how should courts determine whether a rico injury is domestic the district court adopted a simple test it decided that a plaintiff suffers economic injury the only type of should not starch and then stop with the plaintiff's residence the defendants in this case targeted the plaintiffs new york assets they stole millions of dollars from new york investment and banking accounts and they still bear shares from a new york safety deposit box those injuries occurred here where the plaintiffs reside does not change the fact that property in new york was damaged a residency test is divorced from the language of rico itself it conflicts with the plain language of rico and it further conflicts with nabisco section nine hundred sixty four c which is of course the standing provision of rico provides quote any person injured in his business or property by means of a violation of section one thousand nine hundred sixty two can sue for recovery in the disco the supreme court held that a rico injury must be domestic however it provided no test for determining whether an injury is domestic but it did provide one god line that footnote twelve the supreme court said and i quote this does not mean that foreign plaintiffs cannot s the residence test conflicts but this guidance because in the rico context a rule that economic injuries are felt only where the plaintiff resides or has her personal place of business reduces to a per se bar on foreign plaintiffs the reason for that alternative mean that any time that they're a fraud is alleged if the predicates are some type of fraud and money is transferred out of a new york account there's a domestic injury if there is the requisite predicate acts and conduct in the united states i think that if there is an account where in the united states in new york for example where the money is stolen as a result of a fraud then the answer that question would be yes because the issue really is where was the plaintiff parted from his or her property and in the context of rico because no econd all injuries are economic if you if you use a residency test there will be a default that if it's just where they reside there will be no other answer and we can't have that in the rico context for the following reason the definition of person which is of course any person injured in her business or property in the statute is defined in section one thousand nine hundred sixty one sub one which defines a person as any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property if you exclude foreign plaintiffs from that definition you the residency rule also conflicts with the supreme court's observation again and of the scope of the application of the domestic injury rule will not always be straightforward almost every court to consider this issue even those that have alternately determined that the economic injury was found and suffered at the plant as principal place of business or residence has examined the property or the business interest and looked at whether it was a located within the united states at the time of the injury with perhaps two exceptions these courts did not simply hold that economic injuries can only be suffered at the place of residence or principal place of business the considered the nature of the property interest they consider the nature of the injury and others as described in our brief and as well as our twenty eight jail letter from earlier this week and so while we certainly agree with the line of cases that say that the focus of the increase must be on the geographic location of the proprietary injury and not on the under law at the place of the underlying conduct those cases also do consider whether the defendants targeted assets in the united states as opposed to out of the united states and so the test that we propose is that the plaintiffs officer injury to her business or property where that business or operate is located at the time of the injury and of course in many cases that injury will occur at the plaintiff place of business residence a distinction that one drawing here and this is crucial is that the mere fact of a plaintiff's residence standing alone cannot dictate the place of inquiry consistent was rico the test that we propose also grounded in the statutes text as well as in the language of nabisco specifically it tracks the supreme court statement that plaintiffs must allege and i quote again a domestic injury to their business or property and that's at one thirty six supreme court twenty one eleven and that language itself is of course derived from the language of nine hundred sixty four c itself because this test is explicitly tethered to the location of the property or business activity in the us it advances the remedial course free code as well as the policy concerns behind the presumption against extraterritoriality specifically it provides the protections of u s law only property and business activity that occurs here within our borders and other nations of course fully expect that the united states is going to regulate and offer protections to property and business activity here as opposed to abroad think it may push forward two reasons i don't i don't think it actually presents a problem for us but thank you for the question first it did not actually adopt a residency role second it comes from a completely different context i think that context is significant and critical and dictates the outcome here the rico statute as i mentioned already allows foreign plaintiffs to sue and because all rico injuries are economic injuries a default rule that says economic injuries simply occur or are suffered as a place of residence would categorically bar all foreign plaintiff from suing that wasn't the case in the context of in the context of the state of this case so you have to obviously look at the the the securities fraud is a different underlying type of claim rico statute is obviously a hybrid of predicate acts it has different purposes different goals and it also has different definitions for who can sue and the other the other issue is that if you that interpretation the atlantic case does not have the effect of foreclosing the entire category of plaintiffs that specifically included as being within the statute and unable to sue so i think that's the key differen excuse please the court i'm jennifer selebi and i have the privilege here for presenting the appellee here today we agreed that this is an important matter first impression but the argument that your owners have just heard from the appellant's is based on a faulty construction of the district court's decision on appeal here addressing the question of domestic injury under section one thousand nine hundred eighty four c of rico in the aftermath of the case the district court did articulate a simple rule but it was also narrow rule that applies to one type of alleged property and three and that's monetary injury yet it is clear from the appellant's papers and their argument here today that they are giving in implausibly expansive interpretation of the district court decision in order to argue legal error and miss ship where none really exists section one hundred sixty four c grandstanding to a person a person injured in his business or property and r j are nabisco directed the district court to his business or property must show that he suffered that injury in the united states and not abroad in order to have a private right of action now relying solely on the allegations in the complaint the district court first completed concluded what type of injury had been suffered that the alleged rico injuries in this case were soley monetary they were peculiarly injuries after discussing each of the alleged rico schemes the court noted that sixty four million dollars or thereabouts was allegedly wired or otherwise taken from appellants accounts in new york and elsewhere that is the only type of injury that was found and described by the district court that's the only question that the district court was and julie keeps pouring plaintiffs out of cases out of court in cases where we might be trouble more trouble than we are in a case where the alleged fraudster is also a nonresident and much of the activity of action you should not be concerned