In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, June 15 – The Bangladeshi Central Bank which was hacked for $81 million in February 2016, on January 31 sued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first pre-trial conference in the case was held on May 21, and at it SDNY Judge Lorna G. Schofield expressed serious concern if she has subject matter jurisdiction.

  Judge Schofield encouraged the defendants to jointly file two briefs supporting a motion to dismiss by June 14.

  Late on June 14, this was filed, urging that the case be sent back to the Philippines: "This lawsuit, brought by a foreign plaintiff premised on conduct allegedly undertaken in the Philippines, belongs in the Philippines, not New York. Through this action, Plaintiff Bangladesh Bank, a Bangladeshi bank, asserts an insufficiently pled RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and eight state law claims, arising from an alleged conspiracy with computer hackers in North Korea, RCBC in the Philippines, and casinos, including Bloomberry and EHL, in the Philippines, to launder funds in the Philippines.

All of the Defendants reside in the Philippines, all of the alleged acts by Defendants giving rise to this action against the Philippine defendants occurred in the Philippines, and almost all of the witnesses and evidence are located in the Philippines. Rather than filing suit in the Philippines, however, Plaintiff initiated this action here, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff’s choice of a New York forum is nothing more than forum shopping and should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds because the Philippines—not the Southern District of New York—is the most appropriate and convenient forum for this lawsuit. Retaining jurisdiction in this District would not be convenient for the parties or witnesses, nor would it promote the efficiency of this litigation, or be economically advantageous. In short, the ends of justice would be best served by dismissal of this action on forum non conveniens grounds." Inner City Press will have more on this.

 Back on May 21, Rizal Commercial Banking Corp (RCBC), through its counsel Tai-Heng Cheng of Sidley Austin marveled that Bangladesh Bank has still not succeeded with service of process of the complaint - actually handing the document to those charged, in essence - for example failing to use a sheriff under provisions of Philippines law.

  There also remain questions about service on the other named defendants, one of whom (Mr. Go) is now deceased. The others include: "MAIA SANTOS DEGUITO, ANGELA RUTH TORRES, LORENZO V. TAN, RAUL VICTOR B. TAN, ISMAEL S. REYES, BRIGITTE R. CAPIÑA, NESTOR O. PINEDA, ROMUALDO S. AGARRADO, PHILREM SERVICE CORP., SALUD BAUTISTA, MICHAEL BAUTISTA, CENTURYTEX TRADING, WILLIAM SO GO, BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC. D/B/A SOLAIRE RESORT & CASINO [represented on May 21 by Daniel M. Perry of Milbank], EASTERN HAWAII LEISURE COMPANY, LTD. D/B/A MIDAS HOTEL & CASINO, KAM SIN WONG A/K/A KIM WONG, WEIKANG XU, DING ZHIZE, GAO SHUHUA, and JOHN DOES 1-25."

  Judge Schofield encouraged Bangladesh Bank to try to perfect service, but remained focused on whether she and the SDNY court have subject matter jurisdiction. She asked, as to the RICO claim in the complaint, when the alleged conspiracy began and ended. Bangladesh Bank's response referred to US government complaints, including in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California, against North Korea for the SONY hack in 2014.

   Afterward Inner City Press asked Bangladesh Bank's lead lawyer, John J. Sullivan of Cozen O'Connor, if he had been surprised by Judge Schofield's approach. He said he had expected it, and argued that the judge is considering whether the case is best placed in Federal court or New York State Supreme Court on the other side of Pearl Street.

  Inner City Press asked him, Doesn't forum non conveniens in this case point to the Philippines? And why hasn't Bangladesh Bank also sued North Korea? Sullivan said he was not at liberty to answer. We'll have more on this - for now, more on Patreon, here.

To the Federal Reserve, Inner City Press requested records relating to the Fed's role with response officially due in 20 working days. But now this from the Federal Reserve: "Re:       Freedom of Information Act Request No. F-2019-00095     Dear Mr. Lee,     On February 19, 2019, the Board of Governors (“Board”) received your electronic message dated February 17, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for records regarding the Federal Reserve System's [role] including the FRBNY's role in what is known as the Bangladesh Bank hack or cyber heist and assistance provided to Bangladesh Bank and investigative authorities since the heist, including but limited to in connection with the SDNY case Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-00983.      Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until April 2, 2019, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.     If a determination can be made before April 2, 2019, we will respond to you promptly. It is our policy to process FOIA requests as quickly as possible while ensuring that we disclose the requested information to the fullest extent of the law." And since then, nothing. We'll have more on this.

In Dhaka, the Criminal Investigation Department which failed to submit its probe report into the heist on time has now been ordered by Metropolitan Magistrate Sadbir Yasir Ahsan Chowdhury to do so by March 13 in Bangladesh Bank cyber heist case.

In the U.S. District Court for Central California, the unsealed criminal complaint against Park Jin Hyuk lists four email addresses involved in spear-phishing Bangladesh Bank and among others an unnamed "African Bank;" one of these addresses is said to also have communicated with an individual in Australia about importing commodities to North Korea in violations of UN sanctions.

In the SDNY, the case is Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-00983.

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for