In an apparent alternative holding, the District Court also ruled that dismissal, pursuant to its supervisory authority, was necessary in order to deter future conduct of this sort. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that petitioners were not prejudiced by the Government's conduct, and that, absent prejudice, the District Court lacked the authority to invoke its supervisory power to dismiss the indictment.
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, US Bank of Chicago, F. Bell, Charles Kirbo, James A. Julin, Palm Beach, Fla. Brookhart, Alan Hechtkope, Asst. The Bank of Nova Scotia appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida holding the Bank of Nova Scotia in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order of the court enforcing a grand jury subpoena duces tecum.
The Bank of Nova Scotia the Bank presents three arguments against enforcing the subpoena. The Bank first contends that there were insufficient grounds to enforce the subpoena. The Bank also contends that enforcing the subpoena would violate due process. Finally, the Bank argues that the subpoena should not be enforced as a matter of comity between nations.
The Bank investigated and found no documents which were requested located at its Antigua branch. Accordingly, that part of the subpoena is not in issue. Both Section 10 and Section 19 are identical. Preservation of secrecy The government argues the Bank would not be successfully prosecuted by Bahamian authorities if it complied with the subpoena.
In this regard it argues that because Section 10 2 a expressly preserves the common law relationship between bank and customers, the Bank is authorized to disclose the requested information. Although the determination of foreign law is reviewable on appeal, F. The government presented evidence that all banking transactions for accounts in the Bahamian branch could be handled by the Miami agency.
The Bank presented evidence that the Miami agency is a one-way conduit for customer communication with the Nassau branch. The Bank also presented an affidavit showing that compliance with the subpoena could expose the Bank to prosecution under the Bahamian bank secrecy law.
The affidavit also showed that the government could obtain an order of judicial assistance from the Supreme Court of the Bahamas allowing disclosure if the subject of the grand jury investigation is a crime under Bahamian law and not solely criminal under United States tax laws.
At a January 13, hearing the government submitted an in camera affidavit regarding the relevance of the documents sought. This document was not considered by the court below. We conclude it is unnecessary to view the document. See Part II, infra.
The district court held the Bank in civil contempt and the Bank brings this appeal.Case opinion for US Supreme Court BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA v. UNITED STATES.
Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. The Bank of Nova Scotia appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida holding the Bank of Nova Scotia in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order of the court enforcing a grand jury subpoena duces tecum.
8–1 decision for United States majority opinion by Anthony M. Kennedy. The District Court lacked any authority to dismiss the indictment because the record reflected that the defendants were not prejudiced by the Government's conduct.
This case is titled: “Mair v. Bank of Nova Scotia” The main focus of the case is on the Bill of Exchange act. The definition and several examples of other cases concerning this act are mentioned in the case. The actual case that is mentioned is about the appeal from .
Nova Scotia Nova Scotia, one of the three Maritime and one of the four Atlantic provinces of Canada, bordered on the north by the Bay of Fundy, the province of New Brunswick, Northumberland Strait, and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and on the east, south, and west by the Atlantic Ocean.
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States case brief summary U.S. () CASE SYNOPSIS. Petitioners bank and employees were indicted by a grand jury for conspiracy and fraud. The district court, invoking its supervisory powers, dismissed the indictments for prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Fed.
R. Crim. P. 6. and U.S. Constitutional.