When Secrecy Trumps Justice: The ANOM Operation Under Scrutiny

On March 5, 2025, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published a report that is sending ripples through the international legal community. The article sheds light on an unprecedented case before the Landgericht Gießen—a case that has raised profound questions about the balance between effective criminal investigations and the protection of constitutional rights.

A Deep Dive into the ANOM Operation

At the heart of the report is the covert crypto service known as ANOM, originally developed and operated under the tight control of the FBI. Conceived as a tool to infiltrate and dismantle international drug trafficking networks, ANOM was marketed as a secure communication platform for criminals. However, the reality is far more sinister: every encrypted message sent through ANOM was clandestinely copied to a server, enabling law enforcement agencies to monitor criminal activities on an unprecedented scale.

The F.A.Z. article details how the FBI, in conjunction with international partners, orchestrated a complex operation to intercept these communications. What makes this case particularly alarming is the method by which the surveillance was authorized. The operation involved a so-called “third state”—which, as revealed by our member and co-founder Christian Lödden in a recent legal motion, is none other than Lithuania. In his application, Lödden disclosed not only the identity of this third state but also provided detailed information: the names of the involved Lithuanian judges, prosecutors, police officers, and even the case numbers associated with the surveillance orders.

The Controversial Role of Deception

Lödden’s revelations underscore a critical issue: the process by which the surveillance orders were obtained was, by his account, fundamentally flawed. He argues that the judicial authorizations in Lithuania were secured only through deliberate deception.

According to Lödden, the Lithuanian officials—and by extension, the international partners involved—were misled about the true nature and scope of the operation. This lack of transparency not only raises serious questions about the legality of the surveillance measures but also casts a long shadow over the entire judicial process.

Lödden’s concerns are echoed in his public statement on LinkedIn, where he poignantly asked:

“The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports today on a case before the Landgericht Gießen, in which I have defended – a case that shows how far law enforcement agencies will go to access data. But where is the line between effective criminal investigation and a breach of the rule of law?”

This question resonates deeply within our community of criminal defense attorneys. It is a stark reminder that when secrecy is prioritized over transparency and judicial oversight, the very foundation of a fair trial is at risk.

The Wider Implications for the Rule of Law

The ANOM operation is not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of a broader trend. In today’s interconnected world, international law enforcement agencies are increasingly engaging in operations that transcend traditional national boundaries. While such cooperation is essential for combating transnational crime, it also opens the door to practices that may sidestep fundamental legal safeguards.

In this context, the extensive research and investigative work carried out by the defense in the Landgericht Gießen case are of paramount importance. They reveal how easily state secrecy can undermine the rights of the accused. When critical information—such as the true origin of surveillance orders or the identities of judicial authorities—is deliberately obscured, it becomes nearly impossible for defendants to challenge the validity of the evidence against them.

For criminal defence lawyers operating on an international stage, this case serves as a wake-up call. It highlights the urgent need for robust mechanisms that ensure judicial review and accountability in cross-border investigations. Without such safeguards, we risk eroding the core principles of a fair and open legal system.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

As members of an international cooperation of criminal defence lawyers, we have a duty to advocate for the protection of constitutional rights worldwide. The revelations in the F.A.Z. report and Lödden’s subsequent disclosures compel us to demand greater transparency in international surveillance practices. Law enforcement agencies must be held to the same high standards of accountability as any other branch of government. Secrecy should never come at the expense of the rule of law.

We encourage our colleagues, legal scholars, and civil society to review the detailed report in today’s F.A.Z. and join the conversation about how best to balance the needs of effective law enforcement with the imperatives of justice and human rights.

For further details, please refer to the F.A.Z. article published on March 5, 2025, the online version and the insightful commentary provided by attorney Christian Lödden on his LinkedIn post.

By upholding these principles, we not only defend the rights of our clients but also safeguard the very foundations of a just legal system.