- 20 -
citizens. Thus, as a U.S. resident, petitioner was prohibited from
depositing funds in the Los Angeles agency office of BCCI, S.A.9
Third, neither BCCI, S.A. nor its IOMB was subject to
supervision and examination by Federal or State banking officials.
Although the Los Angeles agency office of BCCI, S.A. was licensed
by California and its U.S. activities were supervised by the
Federal Reserve Board, BCCI itself was not subject to supervision
and examination. Records pertaining to the central bank were not
available to Federal and State regulators. In fact, to the limited
extent the college of regulators scrutinized BCCI, U.S. regulators
were excluded.
In sum, because the requirements of section 581 are in the
conjunctive, neither BCCI, S.A., its IOMB, nor its Los Angeles
agency office qualifies as a "bank" under section 165(l)(3)(A).
9 We do not construe the fact that petitioner may have
been able to withdraw funds from her IOMB of BCCI, S.A. account
at the Los Angeles agency office of BCCI, S.A. to mean that her
funds were "on deposit" in the Los Angeles agency office of BCCI,
S.A. (For example, an individual with an account at the Orange
County Federal Employees Credit Union is able to withdraw funds
from that credit union account through an ATM machine at
Barclay's Bank in London. The fact that the funds in the
California credit union account can be accessed at the Barclay's
Bank in London does not mean that the funds at the credit union
are "on deposit" at Barclay's Bank.)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011