International Asset Recovery

A Mareva injunction, or freezing order, prevents a defendant from dissipating assets pending a judgment. U.S. federal courts can issue prejudgment asset freezes in appropriate cases, particularly in fraud and RICO matters where there is a risk of asset dissipation. The requirements are more demanding than in some common law jurisdictions, but a well-supported motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction can freeze assets quickly.

RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, creates a federal civil cause of action for injuries from a pattern of racketeering activity, with treble damages and attorneys' fees for successful plaintiffs. In international fraud cases, civil RICO can reach a broader set of defendants than ordinary fraud claims and can ground federal jurisdiction over conduct that crosses borders. Predicate acts for RICO include wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering, offenses common in international asset misappropriation cases.

Yes, in some cases. The DOJ's Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative and the FBI's international financial crime investigations create pathways for law enforcement-assisted asset recovery. Asset forfeiture proceedings in the U.S. can capture proceeds of foreign crimes that touch U.S. financial institutions. Coordinating with law enforcement is a strategic decision that depends on the specific circumstances and the client's goals.

U.S. courts have jurisdiction over international fraud cases when the fraudulent conduct touches U.S. financial infrastructure, and in modern cross-border fraud, it almost always does. The most common jurisdictional bases are: (1) Wire fraud, if any electronic communication in furtherance of the scheme passed through U.S. servers or telecommunications infrastructure, federal wire fraud jurisdiction attaches; (2) Bank fraud, if any U.S. bank account received, held, or transmitted proceeds of the fraud, federal bank fraud jurisdiction attaches; (3) Money laundering, if fraud proceeds were moved through U.S. financial institutions, federal money laundering jurisdiction attaches; (4) Section 1782, any person or entity physically present in a U.S. district can be compelled to testify or produce documents in aid of foreign proceedings. In the case of a Panama real estate fraud, if the funds transited a U.S. correspondent bank account, which they almost certainly did, given that U.S. dollar clearing runs through New York, that fact alone can ground civil and criminal jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts. U.S. courts are frequently the most effective forum for international fraud victims whose assets were moved through U.S. banking channels.