1 00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:13,200 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:19,840 Speaker 1: Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelinski called the arrest warrant for Russian 3 00:00:19,880 --> 00:00:25,760 Speaker 1: President Vladimir Putin a historic decision from which historical responsibility 4 00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:29,840 Speaker 1: will begin. The warrant from the International Criminal Court accuses 5 00:00:29,880 --> 00:00:33,720 Speaker 1: Putin of the war crime of unlawfully deporting children from 6 00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:38,960 Speaker 1: Ukraine to Russia. Ukraine says that sixteen thousand, two hundred 7 00:00:38,960 --> 00:00:43,159 Speaker 1: and twenty six children have been deported to Russia. President 8 00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:48,080 Speaker 1: Joe Biden agrees that Putin has committed war crimes. H 9 00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:51,280 Speaker 1: I think it's justified this, But the question is it's 10 00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:54,520 Speaker 1: not recognized internationally by US either. But I think it 11 00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:57,920 Speaker 1: makes a very strong points of lad war crimes in 12 00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:04,000 Speaker 1: Ukraine's perfect matter. Joining me is an expert in international 13 00:01:04,040 --> 00:01:07,560 Speaker 1: criminal law, Patrick Keenan, a professor at the University of 14 00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:11,160 Speaker 1: Illinois College of Law. This is the first time the 15 00:01:11,520 --> 00:01:15,120 Speaker 1: ICC has ever indicted a leader of a permanent member 16 00:01:15,319 --> 00:01:19,520 Speaker 1: of the UN Security Council. What's the immediate effect of 17 00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:23,600 Speaker 1: this arrest warrant for Putin? I think the immediate effect 18 00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,720 Speaker 1: is mostly symbolic. This signals to the world that Putin 19 00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:30,400 Speaker 1: is an accused war criminal, and I think it will 20 00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:34,840 Speaker 1: have some symbolic effect. I think the immediate practical effect 21 00:01:35,040 --> 00:01:38,840 Speaker 1: is that it limits Putin's ability to travel outside of 22 00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:43,399 Speaker 1: Russia or territory that Russia controls, either directly or indirectly. 23 00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:46,720 Speaker 1: So I think the symbolic effect is more important. I 24 00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:50,520 Speaker 1: don't think Putin was planning to travel to ICC member 25 00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:53,240 Speaker 1: states anytime soon, but I think it does have that 26 00:01:53,360 --> 00:01:58,080 Speaker 1: practical effect. This weekend he made his first trip outside 27 00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:03,000 Speaker 1: of Russia since the warrant, and he went to marry Opel, 28 00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:07,880 Speaker 1: the Ukrainian city that Russia destroyed. Do you think this 29 00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:12,399 Speaker 1: was an act of defiance in relation to the warrant 30 00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:15,320 Speaker 1: or didn't have anything to do with it. That's hard 31 00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:17,400 Speaker 1: for me to say. I think one thing that we 32 00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:20,239 Speaker 1: know about Putin is that he is, at least to 33 00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:24,840 Speaker 1: my eyes, somewhat unpredictable and really not concerned with international 34 00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:27,800 Speaker 1: public opinion. It certainly seems to me like an act 35 00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:30,880 Speaker 1: of defiance, but it was kind of a weak active defiance. 36 00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,880 Speaker 1: The ICC, as you know, doesn't have a police force, 37 00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:37,799 Speaker 1: so it can't go out and execute these arrest warrants. 38 00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:40,440 Speaker 1: So Putin knows as long as he's in Russia or 39 00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:44,400 Speaker 1: in a territory that Russia controls, then he's not going 40 00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:46,919 Speaker 1: to be arrested. So it may look like he is 41 00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:51,680 Speaker 1: being defiant in a significant way by leaving Russia, but 42 00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:54,399 Speaker 1: he knew that he wasn't going to risk arrest, so 43 00:02:54,560 --> 00:02:56,760 Speaker 1: it's kind of a weak act of defiance if it 44 00:02:56,880 --> 00:02:59,680 Speaker 1: is an active defiance at all. Describe the warrant for 45 00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:03,119 Speaker 1: us what it accuses him and another Russian official love. 46 00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:08,080 Speaker 1: So it accuses Putin and Maria Levova Belova of the 47 00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:13,160 Speaker 1: war crime of unlawfully deporting and transporting children from occupied 48 00:03:13,280 --> 00:03:17,480 Speaker 1: Ukraine into Russia. It's illegal under international law and under 49 00:03:17,520 --> 00:03:20,680 Speaker 1: the laws of war for an occupying power, in this 50 00:03:20,720 --> 00:03:25,359 Speaker 1: case Russia, to deport the local population or to transfer 51 00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:30,840 Speaker 1: that local population from where they are originally to another place, 52 00:03:30,960 --> 00:03:35,040 Speaker 1: either within Ukraine or to Russia. The specifics of this 53 00:03:35,080 --> 00:03:38,120 Speaker 1: alleged that they are working on have been working on 54 00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:43,920 Speaker 1: a program of illegally transporting children from occupied Ukraine into Russia. 