Repressing Trinidad and Tobago public law

THE EDITOR: The US RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act/Miami court decision in favour of the Government of TT raises questions.

The US Supreme Court held in 2016, RJR Nabisco v European Community, that RICO has only limited extra-territorial reach. The scope is narrow, one allowance being that the US statute for the relevant "predicate offence" itself must have, in the first place, extra-territoriality.

The Supreme Court named only money laundering and terrorism and did not include others, including wire fraud. In the second allowance, private causes of action under RICO would not encompass foreign injuries.

By all appearances, the act is meant for the benefit of the US and not for other nations; indeed, forfeitures, penalties and awards are made to the US, its states and US entities involved, suggesting that the winning party must be some sort of US entity.

It is one thing for a non-US public authority to sue via RICO, then another that the winnings be handed over via the US Government or state or US entity. Will the winnings be paid into the
de facto, de jure TT Government account? Will they be held in escrow by the RICO custodian "for the Government of TT?"

Why did the Miami court accede to the jurisdiction in the first place? There is no crime determined to have happened in this country nor by this country. Surely the choice of proceedings under US RICO fails to develop, or advance, in any way, the legal frameworks of public contracts and political culture in TT.

E GALY

via e-mail