U.S. citizens sue Bolivia for $250 million

Two Bolivian nationals have filed suit against their native country, seeking $250 million for family land holdings seized by the government more than a half century ago. 


Genoveva and Marcel Loza, heirs to the Loza family’s landholdings in Bolivia, claim in a lawsuit filed Friday in Miami federal court that the holdings included land where the Bolivian capitol and international airport now stand in La Paz. 


The brother and sister were adopted by the Loza family and are now U.S. citizens. Their attorney, Michael Diaz of Diaz Reus & Targ in Miami, said the Loza family was coerced into executing the deed in the 1950s. 


“They were assured of just compensation for all expropriated land. Instead, the Lozas were ‘compensated’ through imprisonment, torture and acts of terrorism perpetrated by their own government and its corrupt officials,” Diaz said. 


U.S. District Court Judge Paul C. Huck was assigned to the case. 


Diaz said Bolivia has never denied owing the Lozas compensation. 


“Instead, they have refused to pay, sending the family on a decades-long, wild-goose chase that will now end in a U.S. court,” he said. 


The lawsuit claiming unlawful expropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and conspiracy is estimated to be worth $250 million. 

 

 

China Business Law Journal - April Issue

www.chinalat.com/uploads/file/CBLJ Apr 10.pdf

IncreĆ­ble historia tras pago por captura de Montesinos


Montesinos había hecho un accidentado periplo de fuga por tierra, mar y aire después de escapar de su país en medio de un escándalo que lo comprometía en tráfico de armas para las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), sobornos, extorsiones y asesinatos.

 

Es raro que un alto tribunal de Estados Unidos acuda a las analogías cinematográficas para resumir los casos que dirime.

 

Un panel de jueces del 11no. Circuito de Apelaciones de la Florida cayó en la tentación la semana pasada al describir las aventuras y desventuras que rodearon la captura del tristemente célebre ex jefe de inteligencia del gobierno del Perú, Vladimiro Montesinos.

 

"Los hechos de este caso se leen como las más reciente película de suspenso'', afirmaron los jueces.

 

La frase es parte de la introducción de un fallo que exime al gobierno de Perú de pagar unos $10 millones a un informante que supuestamente facilitó el arresto de Montesinos en el 2001.

 

La historia, en efecto, tiene visos de un guión de intrigas políticas, espionaje, videos y decepción con un final feliz para el gobierno de Perú y un traspiés para el experto venezolano en contrainteligencia José Guevara y sus abogados.

 

Los jueces de apelación anularon el fallo de esa misma corte que había condenado al gobierno peruano a pagar a Guevara una recompensa de $5 millones más los intereses que podrían sumar otros $5 millones.

 

En su segundo pronunciamiento, la corte asegura que el sistema judicial estadounindese no tiene jurisdicción sobre el caso, debido a que ninguna de las actividades que generaron el presunto compromiso de Perú de pagar al informante tuvieron consecuencias inmediatas en Estados Unidos.

 

Y las "consecuencias inmediatas'' son requisitos esenciales para admitir la jurisdicción del caso, según el fallo.

 

Michael Díaz, del equipo de defensa de Guevara, criticó el fallo argumentando que es inconsistente con el anterior y que se extralimitó en el análisis de los documentos de apelación.

 

Para Díaz, la credibilidad de las autoridades de Estados Unidos y el extranjero que dependen de la información pagada de personas que toman riesgos para colaborar, como lo hizo Guevara, "ha recibido un poderoso golpe''.

 

Los abogados de Guevara habían ganado un batalla significativa en el proceso.

 

Lograron que la corte no aplicara el tradicional principio de inmunidad soberana de los países. En su lugar, la corte sostuvo que el ofrecimiento de recompensas de un gobierno es un acto comercial, no soberano, que puede ser objeto de litigios judiciales.

 

La película

 

La primera escena de este filme de no ficción que ha impresionado a la corte de apelaciones se desarrolla en el vestíbulo del Hotel Intercontinental del centro de Miami el 22 de junio del 2001, según el recuento de la propia corte.