55 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:46,560 Speaker 1: And so this is a war crime, and it can 56 00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:50,320 Speaker 1: also be charged as a way to commit genocide, but 57 00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:54,600 Speaker 1: in this instance it was charged as two separate war crimes. 58 00:03:54,160 --> 00:03:58,320 Speaker 1: It's essentially the same conduct, just charged under two different 59 00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:03,000 Speaker 1: provisions of the ICC Statute. I think it's significant that 60 00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:05,520 Speaker 1: it's charged as a war crime and not as a 61 00:04:05,560 --> 00:04:10,040 Speaker 1: way to commit genocide, because war crimes in this instance, 62 00:04:10,160 --> 00:04:15,200 Speaker 1: at least, are somewhat more straightforward charge. The prosecution would 63 00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:17,799 Speaker 1: have to show that these acts occurred, so the transfer 64 00:04:17,880 --> 00:04:20,600 Speaker 1: of children, and I think there's substantial evidence of that, 65 00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:24,000 Speaker 1: and that it's taken place in the context of an 66 00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:28,039 Speaker 1: armed conflict, which is also pretty straightforward. For genocide. To 67 00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:31,159 Speaker 1: charge these same conduct as genocide, the prosecution would have 68 00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:33,880 Speaker 1: to show that this was done with an intent to 69 00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:38,200 Speaker 1: destroy in whole or in part the Ukrainian people, and 70 00:04:38,279 --> 00:04:41,159 Speaker 1: I think that's the law has evolved in a way 71 00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:44,719 Speaker 1: to make that a somewhat more difficult proposition. Are these 72 00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:49,160 Speaker 1: children who are orphans or were they taken from their parents? 73 00:04:49,440 --> 00:04:52,200 Speaker 1: Do we know, like what children he's taken to Russia? 74 00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:54,600 Speaker 1: We don't, or at least I don't. There has been 75 00:04:54,680 --> 00:04:59,279 Speaker 1: some good documentation of this from non governmental organizations. Columbia 76 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:02,640 Speaker 1: Universe City has some investigation of this, and some other 77 00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:06,880 Speaker 1: non governmental organizations have and it appears, at least from 78 00:05:06,920 --> 00:05:09,839 Speaker 1: the reporting that I've seen, and again is not something 79 00:05:09,880 --> 00:05:12,839 Speaker 1: I've looked at on the ground. Is that some of 80 00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:15,840 Speaker 1: these children may be orphans, Some maybe children who have 81 00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:19,240 Speaker 1: been separated from their parents during the war, and some 82 00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:23,400 Speaker 1: are children who have and know the whereabouts that their parents. 83 00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:26,280 Speaker 1: So Russia has kind of tried to argue that this 84 00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:31,200 Speaker 1: is a humanitarian endeavor, so they're moving orphans from Ukraine 85 00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:34,279 Speaker 1: to Russia to be adopted. I think by charging this 86 00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:36,359 Speaker 1: as a war crime, this is a way for the 87 00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:40,600 Speaker 1: International Criminal Court to signal that no, this is not 88 00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:45,120 Speaker 1: a humanitarian project that Russia's engaged in. This is a 89 00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:49,360 Speaker 1: war crime, pure and simple, against the most vulnerable people 90 00:05:49,360 --> 00:05:52,200 Speaker 1: in times of war, and that is children. You mentioned 91 00:05:52,240 --> 00:05:57,400 Speaker 1: the charges are narrow and conservative. Deporting civilians is an 92 00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:01,320 Speaker 1: established war crime. So do you think I did it 93 00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:06,159 Speaker 1: that way deliberately to make it straightforward and easier to 94 00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:09,080 Speaker 1: win if it ever does go to court. I do, 95 00:06:09,160 --> 00:06:11,600 Speaker 1: And I'm not sure about the easier to win part, 96 00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:16,039 Speaker 1: But I think THEE shows these initial charges deliberately for 97 00:06:16,080 --> 00:06:19,640 Speaker 1: a couple of reasons. One is the lead defendant is putin. 