Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 67

10 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the former owner, such action . . . is in violation of interna­
tional  law”).3   Similarly,  the  International  Criminal  Tri­
bunal for Rwanda found that three nonnatural entities—a 
private  radio  station,  newspaper,  and  political  party—
were responsible for genocide.  See Prosecutor v. Nahimana, 
Case  No.  ICTR–99–52–T,  Judgment  and  Sentence  ¶953 
(Dec.  3,  2003).    Most  recently,  the  appeals  panel  of  the
Special  Tribunal  for  Lebanon  held  that  corporations  may 
be  prosecuted  for  contempt.  See  Prosecutor  v.  New  TV 
S. A. L., Case No. STL–14–05/PT/AP/AR126.1, Decision on 
Interlocutory  Appeal  Concerning  Personal  Jurisdiction  in 
Contempt Proceedings ¶74 (Oct. 2, 2014). 

In  addition,  various  international  agreements  require
signatory  states  to  impose  liability  on  corporations  for 
certain  conduct.4    Of  particular  relevance  here,  the  Inter­
national Convention for the Suppression of the Financing 
of  Terrorism  provides:  “Any  person  commits  an  offence
within  the  meaning  of  this  Convention  if  that  person  by
any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully,
provides  or  collects  funds  with  the  intention  that  they
should  be  used  or  in  the  knowledge  that  they  are  to  be 
used,  in  full  or  in  part,  in  order  to  carry  out”  an  act  of 
—————— 

3 The Nuremberg Tribunal also was empowered to adjudicate a form
of  criminal  organizational  liability,  pursuant  to  which  an  individual
member  of  a  convicted  organization  would  face  a  rebuttable  presump­
tion of guilt in a subsequent proceeding.  Brief for Nuremberg Scholars 
as  Amici  Curiae  4,  20–21  (citing  Agreement  for  the  Prosecution  and 
Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Aug. 8,
1945,  Arts.  9–10,  59  Stat.  1544,  E. A. S.  No.  472;  see  also  Brief  for 
Nuremberg Scholars 21–22 (citing United States v. Goering, 22 Trial of 
the  Major  War  Criminals  Before  the  International  Military  Tribunal 
171, 505, 511, 516–517 (Int’l Mil. Trib. 1946) (declaring three organiza­
tions criminal)). 

4 See,  e.g.,  United  Nations  Convention  Against  Transnational  Orga­
nized  Crime,  Art.  10(1),  Nov.  15,  2000,  T. I. A. S.  No.  13127,  S.  Treaty
Doc.  No.  108–16;  Convention  on  Combating  Bribery  of  Foreign  Public 
Officials in International Business Transactions, Art. 2, Dec. 17, 1997, 
2802 U. N. T. S. 230.