 

Agentes del Buró Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) observan a distancia a Guevara, ex miembro de la Dirección General de los Servicios Inteligencia y Prevención (DISIP) cuando ingresa al hotel.

 

Guevara, quien se graduo de ingeniero eléctrico en Northeastern University, ha llegado a Miami el día anterior con una misión que le encomendó un Montesinos desesperado por dinero en Venezuela: exigir a un empleado del Pacific Industrial Bank de Miami que cumpla con las instrucciones que su enviado lleva en un sobre.

 

El empleado bancario Luis Alfredo Percovich, quien manejaba las cuentas de Montesinos en el banco miamense (con depósitos de unos $38 millones), debía entregarle a Guevara $700,000 en efectivo y transferir $3 millones a otra cuenta del ex asesor peruano.

 

Montesinos era el hombre más buscado en el continente americano. Su cabeza tenía precio. El presidente interino del Perú había expedido un decreto que ofrecía $5 millones a quienes entregaran información que permitiera su captura. Realmente era una oferta al debe pues el gobierno no tenía ese dinero disponible y debió prestárselo un banco.
 

 

Finalmente se escondió en Venezuela gracias a la ayuda de Guevara.

 

A mediados de diciembre, Otoniel Guevara, un primo segundo suyo, le pidió ayuda. Le dijo que por favor recibiera en su casa a un tal Manuel Rodríguez, un hombre que parecía una momia ambulante con su rostro cubierto de vendas.

 

El empresario Julio Ayala se presentó con el convaleciente personaje en la casa de Guevara en la urbanización Alamera. Guevara aceptó al extraño huésped y pronto se enteró de que se trataba de Montesinos, quien se había sometido a una cirugía para cambiarse el rostro y evitar que lo reconocieran.

 

Por un acuerdo en dólares cuyo monto nunca se precisó en el proceso legal en Miami, Guevara se convirtió durante siete meses en un enlace vital de Montesinos con el mundo exterior. La prioridad del ex asesor de inteligencia del presidente Alberto Fujimori era conseguir dinero y para ello su hombre clave era Guevara.

 

Montesinos le envió correos electrónicos a Percovich para que le transfiriera dinero, pero el banco de Miami se negó. Desesperado, escribió un correo electrónico al empleado del banco amenazándolo si insistía en negarse a hacer el giro cablegráfico.

 

Ante la negativa, decidió enviar de urgencia a Guevara a Estados Unidos.

 

Enterado de que Guevara venía en camino a Miami, Percovich avisó al FBI. La agencia montó la operación y arrestó a Guevara frente al restaurante Los Ranchos, de Bayside, después de haber hablado con el oficial del banco.

 

Escena en la oficina del FBI

 

Los agentes le informan a Guevara de la recompensa de $5 millones a quien entregue información sobre el paradero de Montesinos. El agente del FBI, Waldo Longa, hace más tentadora la oferta: si entrega al FBI la dirección de Montesinos en Caracas no sólo recibirá la recompensa sino que el gobierno de Estados Unidos le retirará los cargos criminales por las amenazas a Percovich.

 

El plan es coordinado desde Chile por Kevin Currier, agente especial del FBI, quien también supervisa las actividades de la agencia en Perú. Currier había recibido instrucciones del embajador de Estados Unidos en Lima de colaborar en la ubicación de Montesinos, a quien hasta meses antes del estallar el escándalo Washington consideraba como uno de sus más fieles aliados en la guerra contra las drogas.

 

Guevara aceptó. Delante de los asombrados agentes del FBI, hizo una llamada a Caracas, y le reportó personalmente a Montesinos los detalles de su reunión con el reticente empleado bancario.

 

El FBI se puso en contacto con las autoridades venezolanas que a su vez se pusieron de acuerdo con las peruanas y entregaron a Montesinos en la embajada del Perú en Caracas el 23 de junio, según el recuento de la corte.

