The bank, owned by the Turkish government, said criminal charges against state-owned entities are never proper under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
The Justice Department charged Halkbank with money laundering, fraud and conspiracy to violate sanctions against Iran.Credit...Murad Sezer/ReutersBy Adam LiptakJan. 17, 2023
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court considered on Tuesday whether the federal government may prosecute a state-owned bank in Turkey on charges that it had helped Iran evade sanctions imposed by the United States. In the process, the justices debated a much larger question: whether criminal prosecutions of foreign nations or the entities they control are ever permissible under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
The case involved what a 2019 indictment called a multiyear scheme by the bank, known as Halkbank, to launder billions of dollars of Iranian oil and natural gas proceeds. It has strained relations between the United States and Turkey, and it prompted top Justice Department officials in the Trump administration to try to disrupt the prosecution.
Lisa S. Blatt, a lawyer for the bank, said that it was one thing to allow civil suits seeking money from companies owned by foreign governments, which she said was permissible under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 in some circumstances.
But criminal charges, she said, were another matter entirely. “There just never has been a criminal prosecution of a sovereign or its instrumentality anywhere,” she said, adding, “The world has been around for, like, 7,000 years, and no country has ever tried another country.”
In the bank’s Supreme Court brief, Ms. Blatt wrote that conflicts between nations are settled by diplomacy or war and not in criminal trials.
Understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Term
A race to the right. After a series of judicial bombshells in June that included eliminating the right to abortion, a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives returns to the bench — and there are few signs that the court’s rightward shift is slowing. Here’s a closer look at the new term:
Legitimacy concerns swirl. The court’s aggressive approach has led its approval ratings to plummet. In a recent Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans said they disapproved of the job the Supreme Court was doing. Such findings seem to have prompted several justices to discuss whether the court’s legitimacy was in peril in recent public appearances.
Affirmative action. The marquee cases of the new term are challenges to the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. While the court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, a six-justice conservative supermajority may put more than 40 years of precedents at risk.
Voting rights. The role race may play in government decision-making also figures in a case that is a challenge under the Voting Rights Act to an Alabama electoral map that a lower court had said diluted the power of Black voters. The case is a major new test of the Voting Rights Act in a court that has gradually limited the law’s reach in other contexts.
Election laws. The court heard arguments in a case that could radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures independent power, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules in conflict with state constitutions. In a rare plea, state chief justices urged the court to reject that approach.
Discrimination against gay couples. The justices heard an appeal from a web designer who objects to providing services for same-sex marriages in a case that pits claims of religious freedom against laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court last considered the issue in 2018 in a similar dispute, but failed to yield a definitive ruling.
Immigration. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a 1986 law that makes it a crime to urge unauthorized immigrants to stay in the United States. The justices had already heard arguments on that question three years ago; several of them suggested then that the law violated the First Amendment.
“President Madison did not indict Great Britain for arson for torching the White House in 1814,” she wrote. “President Roosevelt responded to Pearl Harbor by unleashing the full might of the American military against Japan, not a phalanx of prosecutors.”
Eric J. Feigin, a lawyer for the federal government, said it was the bank’s position that was “extraordinary and unprecedented.”
Under it, he said, “any foreign government-owned corporation could become a clearinghouse for any federal crime, including interfering in our elections, stealing our nuclear secrets, or something like here, evading our sanctions and funneling billions of dollars to an embargoed nation, using our banks, and lying to our regulators.” (The bank has denied wrongdoing, and Ms. Blatt said the accusations against it were false.)
Several of the justices seemed to be looking for a middle path between the parties’ positions, in the case, Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-1450. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh seemed inclined to let the executive branch make most decisions about when prosecutions like that of the bank may proceed.
“I think it’s pretty bizarre for this court to tell the president of the United States as a matter of his national security exercise” that he may not pursue charges, Justice Kavanaugh said, adding, “That’s why we have a president who’s elected to protect the national security of the United States and consider those issues.”
Ms. Blatt said that a ruling against the bank would encourage foreign prosecutors to bring criminal charges against corporations controlled by the United States like the Export-Import Bank or Voice of America.
More on the U.S. Supreme CourtNew York’s Gun Law: The Supreme Court let stand, for now, a state law that placed strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. The measure was enacted in response to a ruling by the court in June that struck down a restrictive gun control law.
Donors Meet the Justices: A charity was created to preserve the court’s history. It also became a door to nine of America’s most powerful people.
Title 42: The court said that the pandemic-era policy that restricted migration at the southern border would remain in place for now, delaying the potential for a huge increase in unlawful crossings.
Year-End Report: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. devoted his annual report on the federal judiciary to threats to judges' physical safety. The report shed no light on the leak of the court's draft Roe opinion or on calls for more rigorous ethics rules for justices.
“One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist,” she said.
She added that there was no principled way to allow federal prosecutions but not state ones, calling that position “cataclysmic.”
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch seemed troubled by the prospect.
“States would be free to try to bring lawsuits against Mexico for this or that, or perhaps China because of Covid, or who knows what a creative state prosecutor might come up with,” he said.
Along related lines, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether individual federal prosecutors could decide to indict foreign governmental entities. The question, she said, was not hypothetical.
“What do I do with the hearsay news reports that came out that the prior administration was trying to apply pressure to drop this lawsuit?” she asked, referring to detailed reporting on attempts by Justice Department officials in the Trump administration to undermine the prosecution of the bank.
Mr. Feigin gave a general response. “Those are internal government deliberations,” he said. “Some of them have been brought to light, but I think what they do show is there was a process.
”www.fotavgeia.blogspot.com
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου