Türkiye Halk Bankasi v. United States: Supreme Court Grants Cert.

The Supreme Court will review the Second Circuit’s decision in Türkiye Halk Bankasi, A.Ş v. United States, a decision rejecting the argument that the United States cannot criminally prosecute a foreign company owned by a foreign sovereign. Paul Stephan has an excellent post about the case at the Transnational Litigation Blog.

I don’t want to comment on the details of the arguments in the briefs, though of course I’ll cover the decision when it comes. But it would be absurd, at least in my view, to think that the United States cannot prosecute a bank for bank fraud and money laundering, which is what happened here, just because the bank is majority-owned by a foreign state (leaving aside any objection to the idea of prosecuting corporations for crimes). And you could make the hypotheticals as absurd as you like. The Corporation for the Poisoning of the American Water Supply, majority owned by country X, opens an office near a US city and then sends its employees out with arsenic to drop in the reservoir. The plot is laid out in the corporate board’s minutes and posted online. The Corporation for the Purloining of Top Secret Information sets up shop in Palm Beach. And so the case really poses a test of the justices’ commitment to various theories of statutory interpretation and adherence to precedent. For example, there are statements in the cases that the FSIA is the exclusive means by which a US court can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign. But they were not criminal cases. Do our judges feel bound by the literal language of their dicta, or can they read their courts’ decisions flexibly, with an eye on what is sensible? The FSIA itself says that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States,” unless an exception applies. But it’s obvious, when looking at the statute as a whole, that it refers to civil cases. Even if you think it applies to all cases, civil or criminal, it would seem necessary to apply the exceptions, too, and surely the commercial activity exception should apply here; but on the other hand, the Can the judges give the statute its sensible reading, or are they committed to reading it the way Matthew Harrison Brady reads the Bible in Inherit the Wind?

2 responses to “Türkiye Halk Bankasi v. United States: Supreme Court Grants Cert.”

  1. Chris Searcy

    This court is determined to undo the tradition of the common law and thereby the republic…unfortunately lawyers will be left not with precedent to rely upon, but rather the argument that catches the trial judges fancy that day, in that court. We are doomed to watch powerlessly as the republic turns to a theocratic oligopoly.

    1. Ted Folkman

      Thanks Chris. I probably invited a comment like this by referring to Inherit the Wind. I agree with you that our democratic system and the rule and law face unprecedented challenges, I do not think that this case on the FSIA is a great example of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.