 

Mientras esperaba en Miami el desarrollo de las operaciones, Guevara recibió otra llamada del agente Longa, quien le dijo que ha hablado con el ministro del Interior de Perú, Ketin Vidal Herrera. El ministro le aseguró al agente que podría ser beneficiado con la recompensa de los $5 millones.

 

El 25 de junio, cuando la entrega de Montesinos ya se ha cumplido, Guevara es liberado y los cargos criminales retirados.

 

Cuando semanas después hace el cobro de la recompensa, el gobierno peruano ya no parece tan entusiasmado en desembolsar el dinero. Argumenta que la cooperación del informante venezolano no fue fundamental para el arresto de Montesinos.

 

Luego, en la corte de Miami, Perú también alegó que los gobiernos están blindados contra demandas de este tipo por el principio de la inmunidad soberana.

 

El argumento no prosperó y la Corte de Apelaciones le dio la razón a Guevara, pero el gobierno peruano insistió con el tema de la jurisdicción y la semana pasada la corte revirtió su primera opinión y le puso fin a esta parte de la película.



 

Appeal court rejects inflated payments ruling over Argentine debt


An US appellate court has rejected the 'inflated payments' calculated by US district judge Thomas Greisa as part of a ruling to secure payments for bondholders of Argentine debt.

 

Greisa issued a restraining order to freeze over US$2.2 billion in Argentine government assets held by Argentina's Banco de la Nación on Thursday, and set awards ranging from US$95.3 million to US$543.9 million to be paid to eight plaintiff class-action groups holding defaulted bonds from the country's 2002 financial crisis.


 

The US second circuit court of appeals in Manhattan has ordered Griesa to determine payouts using an alternative method that 'more closely' reflects the losses experienced by the plaintiffs. However, the appeals court rejected Argentina's request to deny investors class-action status, which would have made it more costly for smaller investors to take legal action.

 

Proskauer Rose LLPis co-lead counsel for the investors, along with Miami-based firm Diaz Reus & Targ LLP and independent practitioner Howard Sirota. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP is representing Argentina.

 

'This will have zero affect on our clients,' says Diaz Rues partner Michael Diaz, commenting on the appeal. 'The appellate court confirmed the class certification, which was one of the very important issues that Argentine tried to attack. They wanted at all costs to avoid a class-certification, because that would mean less of a payout to bondholders to whom they defaulted. A class-action will mean they will have to give to the bondholders a much bigger pay check.'

 

Cleary Gottlieb was unavailable for comment.

 

The ruling is the latest in a series of lawsuits launched against the country over the last seven years, following Argentina's 2002 debt default totalling US$100 billion. Over US$18 billion is been sought by investors who did not participate in Argentina's 2005 debt swap package.

 

A new debt-restructuring package is currently being negotiated, with Marcelo Etchebarne from Argentina's Cabanellas, Etchebarne, Kelly & Dell'Oro Maini Abogados leading the negotiations with Linklaters on behalf of Barclays, the bank coordinating the deal. But some of the lawyers representing bondholders have said they have little confidence in the terms of the swap.

 

According to Diaz the main failing of the debt package, is 'the ability of Argentina to change the rules and payouts after bondholders have agreed to participate .'

 

The cases against Argentina have prevented the country from trading on world capital markets. In 2004, the bondholders launched litigation proceedings against Argentina for payment of eight series of defaulted global bonds and accumulated interest, and won a series of judgments on their behalf. The parties will next meet in court on 8 June.

 

 

 

Federal panel blocks reward in Peru spy capture

ATLANTA -- A federal appeals court has blocked a reward of more than $10 million for a Venezuelan man who helped Peru capture a notorious spymaster in a tantalizing case that the panel said "read like the latest spy thriller."

 

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling Friday reversing a judge's decision that Jose Guevara should get the $5 million reward plus at least $5 million interest. The ruling concluded that Peru was shielded by U.S. laws that protect sovereign governments from lawsuits.

 

The panel's decision came more than nine years after Guevara cooperated with U.S. authorities and double-crossed Vladimiro Montesinos in a series of twists and turns that led to his capture.

