Turkish bank appeals Iran sanctions decision to US Supreme Court
NEW YORK, May 5 (Reuters) - Turkey's Halkbank (HALKB.IS), opens new tab asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling saying it can be prosecuted for allegedly helping Iran evade American sanctions, a U.S.-based lawyer for the bank said on Monday.
The Supreme Court had given Halkbank until Monday to file a petition appealing the October 22, 2024, decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan allowing the prosecution.
In a letter to the appeals court, Halkbank's lawyer Robert Cary said the bank has filed the petition. The petition was not available on the Supreme Court's website. Cary did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Halkbank pleaded not guilty to fraud, money laundering and conspiracy charges over its alleged use of money servicers and front companies in Iran, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to evade sanctions.
U.S. prosecutors said Halkbank helped Iran secretly transfer $20 billion of restricted funds, converted oil revenue into gold and cash to benefit Iranian interests, and documented fake food shipments to justify transfers of oil proceeds.
Brought in 2019, the case has been a thorn in U.S.-Turkey relations, with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan calling it an "unlawful, ugly" step.
The countries' ties have soured in the last decade, amid disagreements on Syria, Ankara's ties with Moscow and other matters.
But on Monday, Erdogan and U.S. President Donald Trump each said they had a very productive phone call earlier in the day, and had invited each other to their respective countries.
Halkbank's case is making a second trip to the Supreme Court.
In 2023, that court said Congress' desire to shield foreign countries and their instrumentalities from civil liability under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 did not cover criminal cases.
But in a 7-2 decision, it said the 2nd Circuit should more fully review whether common law immunity shielded Halkbank, leading to last October's ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Thousands who did not pass California bar exam get a chance to practice, for now
June 11 (Reuters) - More than 3,300 people who failed or withdrew from taking California's troubled February bar exam will have the option to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney while they wait to take the attorney licensing exam, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Wednesday. The court approved, opens new tab a request by the State Bar of California to extend an existing provisional licensure program enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows examinees to work under supervision for two years as they prepare to retake the test. An estimated 3,340 would be eligible for provisional licensure, according to the petition submitted by the state bar. The court on Wednesday also granted the state bar permission to 'impute' performance test scores for those unable to complete that test section due to technical problems—a process that involves using submitted answers to project their performance on sections that were missing. The state bar estimates that imputing performance test scores will result in 79 more people going from failing to passing and bump up the overall pass rate from the current 63% to 65%—which is nearly double the average 35% rate in recent years. More than 200 people moved from failing to passing earlier this month when the state bar signed off on a separate grading change, which moved the overall pass rate from 56% to 63%. Some state bar trustees have expressed concern about some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, citing the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers. At the state bar's request, the California Supreme Court already lowered the raw score needed to pass the exam and imputed scores for both the multiple-choice and essay portions of the February exam. The state bar did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's latest rulings but has previously said it "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission.' California's February bar exam—the first not to use any components of the national test—was plagued with technical and logistical problems, including software crashes and interruptions from proctors. That exam has sparked several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the testing company that administered it. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. While it approved the bulk of the state bar's petitions, the California Supreme Court denied a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take and pass the state's bar exam. That would require a change in state law, which requires bar passage for admission, the court noted. Read more: Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations
The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British maritime security agency, has taken measures following Donald Trump's move to issue evacuation orders for non-essential personnel The UK has issued an "unusual warning" to its commercial ships in the Middle East amid "rising tensions". The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) fears "an escalation of military activity" is on the cards across the region, and believs security may be at risk. It says vessels must use the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz, all of which pass Iran, with caution for the forseeable future. Iran publicly threatened to attack US military bases in the Middle East if they were attacked first. Donald Trump added fuel to the fire yesterday, crassly stating the country will never have a nuclear weapon whether a deal is reached or not. 'UKMTO has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners. Vessels are advised to transit the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz with caution," the UKMTO said today. The Trump administration has issued evacuation orders for non-essential personnel at the US Embassy in Iraq, and its diplomatic facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also told FOX News there would be voluntary departure for dependents of military personnel serving in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations across the Middle East. This discourse led to the UKMTO advisory today as regional tensions surged. Iranian officials appeared to be responding to calls from hawks in the US to dismantle Iran's nuclear program by force if necessary. But Mr Trump was pessimistic when interviewed earlier this week. The US President said: "I don't know. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made." He spoke on the podcast Pod Force One on Monday, which explored in depth the tense situation across the Middle East. Meanwhile, suspected US airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen killed at least three people recently. Yemeni rebels said they shot down a £25m Reaper attack drone during April's onslaught, which indicated a possible US attack on Iran. It happened after the US moved six of its prized B-2 Strategic Stealth bombers to the secretive Indo-Pacific island base of Diego Garcia. Hours after the surprise announcement of the Washington-Tehran talks, Iran's foreign minister said the conversation in Oman would be "indirect" but could be "as much an opportunity as... a test." Mr Trump - who pulled the US out a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers during his first term - said discussions would be at "very high level," as he delivered his warning to Tehran.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Who started the Cold War?
