Devincci Hourani v. Alexander Mirtchev
418 U.S. App. D.C. 1
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Devincci and Issam Hourani (Kazakh businessmen) allege Dariga Nazarbayeva (President Nazarbayev’s daughter) coerced transfer of their Kazakhstan-based media assets in 2007; assets worth hundreds of millions.
- Plaintiffs allege Alexander Mirtchev and his D.C.-based firm Krull Corporation agreed in Washington, D.C. to assist Nazarbayeva: monetize seized assets, stash proceeds in Western bank accounts, and run a campaign branding the Houranis as terrorists.
- Plaintiffs sued in D.C. federal court asserting civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1962), Hobbs Act extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951), money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956), and D.C. defamation/conspiracy-to-defame claims; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and denied Rule 11 sanctions.
- On appeal, plaintiffs conceded they were not pressing extraterritorial application of RICO or the Hobbs Act; they relied on alleged domestic acts by Mirtchev (agreement in D.C., receipt/deposit of payments in D.C., laundering through U.S. accounts) to supply predicate acts.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to plead Hobbs Act or money‑laundering predicates that injured them, and defamation claims implicated the Act of State doctrine and lacked factual particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have jurisdiction or the political question doctrine bars the suit | Houranis: courts can adjudicate private U.S. defendants’ liability for conduct in the U.S. | Mirtchev: adjudication would impugn foreign sovereign and intrude on political branch foreign‑affairs prerogatives | Court: political‑question doctrine not triggered; ordinary judicial standards apply |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a domestic Hobbs Act or RICO predicate based on Mirtchev’s alleged D.C. conduct | Houranis: Mirtchev’s D.C. agreement to scheme and related acts constitute conspiracy/predicate acts under Hobbs Act/RICO | Mirtchev: Hobbs Act does not reach the underlying foreign extortion; conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act cannot stand if substantive Hobbs Act doesn’t apply extraterritorially | Court: Hobbs Act inapplicable because plaintiffs disclaimed extraterritorial Hobbs Act coverage; conspiracy claim fails |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded money‑laundering predicate acts for RICO and injury from them | Houranis: receipts and transfers into Krull/D.C. accounts constitute laundering and injured plaintiffs | Mirtchev: §1956 requires proceeds of "unlawful activity" as defined; alleged foreign extortion does not qualify and plaintiffs allege no injury from laundering | Court: money‑laundering allegations fail (no qualifying unlawful activity alleged and no pleaded injury from laundering); RICO claim collapses |
| Whether defamation/conspiracy claims should proceed given Embassy/ambassador involvement | Houranis: claims are against Mirtchev for causing/publication and conspiracy to defame; seek to hold private actors liable | Mirtchev: alleged publications were official acts by Kazakhstan (ambassador/embassy); adjudication would require judging validity of foreign sovereign acts | Court: Act of State doctrine bars adjudication of defamatory content published by Kazakh sovereign via its ambassador/embassy; remaining defamation allegations lack specificity and are time-barred or implausible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (RICO’s legislative purpose to combat organized crime)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (RICO standing requires injury by predicate acts)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (Act of State doctrine bars declaring invalid official acts of foreign sovereign within its territory)
- W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400 (scope of Act of State doctrine and when private‑party claims can avoid it)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (accepting complaint facts as true on motion to dismiss)
- McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 672 F.3d 1066 (Act of State concerns where sovereign actions at core of dispute)
- de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 714 F.3d 591 (courts may adjudicate foreign‑sovereign‑related claims in some contexts)