98 00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:24,040 Speaker 1: He's at the very top of the power structure in Russia, obviously, 99 00:06:24,080 --> 00:06:27,280 Speaker 1: and he's the reason that the war is happening. He's 100 00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:31,159 Speaker 1: the one who initiated the war, so he has significant power, 101 00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:33,719 Speaker 1: almost complete control over whether there's going to be a 102 00:06:33,760 --> 00:06:36,039 Speaker 1: war and what the world will look like. So they're 103 00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:39,040 Speaker 1: really going after the very top of the power structure, 104 00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:41,720 Speaker 1: and this charge goes after the top of the power 105 00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:45,560 Speaker 1: structure while also taking into account of harmstune to the 106 00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:49,479 Speaker 1: most vulnerable people. So by going after the most powerful 107 00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:54,560 Speaker 1: person and by accounting for the most vulnerable victim, I 108 00:06:54,600 --> 00:06:57,880 Speaker 1: think this sends a really important symbolic message from the 109 00:06:58,120 --> 00:07:02,800 Speaker 1: ICC that they're investingation has been really thorough. It's determined 110 00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:06,479 Speaker 1: that putin and the logo that there's reasonable grounds to 111 00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:12,360 Speaker 1: believe that they're criminally responsible for these actions and that 112 00:07:12,400 --> 00:07:14,480 Speaker 1: these are the most vulnerable victims. So I think the 113 00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:18,680 Speaker 1: SEC is trying to fulfill its mission to hold accountable 114 00:07:18,840 --> 00:07:23,040 Speaker 1: the people who are most responsible for international atrocity crimes. 115 00:07:23,800 --> 00:07:29,360 Speaker 1: Russia Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakarova called the document legally worthless. 116 00:07:29,840 --> 00:07:33,000 Speaker 1: Decisions of the International Criminal Court have no value for 117 00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:36,480 Speaker 1: our country, in particular from a legal point of view. 118 00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:40,760 Speaker 1: I mean that is true, and the United States hasn't 119 00:07:41,120 --> 00:07:45,520 Speaker 1: recognized the ICC, So how does that play into it. 120 00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:48,840 Speaker 1: I think that's a good question as to whether the 121 00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:52,200 Speaker 1: fact that Russia is not a member state of the ICEC, 122 00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:55,960 Speaker 1: not a party to the Rome Statute, whether that means anything. 123 00:07:56,000 --> 00:07:58,400 Speaker 1: So I think in this case it's a little more 124 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:02,600 Speaker 1: complicated than saying this is legally irrelevant. First of all, 125 00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:05,400 Speaker 1: if Putin travels to a country that's a member state 126 00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:08,440 Speaker 1: of the ICC, and that country is willing to fulfill 127 00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:11,680 Speaker 1: his duty, and that is to arrest Putin, to execute 128 00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:16,320 Speaker 1: the icec's arrest warrant, then the Foreign Ministry spokesperson may 129 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:18,960 Speaker 1: think that this has no power, but they will have 130 00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:21,800 Speaker 1: real power if he's arrested. I don't think that's likely, 131 00:08:21,880 --> 00:08:25,000 Speaker 1: it's certainly in the short to medium term, but it's 132 00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:28,720 Speaker 1: possible later on. It's also possible that it's unlikely that 133 00:08:28,760 --> 00:08:32,120 Speaker 1: Putin will be president of Russia forever, so I think 134 00:08:32,320 --> 00:08:36,360 Speaker 1: after he's out of power, that may have some practical effect. 135 00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:40,559 Speaker 1: I think also the way the law works has effects 136 00:08:40,559 --> 00:08:44,360 Speaker 1: beyond just the immediate execution of the arrest warrant. So 137 00:08:44,480 --> 00:08:47,440 Speaker 1: someone who's subject to an arrest warrant to travel is limited. 138 00:08:47,920 --> 00:08:51,520 Speaker 1: Their trading partners are going to be more hesitant. This 139 00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:55,560 Speaker 1: may have effect domestically within Russia and the Russian opposition, 140 00:08:55,840 --> 00:09:00,080 Speaker 1: either the people in the streets or people who are 141 00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:03,840 Speaker 1: have been so far allies or sort of tentative allies Putin. 142 00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:07,000 Speaker 1: People with a lot of resources and power. They may 143 00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:11,640 Speaker 1: decide doing business with an accused war criminal is too 144 00:09:11,679 --> 00:09:13,400 Speaker 1: cost but we want to do business with the rest 145 00:09:13,440 --> 00:09:16,200 Speaker 1: of the world. So I think it because there's the 146 00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:20,400 Speaker 1: likelihood that this will have effects domestically, This can have 147 00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:23,559 Speaker 1: effects in terms of Putin's travel. It's certainly not accurate 148 00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:27,080 Speaker 1: to say this is irrelevant. It is true to say 149 00:09:27,320 --> 00:09:31,120 Speaker 1: this arrest warrant will not be executed anytime soon, because 150 00:09:31,120 --> 00:09:35,559 Speaker 1: Putin is unlikely to leave a safe territory until either 151 00:09:35,600 --> 00:09:38,880 Speaker 1: the arrest warrant goes away or he's no longer president. 152 00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:43,040 Speaker 1: The ICEC has only indicted fifty two people. Have any 153 00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:47,880 Speaker 1: of those indictments led to prosecutions trials? Yes, I sec 154 00:09:48,040 --> 00:09:52,560 Speaker 1: has held the number of trials these trials, convictions, and 155 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:56,680 Speaker 1: in some cases acquittals. It's the robust system. It does 156 00:09:56,800 --> 00:09:59,840 Speaker 1: work slowly, in part because look at the kinds of 157 00:10:00,040 --> 00:10:03,280 Speaker 1: cases it takes on. It takes on enormous cases that 158 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:07,240 Speaker 1: have just tremendous amounts of evidence. There's just a mountain 159 00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:11,600 Speaker 1: of evidence that the prosecution has to go through. So yes, 160 00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:15,559 Speaker 1: I SEC cases have led to prosecutions, have led to convictions. 