries out transactions involving assets originating from a criminal offence in a way that makes their illicit origin more difficult to identify.

The key point is that the person laundering the assets is different from the person who committed the underlying offence.

Self-money laundering, governed by Article 648-ter.1, is different: it concerns the perpetrator of the predicate offence who subsequently uses, transfers or employs the criminal proceeds in circumstances covered by the provision.

For example, a person commits tax fraud and then takes steps to conceal or reinvest the proceeds. Depending on the circumstances, this may result in a separate self-money laundering charge in addition to the original offence.

Why does this distinction matter?

First, it can significantly increase the defendant’s overall criminal exposure.

Second, financial crime investigations can involve precautionary seizure and confiscation measures, creating serious consequences for personal and business assets.

When I analyse these cases, I therefore focus immediately on four questions: Who committed the predicate offence? Who handled the proceeds? What transactions were carried out? And do those transactions actually meet the legal requirements of money laundering or self-money laundering?

The distinction may sound technical, but it can determine the structure of the entire defence.

For a deeper analysis, my complete guide to the Italian money laundering framework is available through the link in the description.

🌐 https://alexandrotirelli.it/

📞 +39 338 622 2365

27/07/2026

Extradition: The First Decisions Often Determine the Final Outcome

Throughout my experience in international criminal defence, I have learned one important lesson: extradition cases are rarely won or lost at the final hearing. In most cases, everything depends on how the defence is built from the very beginning.

Many people think extradition is simply the transfer of a person from one country to another for prosecution or to serve a sentence. In reality, it is one of the most complex areas of international criminal law, governed by domestic legislation, international treaties and fundamental rights.

Under Italian law, extradition is regulated by Articles 697 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure, together with bilateral treaties and the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. Before national law is applied, international law is already playing a central role.

In Italy there are two different forms of extradition.

Passive extradition occurs when Italy receives a request from another State to surrender an individual.

Active extradition is when Italy requests another country to surrender a person to the Italian authorities.

Most of the international cases I handle involve passive extradition.

Before any extradition can proceed, several legal requirements must be satisfied. The alleged conduct must also constitute a criminal offence under Italian law. A valid treaty or the principle of reciprocity must exist, and the legal conditions established by both Italian legislation and the applicable international agreements must be fulfilled.

Building an effective defence requires analysing several layers simultaneously.

Procedural law allows the defence to challenge the legal requirements for extradition.

International conventions may provide additional protection where there is a risk of an unfair trial or inhuman treatment.

In certain cases, humanitarian grounds—such as political persecution, religion or ethnicity—may also prevent extradition.

One of the strongest forms of protection remains international protection or asylum, where applicable.

Another aspect that is often underestimated is the international coordination required.

Successful extradition cases rarely involve a single lawyer. They require continuous cooperation between legal teams in Italy, the requesting State and, where necessary, other jurisdictions connected to the client's family, business or assets.

One mistake I see repeatedly is waiting too long before seeking legal advice.

Once precautionary measures have been imposed and the proceedings have advanced, many strategic opportunities become far more difficult to recover.

That is why I always say that an extradition defence begins with the very first notification—not with the first hearing.

The decisions taken during those first days often determine the outcome of the entire case.

For confidential legal assistance in international extradition matters:

📞 +39 338 622 2365

🌐 https://alexandrotirelli.it/

19/07/2026

Money Laundering in Italy: Understanding the Difference That Can Change an Entire Criminal Case

Money laundering and self-money laundering are often perceived as the same offence. Under Italian criminal law, however, they are two distinct crimes with different legal requirements, procedural implications and defence strategies.

Understanding this distinction is essential, as it may significantly influence the course of a criminal investigation and the legal consequences for the accused.

Italian legislation distinguishes between traditional money laundering and self-money laundering based on one fundamental element: the relationship between the person who committed the underlying offence and the person who handled the proceeds of that offence. This distinction affects not only the legal classification of the case but also the investigative powers available to prosecutors, the precautionary measures that may be imposed and the overall defence strategy.

In complex financial crime investigations, prosecutors frequently combine allegations relating to the predicate offence with money laundering charges, making use of extensive investigative instruments, including financial analysis, electronic surveillance and international judicial cooperation.

For individuals and companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, these proceedings often involve cross-border asset tracing, international evidence gathering and coordination between several prosecuting authorities. This makes early legal intervention essential to protect procedural rights and develop an effective defence strategy from the outset.

An effective defence requires a detailed examination of the alleged predicate offence, the financial transactions involved and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Every transaction must be assessed individually, as not every financial movement constitutes money laundering under Italian law.

Financial crime litigation is highly technical and demands legal, procedural and forensic expertise. Early strategic decisions frequently determine the outcome of the entire proceeding.

📞 +39 338 622 2365

🌐 https://alexandrotirelli.it/

01/07/2026

Every extradition proceeding is a true test of the rule of law.

In the case concerning Lam Siu Yee, a Hong Kong citizen arrested in Italy following a request from the People's Republic of China, the Rome Court of Appeal declared that there were no grounds to proceed with the extradition request, reaffirming once again that international judicial cooperation can only exist where the law and the procedural safeguards established by international treaties are fully respected.

I had the honour of representing my client together with Attorney Benedetta D'Aloisi in a case that I consider particularly significant for the development of international extradition law.

Every extradition request must be subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny. Compliance with procedural safeguards, the documentation required under international treaties, and the protection of fundamental rights are not mere formalities—they are the very foundation of the rule of law.

The decision of the Rome Court of Appeal reaffirms a fundamental principle: judicial cooperation between States can never come at the expense of legality, procedural integrity, or the protection of human rights, regardless of the geopolitical importance of the requesting State.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Court for the exceptional legal rigor demonstrated in addressing such a complex matter, once again confirming the value of the independence of the Italian judiciary and its unwavering commitment to the principles of international law.

Full article published by *Il Messaggero*:

https://www.ilmessaggero.it/salute/medicina/arrestato_cinese_fiumicino_frode_commerciale_corte_appello_roma_blocca_estradizione-9623710.html

📞 +39 338 622 2365

🌐 https://alexandrotirelli.it/

Alexandro Maria Tirelli

03/09/2026

31/08/2026

29/08/2026

28/08/2026

21/08/2026

19/08/2026

19/08/2026

27/07/2026

19/07/2026

01/07/2026

Indirizzo

Sito Web

Notifiche

Contatta L'azienda

Scelte rapide

In evidenza

Condividi

Richiesta di rimozione dell’inserzione