 

Montesinos had power over the military and security forces in Peru from 1990 to 2000, allegedly using influence, bribery and blackmail to achieve his goals. After the autocratic 10-year reign of ex-President Alberto Fujimori ended in 2000, Montesinos fled to Venezuela and "then, it seemed, into thin air," the court said.

 

It turned out that Montesinos had undergone facial reconstructive surgery to conceal his identity and, with his face masked with bandages, he was dropped off at Guevara's house in Caracas, according to court documents. Guevara agreed to protect him, the court said, and agreed to make runs to the U.S. to deposit funds into Montesinos' accounts.

 

Peruvian authorities, meanwhile, launched a manhunt and in April 2001 offered a $5 million reward for his capture. But they had little luck until the FBI was tipped off in June 2001 that Guevara was coming to Miami to collect money from a bank.

 

FBI agents intercepted him and told him he could avoid prosecution and collect Peru's reward if he helped find Montesinos. Guevara dished out the details, revealing Montesinos' location and Caracas and arranging for Venezuelan forces to arrest him.

 

Montesinos was eventually sentenced to 20 years in prison in Peru for bribing lawmakers and businessmen and selling weapons to Colombian rebels.

 

But Peru refused to pay the reward to Guevara, who had since moved to Florida, and claimed that American law made it immune from any lawsuit. Guevara countered by filing a lawsuit contending that Peru had breached its contract and was fraudulently induced into helping authorities.

 

A federal judge sided with Guevara in September 2008, ruling that he had fulfilled his end of the bargain when he helped authorities apprehend Montesinos. But Peru's attorneys appealed the ruling and warned that allowing it to stand could complicate U.S. relations with the South American nation.

 

"The judgment represents a serious affront to Peruvian sovereignty and is precisely the type of ruling that a United States court should not make because it hamstrings the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its foreign-relations responsibilities," Nicholas Bagley, an attorney for Peru, argued in court papers.

 

Guevara's attorneys, meanwhile, sought to depict the case as a "simple, garden variety breach of contract action."

 

The 11th Circuit disagreed, concluding that the case didn't meet the complicated threshold that allows foreign governments to face legal action in the U.S. "We agree with Peru that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and therefore reverse its judgment," the ruling said.

 

Guevara's attorneys, meanwhile, sought to depict the case as a "simple, garden variety breach of contract action." His attorney Michael Diaz Jr. said he was surprised by the 11th Circuit's ruling and worried that it could set a "dangerous precedent" that makes it harder for law enforcement to convince informants to cooperate.

 

"Welching by your neighbor to pay a reward for helping find his lost dog Fido is one thing," he said. "Welching by the government of Peru working with our FBI in an international manhunt with a reward posted on a borderless website is quite another."



Read more: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/06/19/1165319/fed-panel-blocks-reward-in-peru.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz0rZTvKnKx
 

 

Are Remittances to Latin America Recovering After the Global Crisis?

QMexican migrants living abroad sent more money back home in April than they did in the

same month a year earlier, the Bank of Mexico said June 1. The year-on-year increase was small, less than 1 percent, but it was the first annual increase in 17 months. The report also said remittances to Mexico from January through April amounted to $6.6 billion, an almost 9 percent decline from the same period in 2009. Are remittance flows to Mexico and the rest of Latin America recovering? How important are the flows to economic recovery in the region? What is needed for a sustained recovery in remittances?

 

AManuel Orozco, member of the Financial Services Advisor board and director of the

remittances and development program at the Inter-American Dialogue: "There exists a slow recovery of remittances to Latin America mostly reflected in that more people are sending money to their relatives with regular frequency. Most remittance recipient countries have registered a recovery by the second quarter of 2010. However, the average amount sent has yet to return to 2008 levels ($270). Immigrants continue to face various challenges dealing with the economic recovery. In Spain, the severity of the crisis has affected the large majority of immigrants in sending the amounts they were used to remitting, and unemployment has affectedmore than 20 percent of the labor force. In the United States, the percent of people who were unable to remit the same amount as in previous years has declined, but 35 percent are still remitting less. The recovery is substantially important to thousands of households, 2 million of which received less in 2009. In order to ensure the return of remittances, immigrants need to benefit from the economic recovery and improve their current economic conditions with better jobs and earnings, while their relatives must maximize the benefits by improving the man-agement and handling of this valuable
income."