161 00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:18,040 Speaker 1: They've even led to guilty please in some cases, so 162 00:10:18,120 --> 00:10:20,480 Speaker 1: there wasn't a trial, but there was a conviction and 163 00:10:20,679 --> 00:10:23,960 Speaker 1: after the case, so when there is a prosecution that 164 00:10:24,080 --> 00:10:28,600 Speaker 1: leads to conviction, then there's a reparations process, so the 165 00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:33,280 Speaker 1: people accused can be held responsible for paying reparations or 166 00:10:33,320 --> 00:10:37,920 Speaker 1: providing for reparations to victims. So the SEC has indicted 167 00:10:38,160 --> 00:10:41,560 Speaker 1: fifty odd people in the number of convictions is relatively low, 168 00:10:41,760 --> 00:10:45,320 Speaker 1: but compared to the magnitude of the cases, I think 169 00:10:45,320 --> 00:10:47,560 Speaker 1: the work rate it certainly isn't what I or most 170 00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:50,600 Speaker 1: people wish that it was, but I think it's fairly substantial. 171 00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:56,599 Speaker 1: So I know that they indicted Gadafi during the Libyan uprising. 172 00:10:57,240 --> 00:11:02,559 Speaker 1: Do these indictments ever lead to leaders changing their behavior? 173 00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:05,240 Speaker 1: Yes and no. It's first of all, it's hard to 174 00:11:05,280 --> 00:11:07,840 Speaker 1: stay for sure. So there have been two heads of 175 00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:11,720 Speaker 1: state previously who were indicted, and so just to be clear, 176 00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:14,760 Speaker 1: Putin has not been indicted so far. There's an arrest warrant, 177 00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:16,560 Speaker 1: but not an indictment, so I don't want to misspeak. 178 00:11:16,640 --> 00:11:19,840 Speaker 1: There've been two heads of state previously who were charged, 179 00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:22,719 Speaker 1: and that was Lauren Bagbo from the Ivory Coast from 180 00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:27,640 Speaker 1: an Albashir from Sudan, and Bagbo was eventually acquitted Albashir 181 00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:30,480 Speaker 1: it took a long time for anything to happen. Other 182 00:11:30,640 --> 00:11:34,400 Speaker 1: states refused to execute the arrest warrant, so that was 183 00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:37,400 Speaker 1: it became a very politicized case. So the SEC and 184 00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:40,280 Speaker 1: the SEC also for a while at charges against two 185 00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:43,840 Speaker 1: men who became leaders in Kenya. But the icec's track 186 00:11:43,920 --> 00:11:46,800 Speaker 1: record of going after heads of state, I think is 187 00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:48,959 Speaker 1: not a long one, and it shouldn't be. We shouldn't 188 00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:51,920 Speaker 1: expect heads of state to be committing international crimes. I 189 00:11:52,000 --> 00:11:54,360 Speaker 1: think this case is unique, so I'm not sure how 190 00:11:54,480 --> 00:11:57,960 Speaker 1: much the previous examples tell us. They tell us something 191 00:11:58,000 --> 00:12:00,640 Speaker 1: about the legal status, but I don't know that they 192 00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:03,920 Speaker 1: help us predict how this will turn out. The lead 193 00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:06,679 Speaker 1: lawyer for the government of Ukraine, Ben Emerson, has said 194 00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:10,800 Speaker 1: that this arrest warrant is like a first shot in 195 00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:15,480 Speaker 1: what could be a substantial indictment against Putin. Do you 196 00:12:15,559 --> 00:12:18,760 Speaker 1: think he's correct? I do My read is that the 197 00:12:18,960 --> 00:12:22,000 Speaker 1: first step in what will be a series of charges 198 00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:25,800 Speaker 1: against both Putin and other Russian officials, and so in 199 00:12:25,880 --> 00:12:29,480 Speaker 1: the future I would expect to see indictments for several things. 200 00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:32,679 Speaker 1: So I think there is substantial evidence. There's the overwhelming 201 00:12:32,720 --> 00:12:37,200 Speaker 1: evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, 202 00:12:37,320 --> 00:12:39,160 Speaker 1: and as a lawyer, I can't say for sure these 203 00:12:39,200 --> 00:12:41,520 Speaker 1: have been entirely proven. So we've seen all the evidence 204 00:12:41,559 --> 00:12:44,360 Speaker 1: and the defenses presented. But based on the news reporting, 205 00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:47,400 Speaker 1: there looks like there's substantial evidence of war crimes for 206 00:12:47,640 --> 00:12:51,880 Speaker 1: targeting civilian and killing civilians. The separate war crimes for 207 00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:56,480 Speaker 1: using weapons that are much too imprecise for the context. 208 00:12:56,800 --> 00:13:00,559 Speaker 1: You can't use the weapons that cause wide indiscriminate destruction 209 00:13:00,880 --> 00:13:04,360 Speaker 1: and populated areas even if you're not directly targeting civilians. 