合规官对话检察官：中国三家银行能否既不给美国法院要的证据同时又能避免处罚？

华盛顿邮报于北京时间6月25日早报道称，三家中资银行涉嫌在对朝鲜违反经济制裁的调查中拒绝遵守传票要求。美国司法部长或财政部长有权根据美国《爱国者法案》终止上述三家中资银行与美国金融体系的联系。中国银行业协会首席法律顾问卜祥瑞25日就此事件答记者问时表示，“中资银行依法不应该履行美国法院的判决。”25日下午，针对外媒报道一事，该三家中资银行也先后发布声明称，没有受到因涉嫌违反任何制裁法律的相关调查。

对此，陈立彤律师(Henry Chen) 与Cynthia DeGabrielle就大家关心的问题展开了对话。对话的内容包括：中国银行应当如何应对传票、美国法院是否有成功先例、中国三家银行有没有什么办法既不给美国法院要的证据同时又能避免处罚。因为时间原因我们就不把对话翻译成中文了。我们把英文原汁原味地呈现给大家供大家参考。

陈立彤律师为大成上海办公室高级合伙人，中国律师、美国纽约州律师，曾担任福特亚太合规总监。陈立彤律师还担任国际风险与合规协会副会长、中兴康讯独董和出口委员会委员、ISO技术委员会TC309成员参与制定有关合规管理体系、反贿赂管理体系、法律风险管理ISO国际标准以及合规管理体系国家标准

Cynthia DeGabrielle为大成Dentons休斯顿办公室顾问，加入大成之前曾担任美国联邦检查官23年，并曾经担任美国总检察长助理（Former Assistant United States Attorney ）以及美国司法部执法政策顾问（Law Enforcement Policy Advisor for the US Department of Justice）。

Henry Chen: Chinese banks are subpoenaed by US courts to give China-located evidence on its clients?  What can Chinese banks do to counteract the subpoenas?

Cynthia DeGabrielle: For purposes of this discussion, I assume the instrument is a criminal subpoena, not a civil one

.

The US government cannot subpoena a bank that operates only in China.

However, if a Chinese bank has a branch in the US, then the US branch is subject to US law.

If the US branch of a Chinese bank is subpoenaed by US authorities, the branch must comply.

If the subpoena asks for records that are not within the US, but are within another country (like China), the bank still must comply with the request, even though such request appears to challenge the sovereignty of the other government.  This is called a “Bank of Nova Scotia” subpoena, so named for a famous court case. 

If the bank refuses to comply, it can be held in criminal contempt, could lose its license to operate in the US, and could be forced to close its operations in the US.

Here is an excerpt from the Department of Justice Criminal Resource manual which discusses Bank of Nova Scotia subpoenas:

Bank of Nova Scotia Subpoenas: The United States has obtained bank or business records located abroad by serving subpoenas on branches of the bank or business located in the United States, even where production of the records would violate the foreign country's secrecy laws. The courts have upheld the use of subpoenas to compel a bank that does business in the United States to turn over records held by a branch of the same bank in a foreign country, even where production of the records would violate the foreign country's secrecy laws. See In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Bank of Nova Scotia), 740 F.2d 817 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 (1985); In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Bank of Nova Scotia), 691 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1119 (1983); In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Directed to Marc Rich & Company A.G., 707 F.2d 663 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 (1983); but see, In Re Sealed Case, 832 F.2d 1268, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (subpoena for records of a foreign company is enforceable only if the company does sufficient business or otherwise has sufficient contacts within the United States to enable court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it); In Re Sealed Case, 825 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (declining to decide "the general issue of whether a court may ever order action in violation of foreign laws" but, nonetheless, holding that "even if a court has the power to issue contempt orders under certain circumstances," no order should have issued given the circumstances under consideration, e.g., status of the bank as a third party accused of no wrongdoing, ownership of the bank by a foreign government, and the district court's finding that the bank acted in good faith with respect to efforts to comply with the subpoena). However, foreign governments strongly object to such subpoenas, contending that they constitute an improper exercise of United States jurisdiction. Though the issue has arisen in connection with corporate entities, these concerns are equally applicable to a subpoena directed at an individual where the demanded production of evidence located in the territory of another country would violate that country's laws.

Since the use of unilateral compulsory measures can adversely affect the law enforcement relationship with the foreign country, all federal prosecutors must obtain written approval through OIA before issuing any subpoenas to persons or entities in the United States for records located abroad.

Henry Chen: Was a US court ever successful in getting the evidence located OUTSIDE the US by the BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA SUBPOENAS?  If so, could you please get the case study?

Cynthia DeGabrielle: Yes, many many times.  Below is the full text of the opinion in the Bank of Nova Scotia case.  Also, the excerpt I sent you from the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual lists several cases with the same holding.

Henry Chen: In addition, you said “all federal prosecutors must obtain written approval through OIA before issuing any subpoenas to persons or entities in the United States for records located abroad.” What is OIA?

Cynthia DeGabrielle: OIA is the Office of International Affairs.  It is a component of the Department of Justice that handles the international exchange of information between governments, such as through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests or extraditions.

Henry Chen: What can Chinese banks do so as not to give the evidence while not to get punished under the US law?

Cynthia DeGabrielle: If I were representing a client, I would put considerable creative energy into challenging the subpoena through a motion to quash, a challenge to jurisdiction, or other legal process.  If the bank is the subject of the investigation (rather than a customer being the target), there are additional challenges to make.  However, all these efforts must be undertaken very quickly, because they are subject to time limitations.

Since I’m not representing a client in this discussion with you, I have to say that the avenues for avoiding complying with a valid grand jury subpoena to a bank are very few.  Banks are typically independent institutions that simply hold money for depositors (or other bank functions).  If they are resistant to compliance with the law in the jurisdiction where they have chosen to do business, such resistance would be viewed with great disfavor by the authorities who enforce the laws, issue licenses, and regulate the industry.

END

中国合规网培育、倡导合规文化，以文化的软约束和持久力维持、提升合规效果，是中国权威的合规教育培训、人力资源输送、合规评估认证平台。中文官网：Complianceinchina.com; 英文官网：Compliance.reviews。“合规”及“调查”是中国合规网旗下官方认证公众号，相关栏目由北京大成（上海）律师事务所高级合伙人陈立彤律师主持。陈立彤律师是大成上海办公室高级合伙人、中国律师、美国纽约州律师、福特公司前亚太区合规总监、香港国际仲裁中心仲裁员、国际风险与合规协会副会长（Deputy Chairman of International Risk and Compliance Association)、中国企业文化促进会合规文化工作委员会会长、国际标准组织ISO技术委员会TC309相关工作组成员，作为中国代表团成员参与制定合规管理体系、反贿赂管理体系、法律风险管理等ISO标准并担任中国国家标准《合规管理体系指南》工作组副组长;著有《商业贿赂风险管理》、《企业国际化中合规风险的爆发与防控》（即将出版）;担任中兴康讯的独董及出口委员会委员;入选司法部“全国千名涉外律师人才名单”。陈律师的业务包括协助中国某大型央企建设全球合规管理体系、为全球最大的搜索引擎公司的无人驾驶项目提供法律服务、为众多国内外企业提供合规法律服务、公司服务、争议解决。陈立彤律师是“全球智能网联论坛”首席数据合规顾问，该论坛的运营公司是全国信息安全标准化技术委员会SWG-BDS大数据安全特别工作组公司成员——该工作组负责起草的标准之一是《信息安全技术 个人信息安全规范》。陈立彤律师的联系方式:

[e-mail]

长按二维码关注我们

点击阅读原文加入中国企业文化促进会合规文化工作委员会