 

ASumeet H. Chugani and Ricardo Ortiz, associate attorneys at Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP:

"Remittances to Latin America are rebounding after an 18-month downturn. From 1998 to 2008, remittances to the region increased an average of 15 percent each year. Because remittances continue to be an indispensable lifeline for many throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, their recent decline (although modest) posed a significant hardship to individuals and governments alike. This was especially true for those Latin American nations facing external financing gaps. In Mexico, remittances are the second leading source of income, behind only oil exports. Indeed, Mexico is the largest recipient of remittances in the region. Consequently, Mexico's drastic remittance drop of more than 16 percent, down to $21.1 billion in 2009, continues to have grave consequences for that country's fight against poverty and its efforts at continued economic development. Strong remittance flows throughout Latin American are vital for both current economic recovery and futureinfrastructure building. In El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti and Honduras, for example, remittances continue to be a fundamental source of stable income. For a region which continues to lack access to credit, remittance flows naturally impact the livelihood,  education, business and overall productivity of individuals who are otherwise locked out of conventional sources of capital gain. Certainly, traditional investments in physical and human capital, trade and foreign direct investment must continue in order to allow Latin America as a region to develop its infrastructure and expand its economy.However, strategically harnessing
the contribution of remittances through reliable transfers of funds will play a necessary role in achieving Latin America's ultimate goal of becoming a significant force in the global economy. With recent signs of growth in the U.S. economy, remittance flows to Latin America should not only stabilize, but potentially surpass their previous levels."

 

ASergio Perez Ruiz, CEO of More Money Transfers in Montevideo, Uruguay: "The inflow of

remittances to the region is at a plateau. Any country may experience some slight signs of recoverysuch as in Mexico. However, remittances to other countries, such as Brazil and Paraguay, have continued to fall. Although the amount of remittances has been sustained or is growing in some cases, the volumes and average amounts of remittances continue falling, especially from Europe. Remittances can be the principal driver of commerce and a main economic support for the education of the neediest sectors. They are important not only for economic recovery, but also as the foundation for future generations. The first thing needed for a recovery in remittances is that social safety nets in developed countries attend to the needs of migrants and don't discriminate against them. Secondly, job creation will undoubtedly be the primary vehicle for coming out of this crisis, which is affecting markets that generate remittances. It would also be good to identify new destinations where growth is leading to demand for labor and to promote these regions as destinations for migrants."

 

 

Tags:

Michael Diaz Jr - JD Supra Contributor In Profile

MAY 27, 2010
michaeldiazjr.jpgCuban-born Miami attorneyMichael Diaz, Jr. earned his stripes as a prosecutor under Janet Reno in the 1980s after graduating from the University of Miami School of Law. He went into private practice in 1990 and subsequently founded Diaz Reus, a noted international law firm focused largely on international financial fraud, including recouping assets for victims of alleged Madoff and Stanford Ponzi schemes. He spoke to us from his Miami office. The firm also has offices in Bello Horizonte, Dubai, Bogotá, Caracas, Frankfurt, Mexico City, Orlando, and Shanghai.

JDSupra: In the 1980s, Miami rented refrigerator trucks from Burger King to store murder victims when the city morgue overflowed, and Miami cops were moonlighting as drug dealers. What did you gain as a prosecutor there during those days?

