N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M IC HAEL B ARR

Y SHOR ; NGUESSAN YAO, De fe nda

nts, IVOR Y C OAST, AKA R e public of the C ote D’ Ivoire , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt. No. 13-10642

D.C . No. 5:10-c r-00434-R M W -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , IVOR Y C OAST, AKA R e public of the C ote D’ Ivoire , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. No. 14-10115 D.C . No. 5:10-c r-00434-R M W -1 

# FIL ED
D EC 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.M IC HAEL B ARR Y SHOR ; NGUESSAN YAO, De fe nda

nts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld M . Wh y te , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 20, 2015 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

nd PAR KER , ** C irc uit Judge s. Ivory C o a st a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ward of sum

m ary judgm e nt to the Unite d State s in a

n an c illa ry proc e e ding to a djudic a te Ivory C oa st’ s inte re st in $3,923,030 tha

t De fe n da nts M ic ha e l B a

rry Shor and N’ Gue ssa

n Ya o forfe ite d in a
c rim ina l c a se . W e a ffirm
. 1. Ivory C o a st is not e n t itle d to a

c onstruc t ive trust in the

forfe ite d funds. Eve n whe n c onstruing the e vide nc e in Ivory

C oa st’ s fav or, a

re a sona ble fa c t finde r
c ould not c onc lude tha

t Shor de c e ive d Ivory

C oa st into be lie v ing the arm s transa c tion wa s la

w ful. “ A sta

t e is re sponsiblefor any

viola tion of its obliga

tions unde r inte rna tiona l la

w re sulting from

a c tion or ina c tion by . . . a ny orga n, a ge nc y ,

** The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Se nior C i rc u it Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.
-2-offic ia l, e m

ploy e e , or othe r a ge nt of a gove rnm e nt or of a

ny politic a l subdivision,
a c ting within the

sc ope of a

uthority or unde r c olor of suc h a

uthority .” R e sta

te m e nt (Third) of Fore ign R e lations La w § 207 (1987). As the

distric t c ourt found, De fe nse M iniste r M ic h e l Am a n i N’ Gue s sa

n (Am ani) kne w tha

t the arm s transa c tion wa s ille ga l, a

nd he a c te d unde r the c olor of his a uthority whe n he pa rtic i pa te d in the tra

nsa c tion. Ivory

C oa st, the re fore , c annot e sta blish tha t it wa s de c e ive d into be lie ving tha t the arm s tra

nsa c tion wa s le ga l. 2. The in pari de lic to doc trine “ pre ve nt[s] the re turn of m one y volunta rily pa id to a gove rnm e n t a ge nt in a

n ille ga l tra

nsa c tion.” K

ardoh v . Unite d

State s , 572 F.3d 697, 701 (9th C ir. 2009). Am ani pa rtic ipate d in the arm s tra

nsa c tion, whic h he kne w to be ille ga l, a

nd Ivory C oa st is vic ariously

lia b le for his a c tions. Ac c ordingly , the in pari de lic to doc trine ba rs Ivory C o a st from re c ove ring the
m one y . 3. The Fore ign Sove re ign Im m unitie s Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 1609, doe s not prohibit the

forfe iture in this c a se be c a use , am ong othe r re a sons, Ivory C oa s t doe s not ha ve a prope rty inte re st in thefunds. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Ivory C oa st’ s
re que s t for a dditiona l disc ove ry be c a use the disc ove ry

sought would not ha

ve
a lte re d the grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt. -3-AFFIRM E D.

-4-