ANOM Leaks: When Justice Becomes a Victim of Deception
- Joint Defense Team
- 10 hours ago
- 3 min read
Updated: 1 hour ago
The latest revelations surrounding the ANOM operation raise serious questions about the credibility of international criminal investigations, judicial oversight, and the rule of law in Europe.
Background: How the FBI Built Its Own Trap
ANOM was a supposedly secure encrypted messenger, secretly developed and distributed by the FBI. Thousands of criminals worldwide—drug dealers, arms traffickers, money launderers—fell into the trap. More than 27 million messages were intercepted globally, and in Germany alone, the data triggered over 860 criminal proceedings.
The legal problem: Under U.S. law, the FBI was not allowed to run such an operation from U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens. To circumvent this, the Bureau sought a third country to host the server. That country was Lithuania.
The Hidden Truth: Lithuania’s Role
According to leaked documents—now referred to as the ANOM leaks—and investigative reporting by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the FBI and Lithuanian authorities constructed a false narrative for the courts.
The server in Lithuania was not run by criminals, but by the Lithuanian police—acting under FBI direction.
To obtain judicial approval, Lithuanian prosecutors and police misled judges by portraying ANOM as a criminally operated service.
The term “secretly” in the Lithuanian court order was itself misleading: the police were copying data from their own server, not covertly intercepting a criminal system.
This deception undermines the very judicial safeguards designed to protect fundamental rights.
Christian Lödden: Bringing the Truth to Court
Our Co-Founder Christian Lödden has obtained the decisive documents: the Lithuanian court orders, the U.S. mutual legal assistance requests, and more than 400 pages of internal correspondence between FBI agents and Lithuanian officials.
“These files show beyond doubt that Lithuanian judges were deliberately misled by police and prosecutors,” says Lödden. “The entire operation rests on deception. The supposed judicial authorizations were obtained under false pretenses.”
Lödden has already introduced the documents in German court proceedings:
“Since last week, the first courts in Germany have been confronted with these documents. Judges can no longer ignore the fact that these so-called authorizations were based on lies.”
By exposing the deception, Lödden is forcing German courts to reassess the admissibility of ANOM evidence.
The German Federal Court’s Ruling – Now Shaken
On 9 January 2025 (1 StR 54/24), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) declared ANOM data admissible in German trials. The Court reasoned that, absent concrete evidence of misconduct, it must trust foreign authorities under the principle of mutual trust in international cooperation.
“But that was exactly the problem,” explains Lödden. “At that time, the BGH claimed there were no indications of misconduct. Now we have proof—hundreds of pages showing how Lithuanian judges were deceived. The foundation of the BGH’s ruling has collapsed.”
Professor Matthias Jahn, Judge at the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt and Professor of Criminal Law, confirms this assessment:
Violations of Fundamental Rights
From a legal perspective, the operation breaches core guarantees:
Right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 47(2) EU Charter)
Rule of law principles (Art. 20(3) German Constitution)
Public order of European legal cooperation
As Lödden stresses:
“If courts are deliberately misled, judicial oversight becomes a farce. The judge’s constitutional role of balancing state interests with individual rights is completely undermined.”
Consequences of ANOM Leaks for Thousands of Convictions
In Germany, a three-digit number of defendants are currently imprisoned based on ANOM data. Their convictions now rest on evidence obtained in manifest violation of rule-of-law standards.
“Hundreds of people are sitting in German prisons because of evidence that should never have been admitted in court,” says Lödden. “The German judiciary must act immediately. Every conviction based on ANOM data needs to be reviewed.”
Even final judgments may need to be reopened—an unprecedented step in German criminal law.
Why This Matters Beyond ANOM
The principle of mutual trust cannot replace the principles of truth and transparency in international legal assistance. If courts are misled, international cooperation becomes a tool for law enforcement agencies to bypass constitutional safeguards.
“This is the perfect example,” Lödden concludes, “why trust alone is not enough in international cooperation. Without complete and truthful case files, mutual trust becomes a dangerous illusion.”
Conclusion
The ANOM leaks are not only a scandal about one secret FBI operation. They reveal how fragile the foundations of justice become when prosecutors and police deceive judges to obtain sweeping surveillance powers.
The credibility of international criminal law depends on judicial honesty. Where courts are misled, justice itself becomes the victim. This also applies to the EncroChat and SkyECC cases.