Michael Diaz, Jr.: I learned that there is both good and bad in people no matter which side of the aisle they're on. Those wearing the white hats are subject to the same sort of defects as the accused in terms of their testimony, their credibility and their own ethical issues. That was pretty striking for a guy right out of law school and dealing with the dregs of society--working with Miami gangs and handling murder cases. The lines were often very blurred between black and white, good and bad, law enforcement and the perpetrators. I also developed relationships that continue today. Many of the people in our law firm's investigative unit are former police and state law enforcement officers, FBI, ICE, and DEA agents with whom I worked and developed a close bond.

JDSupra: While Miami vice may not be what it was in the 1980s, South Florida still ranks as a mecca for financial fraud and international monetary intrigue. Why is that?

Diaz: We've led the country in white collar criminal fraud for the better part of 40 years--it is a function of being a very transient society. We're the port of entry for many parts of the world, including Latin America, and we are very culturally diverse. Some of those people coming here maintain their own cultural perspectives from their home country where the rule of law is not always adhered to. Also, the South Florida economy is based in large part on tourism, vacationers, snowbirds, and real estate. Potential victims of fraud--so-called pigeons--flock to South Florida. But the "victims" at times deserve a great amount of scrutiny as well. Were they deliberately blind? Did they stick their head in the sand like an ostrich? Or did they just fail to ask the right questions? Or were they going along for the ride? Often they want no finger pointed at them even though they reaped all the rewards--claiming innocence and demanding justice when the music finally stops and there are no "victim" labeled chairs for them to sit in.

JDSupra: What sort of mindset does it take for an attorney to be successful in handling international financial fraud cases?

Diaz: You need to dig, dig, dig, and ask the very hard questions--often a very delicate thing when you're handling a client who is a subject of a money-laundering investigation. You develop a sense for it after seeing the same modus operandi time and again, particularly in Ponzi schemes. It may come in different shades, but it's always the same thing: the promise of great returns that seem just too good to be true, and they usually are. You see it over and over--in real estate, in fractional ownership shares, in far off swanky locations, in foreign-exchange operators promising great return on investment. It's all fantasy and make-believe. They produce false websites, false invoices and false account statements. People think they're getting a great deal when in fact they're just part of a pyramid scam. I've seen it from both sides--I've prosecuted and defended them--and developed a feel for financial fraud.

JDSupra: You and your firm have been involved in numerous high-profile international cases, operating in courts in the U.S., Latin America and around the world. What special sort of expertise is required to do that?

Diaz: First, you've got to have passion for it. Right now as we speak I have a firm member in Panama seizing 61 different bank accounts--some $15 million of ill-gotten gains--from a guy being prosecuted by the SEC. There's just something very fun, adventurous and thrilling about doing that sort of asset-recovery work. It's literally a beat the clock game and race to the courthouse. It brings into play all the techniques and experience that I gained as a young prosecutor, when you had to scrutinize the person on the other side and stay one step ahead of them. It's the same here: You need to find out where they put their money without tipping them off. You have to cultivate and obtain intelligence in the right way to freeze bank accounts and repatriate the money back to the U.S. without allowing corruption to seep into the process--and have a foreign judge, for example, tip off the account holders. It takes a lot of skill, a lot of tenacity, and a lot of knowledge about the human nature of the people who pull these things off. Also, it's important in these far off locations to find the right people to help you, with the right degree of ethics, honesty and integrity. But you can't tell them everything. The people you've hired to help you can be the same ones who undermine and hurt you in the end.  Asset recovery is very similar to intelligence work in the spy world.  

JDSupra: In your opinion what can be done in the future to help stop international financial fraud?

Diaz: The only real remedy is close cooperation and uniform and consistent approach among governments, with comprehensive, region-by-region coordinated attacks on international money-laundering, terrorist financing, financial fraud, etc. But the problem, as I see it, is that governments are run by people. They have the same foibles and character flaws as the rest of us. In my opinion, we will never be successful in eliminating fraud because you're talking about eliminating human nature. For every remedy that comes out today, there will be a new scheme tomorrow. It's not a function of law enforcement abilities or inabilities or better policy. It's a function of human nature. There's always going to be bad guys and lesser bad guys. I pray that we can at least track them and slow them down. That's the only real way you can "stop" fraud.