210 00:13:04,520 --> 00:13:06,960 Speaker 1: There have been war crimes and crimes against humanity relating 211 00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:10,280 Speaker 1: to sexual violence against women and girls, and for torture 212 00:13:10,400 --> 00:13:13,880 Speaker 1: and mistreatment of civilians and captured soldiers. Plus I would 213 00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:17,240 Speaker 1: expect see a number of war crimes and crimes against 214 00:13:17,320 --> 00:13:20,640 Speaker 1: humanity indictment. It's not clear to me yet whether there 215 00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:25,520 Speaker 1: will be charges of genocide, genocide requires proof of the 216 00:13:25,679 --> 00:13:28,880 Speaker 1: intent to destroy and whole or in parts of Ukrainian people, 217 00:13:29,040 --> 00:13:31,480 Speaker 1: and I think the way the law has evolved has 218 00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:34,880 Speaker 1: made it complicated to prove that. I'm not saying that 219 00:13:35,160 --> 00:13:38,200 Speaker 1: that hasn't happened, but just that as the legal matter, 220 00:13:38,280 --> 00:13:41,040 Speaker 1: it might be difficult. So my best guess is there 221 00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:44,640 Speaker 1: will be more indictments, maybe many more indictments. I have 222 00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:47,360 Speaker 1: no inside information, but I would expect to see those, 223 00:13:47,640 --> 00:13:49,559 Speaker 1: I would say in the short to medium term. So 224 00:13:49,679 --> 00:13:52,760 Speaker 1: in the next three to six months. Does this offer 225 00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:58,080 Speaker 1: any hope of Ukrainian families getting their children back? I mean, 226 00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:00,839 Speaker 1: could there be some kind of deal may or is 227 00:14:00,880 --> 00:14:04,439 Speaker 1: that just not in the equation? My best guess is 228 00:14:04,559 --> 00:14:07,600 Speaker 1: that it's not in the equation because it would require 229 00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:11,280 Speaker 1: some acknowledgement by Russia that had done something wrong, and 230 00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:15,199 Speaker 1: so far Putin has shown no inclination to acknowledge that 231 00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:18,000 Speaker 1: any part of this is in any way wrong. These 232 00:14:18,040 --> 00:14:21,160 Speaker 1: actions are clearly illegal, right from the build up to 233 00:14:21,240 --> 00:14:23,480 Speaker 1: the invasion, to the invasion to the way that the 234 00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:26,800 Speaker 1: war has been conducted. So the laws clearly on one side, 235 00:14:26,840 --> 00:14:29,600 Speaker 1: and Putin is kind of describing a reality that just 236 00:14:29,800 --> 00:14:32,480 Speaker 1: doesn't exist when he's arguing in favor of the war, 237 00:14:32,880 --> 00:14:36,360 Speaker 1: so I wouldn't want to raise the hopes of people 238 00:14:36,440 --> 00:14:40,120 Speaker 1: who are desperately looking for hope for their children back. 239 00:14:40,480 --> 00:14:43,320 Speaker 1: There is one kind of small life of this that 240 00:14:43,480 --> 00:14:45,760 Speaker 1: I think it hasn't gotten a lot of attention, and 241 00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:49,560 Speaker 1: that is that unto the ICC rules, there's a little 242 00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:53,120 Speaker 1: known provision in the ICC Statute that would allow the 243 00:14:53,280 --> 00:14:57,880 Speaker 1: UN Security Council to suspend an ICC prosecution for twelve 244 00:14:58,000 --> 00:15:01,000 Speaker 1: months in the interests of international He's in security and 245 00:15:01,080 --> 00:15:03,640 Speaker 1: I'm not predicting this will happen, but I just want 246 00:15:03,680 --> 00:15:06,200 Speaker 1: to describe it as a possibility, or note it as 247 00:15:06,240 --> 00:15:09,600 Speaker 1: a possibility. So what that means is the Security Council 248 00:15:09,640 --> 00:15:13,560 Speaker 1: could say, ICC stand down for twelve months, and we'll 249 00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:17,000 Speaker 1: use this twelve months to negotiate a peaceful ends in 250 00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:20,440 Speaker 1: the situation, or maybe negotiate the return of the children 251 00:15:20,880 --> 00:15:25,520 Speaker 1: who have been illegally deported and illegally transferred to Russia. 252 00:15:26,040 --> 00:15:32,240 Speaker 1: I'm curious to see whether any momentum develops behind that possibility. Again, 253 00:15:32,280 --> 00:15:34,840 Speaker 1: I'm not predicting it, but I think that's the one 254 00:15:34,920 --> 00:15:38,040 Speaker 1: place where I see at least the possibility that the 255 00:15:38,160 --> 00:15:42,000 Speaker 1: indictment could lead to some kind of negotiation that could 256 00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:45,000 Speaker 1: provide some hope. And I don't want to raise false hope, 257 00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:48,480 Speaker 1: but I think that that's legally possible. And I'm curious 258 00:15:48,560 --> 00:15:51,360 Speaker 1: to see whether any countries really want to step up 259 00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:53,560 Speaker 1: and see if they can broke or something like that. 260 00:15:53,960 --> 00:15:56,600 Speaker 1: That would be wonderful. And why isn't the US a 261 00:15:56,680 --> 00:16:01,360 Speaker 1: member of the ICC? So when the SEC was being created, 262 00:16:01,480 --> 00:16:05,239 Speaker 1: the US was an active participant in drafting the statute. 