Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05411/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05411-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 20, 1995 Decided January 19, 1996

No. 94-5411

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

BCCI HOLDINGS (LUXEMBOURG), S.A., ET AL.,

APPELLEES

GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 91cv00655-01)

Louis G. Ferrand, Jr., argued the cause for the appellant. William M. Berenson was on the brief.

Ruth A. Harvey, Attorney, United States Department ofJustice, argued the cause for appellee United

States of America. J. Christopher Kohn and Stefan D. Cassella, Attorneys, United States

Department of Justice, were on the brief.

Before: GINSBURG, HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The General Secretariat of the Organization

of American States (OAS) appeals the district court's dismissal of its petition under 18 U.S.C. §

1963(l) for adjudication of OAS's interest in $10,000 that it deposited with the Bank of Credit and

Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (BCCI) and that was subsequently ordered forfeited

under 18 U.S.C. § 1963. We affirm the district court's dismissal on the ground that, notwithstanding

itsstatus as an international organization, OAS was, like any other bank depositor, a general creditor

of BCCI with no legal interest in any specific forfeited property.

The material facts are undisputed. On July 1, 1991, OAS deposited in BCCI's branch bank

in Barbados a draft in the amount of $10,000 drawn on an OAS account at American Security Bank

USCA Case #94-5411 Document #173418 Filed: 01/19/1996 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(American Security) in Washington, D.C. On July 10, 1991 Capital Bank (Capital) in Miami, Florida,

acting as BCCI's correspondent bank, received payment on the draft through the Federal Reserve

System (Federal Reserve) from American Security. On July 18, 1991 OAS directed American

Security to stop payment on the draft. American Security then credited $10,000 to OAS's account

and entered a stop payment order into the Federal Reserve. When Capital received the order, it

canceled the draft but filed a "Claim of Late Return" with the Federal Reserve, asserting the stop

payment was untimelyunder FederalReserve regulations. The Federal Reserve agreed and approved

the claim. As a result, American Security debited OAS's account by $10,000 and Capital credited the

same amount to BCCI's account with it. OAS subsequently attempted to recover its money from

both BCCI and Capital, but without success.

On January 24, 1992 BCCI pleaded guilty to violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 et seq. The same day the district court issued an order of

forfeiture against BCCI pursuant to the plea agreement. Among the assets ordered forfeited were

the funds in BCCI's account at Capital.

On April 10, 1992, OAS filed a petition for a hearing, under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l), to

adjudicate its interest in the $10,000 it had deposited with BCCI. By order dated October 28, 1994,

the district court dismissed the petition on the ground that OAS had failed to assert a cognizable

interest in any specific forfeited property. OAS appeals that dismissal.

In order to prevail under section 1963(l) a petitioner must both assert a legal interest in

forfeited property and establish that the interest "vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or

was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts

which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section." 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l)(2), (6).

OAS can neither assert nor establish a qualifying interest in the $10,000 it deposited with BCCI

because, as we recently held in United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., 46 F.3d 1185

(D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2613 (1995), "bank depositors, as general creditors, have

no interest in the specific accounts to which their deposits might be traced, only in the defendant's

estate as a wholeand therefore can have no interest in particular assetsforfeited, asrequired under

USCA Case #94-5411 Document #173418 Filed: 01/19/1996 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1Section 288a provides in full:

International organizations shall enjoy the status, immunities, exemptions,

and privileges set forth in this section, as follows:

(a) International organizations shall, to the extent consistent with

the instrument creating them, possess the capacity

(i) to contract;

(ii) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property;

(iii) to institute legal proceedings.

(b) International organizations, their property and their assets,

wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same

immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed

by foreign governments, except to the extent that such

organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose

of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever

located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search,

unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. 

The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

(d) Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes

both prongs of § (l)(6), unlessthey have already secured a judgment against the debtor and perfected

a lien against a particular item." 46 F.3d at 1191 (citing United States v. Schwimmer, 968 F.2d 1570,

1581 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Campos, 859 F.2d 1233, 1240 (6th Cir. 1988)).

Attempting to circumvent the rule set out in BCCI Holdings, OAS argues that the forfeiture

of its deposit infringed the privileges and immunities OAS enjoys as an "international organization."

As OAS correctly points out, both its own charter, which is binding on the United States as an OAS

member, and the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 288 et seq., (IOIA)

accord OAS specialstatusto conduct its affairs in the United States. The charter provides that OAS

"shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity, privileges, and immunities as are

necessary for the exercise of its functions and the accomplishment of its purposes." The IOIA more

specifically grants the OAS, and other international organizations, special "status, immunities,

exemptions, and privileges," including immunity from legal process and from confiscation of its

property, "wherever located and by whomsoever held." 22 U.S.C. § 288a.1 These privileges and

USCA Case #94-5411 Document #173418 Filed: 01/19/1996 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in

connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the

treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions,

and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled

shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign

governments.

22 U.S.C. § 288a. 

2OAS also argues for the first time that it is entitled to recover under section 1963(l) because

the money it deposited did not come into BCCI's possession until after BCCI's criminal conduct

ceased. Because OAS did not advance this argument below, it is waived on appeal. See Souders

v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Auth., 48 F.3d 546, 550 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

immunities have no effect, however, on OAS's interest vel non in the forfeited property. Under our

decision in BCCI Holdings, when OAS deposited its money with BCCI, it gave up legal title to the

money in exchange for a claim against BCCI for $10,000. Thus, the subsequent forfeiture worked

no confiscation of OAS property because OAS retained what it had beforea claim against BCCI

for $10,000. Nor was OAS subjected to legal process against its will. The only judicial proceeding

in which OAS was a party is the one it initiated itself by filing the section 1963(l) petition. In sum,

the forfeiture proceeding did not interfere with OAS's legally protected status.2

Because the undisputed facts reveal that OAS had no vested or superior interest in the

forfeited property, as required to recover under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l), the judgment of the district

court is

Affirmed.

USCA Case #94-5411 Document #173418 Filed: 01/19/1996 Page 4 of 4