FAQ
Q: How much longer can this lawsuit go on?
A: The suit has been filed and is being heard in the Moscow Arbitration Court. Russian court system procedures are similar to many European court systems, whereby the entire case is submitted in advance to the court in writing opposed to oratory arguments of the merits being made. The Moscow Arbitration Court's general guidelines are to conclude an average case within a two month period. This landmark case has been delayed due to a large number of procedural challenges made by the defendants. However, according to Moscow arbitrage procedures a ruling can be handed down at any point in time.
Q: Didn’t The Bank of New York already settle this case with authorities?
A: In 2005 The Bank of New York signed a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S Department of Justice and paid a $38 million fine. The Bank has made no compensation to the Russian Federation who was the main party damaged from the money laundering.
(See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: Document #3: 'Non-Prosecution Agreement')
Q: Why did Russian Federal Customs Services file this suit in a Russian court and not in a U.S. court if The Bank of New York is a U.S. company?
A: In 2002 The Bank of New York. won a motion in a U.S. court to have a related suit, Pavlov vs. The Bank of New York dismissed on the basied that the Russian court system was a more appropriate venue.. In BONY's 'Memorandum in Support to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint', BONY stated "(t)he Russian courts are clearly an adequate, available and much more convenient forum for the resolution of this dispute." Had the Russian Federal Customs Service filed this money laundering suit in the U.S. courts they would have been forced to move it back to a Russia court as in the Pavlov case.
(See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: Document #5: 'Pavlov vs. The Bank of New York')
Q: Isn’t RICO a U.S. criminal law that can only be used in American courts and by the U.S. government?
A: RICO is both a criminal as well as civil statute that originated in the U.S.. The application of RICO by foreign courts is primarily a question for those courts and not for the U.S.. There is also a provision in RICO for private parties to sue. Courts around the world adopt foreign law on a regular basis, especially when one of the parties involved (in the case a U.S. Bank) is from the country where the law is being adopted. Russia, like most countries, adopts foreign law into its courts on a regular basis.
Q: How can the Russian government collect money from The Bank of New York if they win in a Russian court?
A: A plaintiff can use the courts of each country to enforce its court judgment and to collect either the full amount or any existing portion of said judgment by seizing local assets that exist in that country. The Bank of New York Mellon has billions of dollars of assets in more than 90 countries all over the world.
(See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: Documents #1, 2 & 4: Foreign Judgment Enforcement / US Judicial Assistance for Russian Litigation / Enforcement of SCC and Russian Arbitration Awards)
Q: Is it true that a Russian judgment will not be honored in 90 countries as the Bank claims?
A: This claim makes little sense from a logical, let alone legal standpoint. Russian court judgments are upheld on an ongoing basis in courts all over the world, including in U.S. courts. The Russia Federation is a United Nations country that has never had any issue with the recognition of its court judgments since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The enforcement of judgment proceedings prohibits most country’s courts to 'look behind' the judgment itself to examine or analyze the merits of the case. When enforcing a foreign judgment, the court simply must look at the country and the stability of its judicial system, which in Russia has not been questioned.
(See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: Documents #1, 2 & 4: Foreign Judgment Enforcement / US Judicial Assistance for Russian Litigation / Enforcement of SCC and Russian Arbitration Awards)
Q: How did Russia come up with the amount of $22.5 billion dollars?
A: The civil RICO statute allows the trebling of damages (three 3 times the amount of damages). In this case, The Bank of New York has never publicly denied that the amount laundered through its accounts was $7.5 billion. Trebling that amount amounts to $22.5 billion in damages.