263 00:16:05,280 --> 00:16:08,040 Speaker 1: So the US, both official negotiators and people who were 264 00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:12,080 Speaker 1: Americans just working on the issues, had substantial influence on 265 00:16:12,200 --> 00:16:15,360 Speaker 1: what the ICC statute looks like. There was a structure 266 00:16:15,480 --> 00:16:17,960 Speaker 1: of the court and the crimes that are available in 267 00:16:18,080 --> 00:16:22,320 Speaker 1: The Clinton administration wanted to join ICEC, or at least 268 00:16:22,360 --> 00:16:26,080 Speaker 1: made some noise about joining the IEC, and then ultimately decided, 269 00:16:26,680 --> 00:16:29,720 Speaker 1: And so the US is not a member of the 270 00:16:29,960 --> 00:16:32,560 Speaker 1: International Criminal Court at this point, and I think it's 271 00:16:32,600 --> 00:16:36,200 Speaker 1: unlikely that it ever will. I think the reason behind 272 00:16:36,280 --> 00:16:40,200 Speaker 1: that is that there is at least some fear on 273 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:43,640 Speaker 1: the part of US officials that US service members or 274 00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:47,360 Speaker 1: US forces could end up being targets of prosecution by 275 00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:52,320 Speaker 1: the ICC. The SEC has investigated the situation in Afghanistan, 276 00:16:52,840 --> 00:16:55,760 Speaker 1: and indicated that there were reasons to believe that parts 277 00:16:55,840 --> 00:17:00,840 Speaker 1: of the US operations in Afghanistan violated the ICC statute. 278 00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:04,680 Speaker 1: The defendants in those cases, they're not cases yet, but 279 00:17:04,760 --> 00:17:07,560 Speaker 1: if they turned out to be indictments or a restaurants, 280 00:17:07,720 --> 00:17:11,680 Speaker 1: those defendants would be US service members or US officials. 281 00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:14,960 Speaker 1: So the US doesn't want to join the ICEC because 282 00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:17,920 Speaker 1: it doesn't want to make that kind of thing any easier. 283 00:17:18,359 --> 00:17:22,200 Speaker 1: And with respect to Ukraine, though the US has I 284 00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:26,280 Speaker 1: think been more cooperative, more open to, and complementary of 285 00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:28,720 Speaker 1: the ICC than it has been at any time in 286 00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:32,520 Speaker 1: the recent past. Are there other areas for criminal charges 287 00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,720 Speaker 1: from the ICC in the Ukrainian invasion? The treatment of 288 00:17:36,760 --> 00:17:39,720 Speaker 1: women and girls in this conflict has been achis and 289 00:17:39,840 --> 00:17:42,359 Speaker 1: this is the case in every conflict, and so I 290 00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:45,760 Speaker 1: would be interested to see if there are cases that 291 00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:50,520 Speaker 1: the ICEC pursues that specifically prioritize the harms that affect 292 00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:53,320 Speaker 1: women and girls. And this is not a criticism of anyone, 293 00:17:53,560 --> 00:17:55,680 Speaker 1: but I think we should all be paying more attention 294 00:17:55,920 --> 00:17:59,160 Speaker 1: to the various ways that women and girls have been 295 00:17:59,520 --> 00:18:03,840 Speaker 1: treated abominably, torture, crimes of sexual violence, and all manner 296 00:18:03,920 --> 00:18:06,600 Speaker 1: of harm. So I think even though there has been 297 00:18:06,680 --> 00:18:09,520 Speaker 1: reporting on this, if not enough, and we haven't really 298 00:18:09,600 --> 00:18:12,680 Speaker 1: paid a close attention to that issue as we should. 299 00:18:12,840 --> 00:18:16,400 Speaker 1: Those are substantial harms. They're still happening, and they should 300 00:18:16,480 --> 00:18:19,320 Speaker 1: lead to criminal charges. Thanks for speaking to this, Patrick, 301 00:18:19,600 --> 00:18:22,840 Speaker 1: that's Professor Patrick Keenan of the University of Illinois College 302 00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:28,000 Speaker 1: of Law. David Boys is a prominent litigator known for 303 00:18:28,200 --> 00:18:32,119 Speaker 1: national cases from Microsoft to Bush, Fee, Gore, and Boys 304 00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:35,959 Speaker 1: has been representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims pro bono for more 305 00:18:36,040 --> 00:18:43,680 Speaker 1: than a decade. These were girls who were procured, transported 306 00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:47,600 Speaker 1: across kept line of state lines. This was as commercial 307 00:18:48,000 --> 00:18:50,960 Speaker 1: a sex trafficking operation as you can imagine it. Now 308 00:18:51,040 --> 00:18:54,920 Speaker 1: he's suing JP Morgan Chase on behalf of victim Jane Doe, 309 00:18:55,400 --> 00:19:00,119 Speaker 1: accusing the bank of supporting Epstein's sex trafficking network. Ep 310 00:19:00,280 --> 00:19:04,200 Speaker 1: Morgan has denied any knowledge of epstein sex trafficking, even 311 00:19:04,240 --> 00:19:07,639 Speaker 1: though the bank, in turn has sued its former top executive, 312 00:19:07,760 --> 00:19:12,360 Speaker 1: Jess Staley, accusing him of sexually assaulting one of Epstein's victims. 313 00:19:12,800 --> 00:19:16,560 Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eva Benny Morrison, Eva 314 00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:19,520 Speaker 1: tell Us about the nub of the plaintiff's case. In 315 00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:23,720 Speaker 1: November last year, Jane Doe, who was a victim of 316 00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:28,399 Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, filed the lawsuit against JP Morgan, alleging at 317 00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:33,120 Speaker 1: the bank facilitated and supported his sex trafficking network. Jane 318 00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:38,080 Speaker 1: Doe alleges that by JP Morgan providing financial services to Epstein, 319 00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:41,680 Speaker 1: it was part of his sex trafficking venture and it 320 00:19:41,880 --> 00:19:44,520 Speaker 1: benefited from it as well. He had millions and millions 321 00:19:44,560 --> 00:19:47,680 Speaker 1: of dollars moving through multiple accounts for the bank, which 322 00:19:47,680 --> 00:19:50,920 Speaker 1: would have attracted high fees, which they say goes to 323 00:19:51,040 --> 00:19:55,439 Speaker 1: the financial benefitsit element