Over a few short months after the defeat of Nazism in May 1945, the 'valiant Russians' who had fought alongside Britain and America had 'transformed from gallant allies into barbarians at the gates of western civilisation'. So begins Vladislav Zubok's thorough and timely study of the history of the Cold War – or, as he nearly entitled the book, the first Cold War. For the themes that underpinned and drove that decades-long global conflict – fear, honour and interest, in Thucydides's formulation – are now very contemporary questions. 'The world has become perilous again,' writes Zubok, a Soviet-born historian who has spent three decades in the West: Diplomacy ceases to work; treaties are broken. International institutions, courts and norms cannot prevent conflicts. Technology and internet communication do not automatically promote reason and compromise, but often breed hatred, nationalism and violence. Historians tend to be wary of drawing direct parallels between the present and the past, and Zubok is too wise to arrive at any glib conclusions. The bulk of this concise, pacy book is a narrative history of the postwar world and the great superpower rivalry that defined it. Yet, as we face a new period of strategic realignments, it's inevitably to the dynamics of the Cold War we must look for a mirror of our times. There are many surprises – one being that Joseph Stalin and his entourage had been expecting their wartime alliance with London and Washington to be followed by a period of cooperation. 'It is necessary to stay within certain limits,' recalled the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. '[If you swallow too much] you could choke… We knew our limits.' Stalin, unlike his rival Trotsky, had never been a believer in world revolution and indeed shut down the Communist International during the war. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build and maintain a global liberal order, not by the Soviet Union's plans to spread communism in Europe'. Yet nearly four years of nuclear imbalance between Hiroshima and the first Soviet A-bomb test fuelled Stalin's paranoia. And a bloody hot war in Korea could very easily have escalated into a third world war had Douglas MacArthur been given his way and dropped nukes on Pyongyang. Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, revived international communism as a fifth column weapon against the capitalist world as the Cold War got into full swing. The great power rivalry became the wellspring for every post-colonial conflict, from Cuba to Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador and the rest. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build a global liberal order' But what is surprising is that, despite propagandists' eschatological framing of the conflict as a fight to the death between rival worlds, there were always pragmatists at the pinnacles of power in both Moscow and Washington. Khrushchev and Richard Nixon, vice president at the time, had heated but cordial man-to-man debates in an American show kitchen at Sokolniki Park in Moscow. Even the arch-apparatchik Leonid Brezhnev became 'a sponsor and a crucial convert from hard line to détente' early in his career, writes Zubok. And the great Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was a surprising champion of jaw-jaw over war-war. Some of Zubok's assertions are puzzling. Rather than the USSR simply 'running out of steam', its collapse was 'triggered by Gorbachev's misguided economic reforms, political liberalisation and loss of control over the Soviet state and finances'. But that formulation suggests that it was Gorbachev's choices that crashed the ship of state – and raises the possibility that had he not embarked on his reform programme the fate of the USSR might have been different. But Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's economic reformer-in-chief, demonstrated in his classic 2007 study Collapse of an Empire that the implosion followed the iron laws of capitalism. The leaky bucket of the Soviet economy had been kept artificially full by high post-1973 oil prices but began to drain fatally after the Saudis collapsed prices a decade later. The USSR could not feed itself without buying US and Canadian grain for petrodollars. Gorbachev or no Gorbachev, the economy was doomed once the oil money dried up. Where Zubok gives Gorbachev credit is in the relative bloodlessness of the loss of the Soviet empire, a world-historical achievement that has long been ignored by modern Russians. Today, Gorbachev is reviled by his countrymen as a traitor and a fool who allowed himself to be taken in by American lies. Yet it is he who is the truly vital character on which any useful comparison between the first and (possibly) second Cold Wars hinges. The first Cold War was, as the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has argued, born of the 'Thucydides Trap', whereby war emerged from the fear that a new power could displace the dominant one. But Gorbachev envisioned a world where competition for influence and resources would be replaced by cooperation. Rivalry did not have to mean enmity. Zero sum can be replaced by win-win. Sadly, neither Vladimir Putin (who is merely cosplaying as a superpower leader) nor Xi Jinping (who actually is one) have shown anything like Gorbachev's collaborative wisdom. But we can only live in hope that The World of the Cold War is 'a record of dangerous, but ancient times', as Zubok puts it, rather than a warning for the future. Often seen as an existential battle between capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism, the Cold War has long been misunderstood. Drawing on years of research, and informed by three decades in the USSR followed by three decades in the West, Zubok paints a striking new portrait of a world on the brink.
