- 19 -
With respect to the instant case, none of the three entities
(BCCI, S.A, its IOMB, or its Los Angeles agency office) meet the
section 581 statutory definition of a bank. First, neither BCCI,
S.A. nor its IOMB was incorporated under the laws of the United
States or of any State. BCCI, S.A.'s Los Angeles agency office was
also not incorporated in the United States or California. (Under
the law in effect at the time, the Los Angeles agency office
operated under limited supervision by Federal banking authorities
and was merely licensed by California banking authorities to
conduct business in California.)
Second, although a "substantial part" of the business of BCCI,
S.A. and its IOMB involved the receipt of deposits from U.S.
citizens,8 petitioner did not introduce evidence to establish that
any of these three entities could make loans or exercise fiduciary
powers, or that even if they could make loans or exercise fiduciary
powers, such activities constituted a "substantial part" of their
business. In addition, the Los Angeles agency office of BCCI, S.A.
was prohibited from accepting deposits from U.S. residents or
8 Richard Small, special counsel at the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.,
testified to this effect.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011