Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶35

We thus conclude that the relevant “property which was confiscated” is not limited to the plaintiff 's interest in that property. “[P]roperty which was confiscated,” § 6082(a)(1)(A), can refer to the physical property in which the plaintiff had an interest when the Cuban Government “seiz[ed] . . . control of” it after January 1, 1959, §6023(4)(A). Knowingly and intentionally “traffic[king]” in that physical property by, for example, using it, can lead to liability under the Act. §§ 6023(13)(A)(i), 6082(a)(1)(A). In that way, confscated property is, as it were, tainted—off limits—such that anyone who uses the property can be liable to those who had an interest in the tainted property.

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