- 25 -
Fin. Code, secs. 400, 401, 1753 (1989). Although BCCI, S.A.,
through its Los Angeles Agency office, was licensed to conduct
certain banking activities in California, it was organized and
chartered in Luxembourg. Thus, petitioner's argument has no merit.
Petitioner's failure to establish that BCCI, S.A., its IOMB,
or its Los Angeles agency office was both "chartered and supervised
under Federal or State law" forecloses these institutions from
qualifying under subsection 165(l)(3)(D), without consideration of
the additional requirement that the qualifying entity be a "similar
institution." Nevertheless, assuming arguendo BCCI, S.A., its
IOMB, or its Los Angeles agency office was both "chartered and
supervised under Federal or State law", we consider whether it was
also a "similar institution".
We interpret the term "similar institution" to mean an
institution similar to those delineated pursuant to the provisions
of subsections 165(l)(3)(A) to (C). The institutions described in
those provisions were organized and supervised under Federal or
State law, and/or insured customers' deposits under Federal or
State law. But none of these factors apply to BCCI, S.A., its
IOMB, or its Los Angeles agency office, other than the Los Angeles
agency office's supervision by Federal and State authorities.
Moreover, satisfaction of the "supervision" element alone does not
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