Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶28

Title III generally makes any person who “traffcs in property which was confscated by the Cuban Government . . . liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property.” § 6082(a)(1)(A). The cruise lines argue that “[t]he Act demands a one-to-one correspondence between the property interest confscated and the property in terest traffcked.” Brief for Respondents 20 (emphasis added). Havana Docks, meanwhile, argues that the Act im poses liability for trafficking in underlying physical property, not just interests in property. Reply Brief 1, 3–5. The dispute before us thus turns on whether the relevant “property which was confscated” must be Havana Docks' property interest in the docks, or whether it could instead be the docks themselves. We hold that the cruise lines' use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they used “property which was confiscated by the Cuban…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.