Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶33

Construing “property which was confscated” to refer only to the plaintiff's interest in the property would read out of the Act obvious ways in which people can traffic in confscated property. One traffcs, for example, by “us[ing]” confscated property. §§6023(13)(A)(i), (ii). This form of “trafficking” ordinarily concerns things, not property interests: One uses land or other physical property, but one does not ordinarily use someone else's property interests. If, for example, your car is stolen and the thief lets another drive it, the other uses your car, but he does not use your property interest in your car. So, requiring “a one-to-one correspondence between the property interest confscated and the property interest traffcked,” Brief for Respondents 20 (emphasis added), would lead to the surprising result that entities could freely “us[e]” many kinds of confscated property without…

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