of this case. The lawyer behind 324 00:19:55,520 --> 00:20:01,120 Speaker 1: this lawsuit is rather famous. David Boys. Tell us about him. 325 00:20:01,760 --> 00:20:04,640 Speaker 1: David Boys is probably one of the most well known 326 00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:09,919 Speaker 1: litigators in America. He has been a lawyer for fifty 327 00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:14,320 Speaker 1: plus years. He's worked on some major cases, including the 328 00:20:14,480 --> 00:20:18,960 Speaker 1: Microsoft antitrust case in the late nineties. He also has 329 00:20:19,160 --> 00:20:23,160 Speaker 1: represented the victims of Jeffrey Epstein pro bono for more 330 00:20:23,359 --> 00:20:28,680 Speaker 1: than a decade, and more controversially represented Harvey Weinstein and 331 00:20:28,880 --> 00:20:33,120 Speaker 1: as the homes And. He's known for using hardball tactics 332 00:20:33,200 --> 00:20:36,400 Speaker 1: no matter which side of the case he's on. Yes, 333 00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:40,680 Speaker 1: he can be very aggressive, have a very aggressive sort 334 00:20:40,720 --> 00:20:44,480 Speaker 1: of litigation style, which obviously has its supporters and its detractors. 335 00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:48,760 Speaker 1: He really goes in hard in fighting for his clients. 336 00:20:49,000 --> 00:20:51,520 Speaker 1: He's caught it a little bit of controversy, I guess 337 00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:54,439 Speaker 1: for doing that, especially in the Harvey Weinstein case, when 338 00:20:54,520 --> 00:20:57,280 Speaker 1: his firm signed off on a contract with a private 339 00:20:57,400 --> 00:21:00,399 Speaker 1: investigator to look into some of the men who were 340 00:21:00,400 --> 00:21:03,080 Speaker 1: coming forward making allegations about Weinstein and some of the 341 00:21:03,200 --> 00:21:05,400 Speaker 1: journalists who were trying to report it. But I guess 342 00:21:05,440 --> 00:21:08,960 Speaker 1: on the other side, he's had huge success in obtaining 343 00:21:09,359 --> 00:21:12,800 Speaker 1: settlements for his clients and having some big wins in court, 344 00:21:13,480 --> 00:21:17,040 Speaker 1: one of those against Prince Andrew. Explain how that came about, 345 00:21:17,520 --> 00:21:20,720 Speaker 1: that's right. So this was part of the Epstein case. 346 00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:23,760 Speaker 1: A victim of Jeffrey Epstein, a woman by the name 347 00:21:23,840 --> 00:21:27,960 Speaker 1: of Virginia Dufray, was represented by Boys, and she alleged 348 00:21:28,040 --> 00:21:31,120 Speaker 1: that Prince Andrew was one of the men who sexually 349 00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:35,440 Speaker 1: assaulted her when she was working with Epstein. Epstein and 350 00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:40,760 Speaker 1: Prince Andrew were friends, so on behalf of Virginia Boys 351 00:21:41,119 --> 00:21:45,040 Speaker 1: sued Prince Andrew and that settled out of court. Last year, 352 00:21:45,240 --> 00:21:48,240 Speaker 1: just before Prince Andrew was meant to be deposed about 353 00:21:48,320 --> 00:21:52,639 Speaker 1: what he knew about Epstein's trafficking. JP Morgan is asking 354 00:21:52,760 --> 00:21:55,399 Speaker 1: a federal judge to throw out the case. What are 355 00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:59,920 Speaker 1: its arguments? JP Morgan says that Jane Doe hasn't propped 356 00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:03,560 Speaker 1: shown that the bank knew or should have known, what 357 00:22:03,760 --> 00:22:07,240 Speaker 1: Epstein was doing in terms of sex trafficking. Epstein was 358 00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:10,720 Speaker 1: a client of JP Morgan between the late nineties. In 359 00:22:10,760 --> 00:22:13,720 Speaker 1: two and thirteen, when the bank cut ties with him, 360 00:22:14,000 --> 00:22:16,639 Speaker 1: Jane Doe was essentially saying that if they didn't have 361 00:22:16,800 --> 00:22:19,119 Speaker 1: direct knowledge, then they ought to have known because there 362 00:22:19,160 --> 00:22:22,000 Speaker 1: were so many red flags. Much of Jane Doo's case 363 00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:25,520 Speaker 1: is centered around the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and a 364 00:22:25,600 --> 00:22:28,280 Speaker 1: former executive at the bank, a man named Jeff Daley. 365 00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:31,880 Speaker 1: There has been a lot of emails and details come 366 00:22:31,920 --> 00:22:35,879 Speaker 1: out about how strong their friendship was, and it hasn't 367 00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:38,960 Speaker 1: reflected very well on Jeff Daley. JP Morgan has tried 368 00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:42,320 Speaker 1: to say, yes, some of the conversations that he had 369 00:22:42,359 --> 00:22:45,040 Speaker 1: on his work email with Epstein wit inappropriate, but they 370 00:22:45,160 --> 00:22:48,399 Speaker 1: fell outside the scope of his employment, so they cannot 371 00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:51,119 Speaker 1: be held responsible and as a bank, they didn't have 372 00:22:51,200 --> 00:22:54,440 Speaker 1: a duty to non customers, meaning Jane Doo, and the 373 00:22:54,520 --> 00:22:59,240 Speaker 1: bank went from defending Staley to suing Staley. Yes. Initially, 374 00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:02,840 Speaker 1: when this laws it was filed, JP Morgan had said 375 00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:07,440 Speaker 1: that the allegations made against Daily were speculatives essentially and 376 00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:11,840 Speaker 1: not properly supported by fats. That strategy change earlier this 377 00:23:12,040 --> 00:23:15,959 Speaker 1: month when the bank actually filed its own lawsuit against 378 00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:19,600 Speaker 1: Jess Daily, saying that if damages are awarded against the bank, 379 00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:22,240 Speaker 1: that he should be held liable for them. The banks 380 00:23:22,320 --> 00:23:25,040 Speaker 1: also going after him to try and call back more 381 00:23:25,080 --> 00:23:27,520 Speaker 1: than eighty million dollars it paid him during his time 382 00:23:27,600 --> 00:23:31,040 Speaker 1: at JP Morgan, alleging that he was disloyal to the 383 00:23:31,119 --> 00:23:33,960 Speaker 1: bank and he vouched for Epstein when they were trying 384 00:23:34,000 --> 00:23:36,040 Speaker 1: to decide whether to keep him an honors a client 385 00:23:36,280 --> 00:23:40,520 Speaker 1: and over his faithless service. How strong are the bank's arguments? 