Two Amicus Curie briefs, filed after the Department of Justice filed its Reply Brief in the Halkbank US Supreme Court case, reinforce the Government's correctness of its position on the law. Clearly, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not bar a criminal action against Halkbank; legal authorities and precedent cited confirm this principle.
Here are the major points the two briefs make; we are specifically adding this information to our previous articles detailing the opposing views for the benefits of all our readers from Turkey:
1. This Court must defer to the United States' Decision to prosecute crimes, particularly where they implicate our national security and foreign relations.
2.The political branches of government have criminalized terrorism financing and nuclear weapons proliferation and have designated agencies and instrumentalities of Iran.
3. There are important distinctions between a sovereign and its agencies and instrumentalities.
4. The dramatic rise in corporate transnational crimes, state-owned commercial enterprises, and vulnerability off the US financial system to criminal exploitation counsel strongly against weakening the Executive Branch's prosecutorial power.
5. International law in the form of Federal Common Law does not exempt foreign state-owned enterprises from criminal jurisdiction.
6. A company is not a sovereign.
7.There is no Rule of International Law or Federal Common Law barring criminal proceedings against state-owned enterprises.
8. Jurisdictional immunities operate as defenses to jurisdiction, not Ex Ante carve-outs.
9. The FSIA does not deprive the Federal Courts of criminal jurisdiction over foreign state-owned enterprises.
10. the FSIA was enacted to address problems arising from civil litigation.
11. the drafters of the FSIA did not intend to modify title 18 US Code.
12. Halkbank is not a sovereign for any purpose.