about that because that does not deprive the attorney general of bringing a rico cause of action if there were foreign plaintiffs were being targeted in a rico scheme in the united states there would  remedy for that that could be a public remedy and there would also be state law remedies for that so it is not a question of depriving those victims of any remedy it's saying that the private right of action is limited to those pla domestic injury what about a u s citizen who resides permanently abroad that would be it that would be a concern under under the appellant's proposed rules that's that's one of our the arguments that we've  made your honor that if an american citizen has their bank accounts abroad and the test is the place of the location of a of an account an american citizen could be subject to a s based rico scheme and not have a cause of action simply because he he he or she kept a bank account abroad what about the american who has her bank accounts here in the united  states resides permanently abroad under the theory adopted by the district the resident her residence is in great britain for example it's she  would be able to bring rico right i don't know i'm not sure i think these are very fact specific cases so we can imagine a scenario where the ex pat who's money who lives abroad who's residence is abroad but has money and property and business in the united states and if if they if that if they would enjoy their wealth where they suffered their injury is the test ok and there are exceptions under the district court's ruling to the residency test with when there are examples where the place where the plaintiff would really enjoy their wealth is the united states when that's the center of their of their economic life or their business so it's not necessarily the case there is no absolute just rule that was adopted by the district court that's really our point here it's not it was on the facts of a four inch elaine citizen a resident of chile who who suffered his alleged harm of not having the wealth that he only enjoyed in chile he suffered his injury there it's undisputed in this case that the appellant did and could not come to the united states during the ten years that his estate was managed by the app indeed his complaint alleges specifically that he intended his wealth to be managed to generate income to fund his charitable activities that were solely in chile primarily a fashion museum in santiago nothing in the district court's decision suggests that he intended to announce a rule that would apply beyond the says circumstances of this purely pick unitary injury for a foreign citizen and somehow apply to all rico persons all  types of injuries we know that there are many possible types of injuries to property and to business in the united states that this court did not speak to the district court properly rejected appellants propose rule which focused on the location of his accounts because that test ignores the supreme court's key language about where the injury is actually suffered by the appellant and it also ignores the statutory language in one nine hundred sixty four see that refers to a person who is injured and his business or property not as the plaintiffs say in their briefs to just an injury to business or property so under their proposed rule as i mentioned a foreign citizen with vast wealth including accounts in the united states could form shop for trouble damages remedy provided by rico and like the appellant in this case could use new york courts for a second bite at the apple when litigation in their own countries is not successful i undisputed here that appellant only filed this rico action in new york after losing multi year litigations trial and on appeal in chile we do not want to open up our courts to that type of litigation because it does not serve nabisco use presumption against extraterritoriality and likewise because new york is an international center of banking and investment a rule that ignores the residence of the plaintiff and defines the mere loss of money held in a new york out as a domestic injury which certainly lead to more private actions by foreign citizens miro of money it is a purely pick you neary injury is what i'm saying like we believe very strongly that the atlantic a holdings case that is talking about a purely monetary economic harm explain to me when i'm not sure i fully follow this argument why is a merely money injury different based as it might be on here is how why why should money why you would money be different from all other forms of property because the question is how does how does the plaintiffs use their property how do they enjoy their property and money wealth is is something that the district court recognized is primarily used where the party resides we're they are based where their life is ok and that's different from a business injury and it's different from an injury to a physical piece of property that may more directly be tied to the united states these investments by a chill land citizen are like millions of other investments by foreign citizens in the united states who may never come here who may not do business here who benefit from our financial markets and our banks that would seem to move in favor of a decision adverse to that the fact they send the money here keep it here suggests they don't want to have it stolen here your honor i think it's just the opposite i think that the presumption against extraterritoriality is saying that we really have to have a domestic financial system and beginning to the financial system based in new york if if money kept here by foreigners can be taken with impunity without an ability to to invoke american law it is certainly not taken with impunity rico's public enforcement mechanism would still apply to that your honor it is not a case that there would be no remedy if there was what would the remedy your concern that somehow that would be a challenge that would be threatening to our banking system that attracts foreign wealth then i would think that would be a huge interest of the justice department to want to shut that down the point is that they are not left without a remedy the point is that they are left without a private cause of action that encourages forum shopping thank you you said before and i think she has no response to those are the only injuries compensable under rico she has instead suggested that the judge cabined the opinion to the fact that this involved money putting aside the fact that money is also for economic and economic injury that is not in fact what judge daniels did and just go back to his opinion from one moment he said the  usually focuses focuses upon where the economic impact of the injury was ultimately felt not felt at all but ultimately in some existential sense i suppose so he didn't say this is simply money as if there were a meaningful distinction between those two concepts he had a broad vision of what this meant and the courts who have looked at this and criticized this case have have have have called it an absolute us rule and refuse to apply it because they recognize that x is a person a bar on foreign plaintiffs the defendants themselves effectively conceded that in their own papers when they ask this court to affirm based on coming up with exception after exception after exception trying to distinguish this case on the grounds it involves economic injuries even though as i've said a couple of times now all injuries under rico are economic so i don't think that that is going to fly the fact that it's purely that's the point that's why it's a rico injury to take us back to the allegations here this was a new york property and two to go to appoint a judge to promise was making foreign plaintiffs who put their money here deserve the protections and benefits of the u s law for that property and i'm suggesting that a residency rule because it effectively immunizes domestic racketeering activity that is targeted specifically at the property of foreign residents is just a bad rule it conflicts with the remedial purposes of rico and it exacerbates rather than addresses the concerns regarding international friction because people who are abroad do expect to get the benefits of u s