Hourani v. Mirtchev
943 F. Supp. 2d 159
D.D.C.2013Background
- RICO and defamation suit arising from alleged multinational extortion and money laundering involving Kazakhstan assets and Kazakh Embassy publications.
- Defendant Mirtchev (in U.S.), Krull Corporation (U.S. entity), and Dariga Nazarbayeva allegedly conspired to extort Hourani assets from KTK Television and Alma Media in Kazakhstan.
- Plaintiffs allege extortion, money laundering, and defamation through embassy website publications; domestic contacts allegedly include U.S. citizens and Krull in D.C.
- Court previously granted leave to amend; current Amended Complaint is evaluated for RICO viability and related claims.
- Court ultimately dismisses RICO claims with prejudice and denies Rule 11 sanctions; defamation/conspiracy to defame claim dismissed for failure to plead specifics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RICO applies extraterritorially to foreign extortion and money laundering | Hourani: some domestic acts tie to US, thus RICO should apply | Mirtchev: acts predominantly abroad; extraterritoriality bars RICO | RICO does not apply extraterritorially; foreign acts predominate and lack domestic nexus |
| Whether post-extortion money laundering can satisfy RICO predicate acts | Hourani: money laundering is part of pattern of racketeering | Mirtchev: acts are peripheral and insufficient to sustain domestic predicate | Post-extortion money laundering not a sufficient predicate; injuries largely from Kazakh extortion outside US |
| Whether the defamation conspiracy claim is plausibly pled under DC law | Hourani: Mirtchev acted through Krull to cause embassy publication | Mirtchev: lacks specific facts linking to publication; conclusory | Defamation conspiracy claim dismissed for lack of particularized facts; insufficient pleading of influence/control |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted against Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs contend alterations are lawful based on discovery and theory shifts | Sanctions warranted for inconsistent and contradicted pleadings | Rule 11 sanctions denied; Amended Complaint dismissed with prejudice on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2011) (controls extraterritoriality analysis for RICO)
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (slim domestic contacts insufficient for RICO)
- Cedeño v. Castillo, 457 F. App'x 35 (2d Cir. 2012) (enterprise focus and domestic predicate act insufficiency)
- Chao Fan Xu v. United States, 706 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2013) (pattern of racketeering executed abroad may still implicate US liability)
- Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 298 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2002) (proximate cause and money laundering concerns in RICO)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (U.S. 2010) (extraterritoriality framework guiding RICO analysis)
- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (1990) (RICO liability requirement based on enterprise participation)