We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The transaction involved the purchase and release of gold from
Kenya. CFG paid, but there was no delivery, allegedly on the
basis that there was more than gold in the shipment
(diamonds). There then ensued a series of statements from the
Kenyan police. The consignment was never released —
but nor were the funds returned.
The Eight Circuit addressed the issue as one of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court looked first at the commercial
activity exception but found it inapplicable. Since the
allegations of the complaint alleged actions such as failure to
investigate, failure to secure the gold, and failure to return
funds, the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that there
was no commercial activity exception; "[t]he decisions
regarding whether or how too investigate an allegedly fraudulent
commercial transaction between private parties, regulate exports,
enforce criminal laws, and seize property during criminal
investigations are governmental rather than commercial
activities". The Court of Appeals did not address the
question directly of the refusal to return the funds, which,
allegedly, the defendants had, having seized it from the alleged
wrongdoers. So the alleged wrongdoers no longer had the
funds; defendants did. Where were the plaintiffs going to get
the funds if not from the Defendants, who, based on allegations
that were being accepted as true, were involved in the transaction
and aftermath. (The plaintiffs said that the wrongdoer was not an
agent of the Kenyan government but also alleges that the Kenyan
police were involved.)
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the tort exception to
the FSIA was inapplicable. It covers "'only torts
occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States', regardless of whether the alleged tor 'may have
had effects in the United States'". Assuming the
plaintiffs were U.S. entities, that the funds came from the U.S.,
and that the loss was suffered in the U.S., is there an argument
that the tort occurred here?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A discussion on the importance of the country of origin analysis, in the light of a settlement reached between the US Department of Justice and an importer of pigment.
Coming just three days after the TTP parties accepted Japan's entry bid, and less than a month since Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's announcement that Japan would apply to join the talks, the move clears the way for new trade proposals that carry significant consequences for the U.S. automotive sector.
On Tuesday, January 2, 2013 President Obama signed into law the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (the "FY 2013 NDAA"), a large legislative package that includes the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (the "IFCPA") -- the fourth major legislative expansion of US sanctions against Iran in just the past two years.