386 00:23:40,760 --> 00:23:43,640 Speaker 1: How strong is its defense? I interviewed a few legal 387 00:23:43,760 --> 00:23:47,840 Speaker 1: experts who said that the bank's defense was pretty strong 388 00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:50,560 Speaker 1: and they did make some solid arguments. There is a 389 00:23:50,600 --> 00:23:53,960 Speaker 1: lot of case law around who the banks have a 390 00:23:54,080 --> 00:23:56,960 Speaker 1: duty too, and some of that law has found that 391 00:23:57,280 --> 00:24:00,240 Speaker 1: banks don't have a duty to non customers or heart 392 00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:03,520 Speaker 1: be held responsible for the actions of their clients. So 393 00:24:03,840 --> 00:24:07,359 Speaker 1: that's something that certainly works in JP Morgan's favor. Another 394 00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:12,720 Speaker 1: massive hurdle for Jane Doe is trying to prove that 395 00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:18,480 Speaker 1: what Staley knew about Epstein sex trafficking, JP Morgan knew, 396 00:24:18,920 --> 00:24:21,040 Speaker 1: and that's sort of an extra step and that's going 397 00:24:21,080 --> 00:24:23,119 Speaker 1: to be a bit of a challenge. But a couple 398 00:24:23,160 --> 00:24:26,280 Speaker 1: of the legal experts said, what's unusual about this case 399 00:24:26,359 --> 00:24:29,560 Speaker 1: compared to other sex trafficking civil cases is that there 400 00:24:29,800 --> 00:24:33,119 Speaker 1: is a lad of evidence and material suggesting that the 401 00:24:33,240 --> 00:24:36,680 Speaker 1: bank ought to have known, so the emails, the huge 402 00:24:36,720 --> 00:24:41,320 Speaker 1: amount of public reporting about Epstein's criminal investigations in Florida 403 00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:44,560 Speaker 1: and elsewhere, So that might work in Jane Doo's dab here. 404 00:24:44,760 --> 00:24:47,040 Speaker 1: And if the bank can't get this case thrown out, 405 00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:49,960 Speaker 1: does it want to go to trial and be associated 406 00:24:50,000 --> 00:24:53,399 Speaker 1: with Epstein? No, is the short answer. I think that 407 00:24:53,680 --> 00:24:58,119 Speaker 1: the reputational damage here is a real risk, and no 408 00:24:58,680 --> 00:25:02,440 Speaker 1: big huge entity JP Morgan will want to take that risk, 409 00:25:02,680 --> 00:25:05,720 Speaker 1: and they will try and stop it going to trial 410 00:25:06,080 --> 00:25:10,800 Speaker 1: to avoid all of these fallacious details coming out EVA. 411 00:25:11,440 --> 00:25:15,080 Speaker 1: JP Morgan is also being sued by the Virgin Islands 412 00:25:15,160 --> 00:25:18,840 Speaker 1: tell us about that suit. That's right. In a separate litigation, 413 00:25:18,960 --> 00:25:22,400 Speaker 1: the US Virgin Islands file a similar suit against JP 414 00:25:22,560 --> 00:25:25,800 Speaker 1: Morgan a couple of weeks after the Jane Doe suit 415 00:25:26,280 --> 00:25:30,600 Speaker 1: late last year, US Virgin Islands alleges that JP Morgan 416 00:25:31,200 --> 00:25:36,119 Speaker 1: all facilitated Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein had a 417 00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:39,440 Speaker 1: private island in the US Virgin Islands and that's where 418 00:25:39,720 --> 00:25:44,639 Speaker 1: he allegedly abused a number of young women and traffic 419 00:25:45,160 --> 00:25:48,800 Speaker 1: number of young women as well. So JP Morgan is 420 00:25:48,840 --> 00:25:53,240 Speaker 1: also putting up a fight to have that suit dismissed, 421 00:25:53,280 --> 00:25:56,760 Speaker 1: and we're going to hear those arguments later in the week. 422 00:25:57,320 --> 00:26:01,320 Speaker 1: It's hard to believe that so many years after Epstein's death, 423 00:26:02,080 --> 00:26:05,680 Speaker 1: these cases are still being litigated and no sign of ending. 424 00:26:06,320 --> 00:26:11,560 Speaker 1: After Gilain Maxwell was sentenced, there was a sort of 425 00:26:11,640 --> 00:26:16,000 Speaker 1: feeling of finality. But the plaintiffs throughout this have been 426 00:26:16,119 --> 00:26:21,720 Speaker 1: very focused on trying to hold the enablers of Epstein accountable. 427 00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:25,320 Speaker 1: They've been let down again and again by the criminal 428 00:26:25,440 --> 00:26:29,280 Speaker 1: justice system. Jeoffrey Epstein got a non prostitution agreement force 429 00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:33,399 Speaker 1: or sitting minus for prostitution federal chargers in Florida in 430 00:26:33,480 --> 00:26:35,080 Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, and then, of course he was 431 00:26:35,200 --> 00:26:38,960 Speaker 1: arrested more than a decade later, finally on sex trafficking charges, 432 00:26:39,080 --> 00:26:42,280 Speaker 1: and he committed suicide in a prison cell. So the 433 00:26:42,400 --> 00:26:45,639 Speaker 1: plaintiffs in this case have really utilized the civil system 434 00:26:45,840 --> 00:26:48,400 Speaker 1: in a bid to try and get some form of justice, 435 00:26:48,760 --> 00:26:50,720 Speaker 1: and I think we're seeing a little bit of that 436 00:26:50,880 --> 00:26:54,480 Speaker 1: at the moment, trying to hold those enablers accountable for 437 00:26:55,160 --> 00:26:57,840 Speaker 1: allegedly turning a blind eye to what Estein was doing. 438 00:26:58,320 --> 00:27:02,080 Speaker 1: Thanks either. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison. This 439 00:27:02,240 --> 00:27:05,200 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. I'm June Grosso.