Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): “most damaging” to Vos’ case — Vos’ alleged use of Florida’s banking system to facilitate its sales to A & V. Our review of the evidence on this issue reveals that in the transactions involving A & V, CommerzBank Nederland sent shipping documents to SunBank, Sun-Bank notified A & V of the documents’ arrival, A & V signed the trade acceptance forms and submitted payment to SunBank. SunBank then transferred the funds and paperwork to CommerzBank. Vos’ involvement in the process was virtually non-existent, and SunBank merely operated to facilitate the international transfer of money under a letter of credit. Such contacts are clearly insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Vos. See Banco Continental, S.A. v. Transcom Bank (Barbados) Ltd., 922 So.2d 395, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); La. Reunion Franqaise, S.A. v. La Costeña, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the bank liable where the bank had almost complete control over the operation of the company during its last three quarters of operation and where withheld taxes were not paid to the irs on instructions from the bank (B) holding that a bank owed no duty of care to a noncustomer who was defrauded by a bank depositer since the bank had no direct relationship with the noncustomer (C) holding that the mere maintenance of a correspondent account in new york is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the united states (D) holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida (E) holding that a correspondent relationship with a florida bank where the bank merely facilitates the international transfer of monies under a letter of credit is insufficient to meet the minimum  contacts requirement
Output (English): holding that a bank owed no duty of care to a noncustomer who was defrauded by a bank depositer since the bank had no direct relationship with the noncustomer