WEBVTT - Arrest Warrant for Putin Over War Crimes 0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:13.200 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:14.200 --> 0:00:19.840 Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelinski called the arrest warrant for Russian 0:00:19.880 --> 0:00:25.760 President Vladimir Putin a historic decision from which historical responsibility 0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:29.840 will begin. The warrant from the International Criminal Court accuses 0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:33.720 Putin of the war crime of unlawfully deporting children from 0:00:33.840 --> 0:00:38.960 Ukraine to Russia. Ukraine says that sixteen thousand, two hundred 0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:43.159 and twenty six children have been deported to Russia. President 0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:48.080 Joe Biden agrees that Putin has committed war crimes. H 0:00:48.120 --> 0:00:51.280 I think it's justified this, But the question is it's 0:00:51.280 --> 0:00:54.520 not recognized internationally by US either. But I think it 0:00:54.720 --> 0:00:57.920 makes a very strong points of lad war crimes in 0:00:58.120 --> 0:01:04.000 Ukraine's perfect matter. Joining me is an expert in international 0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:07.560 criminal law, Patrick Keenan, a professor at the University of 0:01:07.600 --> 0:01:11.160 Illinois College of Law. This is the first time the 0:01:11.520 --> 0:01:15.120 ICC has ever indicted a leader of a permanent member 0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:19.520 of the UN Security Council. What's the immediate effect of 0:01:19.560 --> 0:01:23.600 this arrest warrant for Putin? I think the immediate effect 0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:27.720 is mostly symbolic. This signals to the world that Putin 0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:30.400 is an accused war criminal, and I think it will 0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:34.840 have some symbolic effect. I think the immediate practical effect 0:01:35.040 --> 0:01:38.840 is that it limits Putin's ability to travel outside of 0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:43.399 Russia or territory that Russia controls, either directly or indirectly. 0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:46.720 So I think the symbolic effect is more important. I 0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:50.520 don't think Putin was planning to travel to ICC member 0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:53.240 states anytime soon, but I think it does have that 0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:58.080 practical effect. This weekend he made his first trip outside 0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:03.000 of Russia since the warrant, and he went to marry Opel, 0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:07.880 the Ukrainian city that Russia destroyed. Do you think this 0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:12.399 was an act of defiance in relation to the warrant 0:02:12.560 --> 0:02:15.320 or didn't have anything to do with it. That's hard 0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:17.400 for me to say. I think one thing that we 0:02:17.639 --> 0:02:20.239 know about Putin is that he is, at least to 0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:24.840 my eyes, somewhat unpredictable and really not concerned with international 0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:27.800 public opinion. It certainly seems to me like an act 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.880 of defiance, but it was kind of a weak active defiance. 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:34.880 The ICC, as you know, doesn't have a police force, 0:02:34.919 --> 0:02:37.799 so it can't go out and execute these arrest warrants. 0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:40.440 So Putin knows as long as he's in Russia or 0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:44.400 in a territory that Russia controls, then he's not going 0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:46.919 to be arrested. So it may look like he is 0:02:47.120 --> 0:02:51.680 being defiant in a significant way by leaving Russia, but 0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:54.399 he knew that he wasn't going to risk arrest, so 0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:56.760 it's kind of a weak act of defiance if it 0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.680 is an active defiance at all. Describe the warrant for 0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:03.119 us what it accuses him and another Russian official love. 0:03:03.480 --> 0:03:08.080 So it accuses Putin and Maria Levova Belova of the 0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:13.160 war crime of unlawfully deporting and transporting children from occupied 0:03:13.280 --> 0:03:17.480 Ukraine into Russia. It's illegal under international law and under 0:03:17.520 --> 0:03:20.680 the laws of war for an occupying power, in this 0:03:20.720 --> 0:03:25.359 case Russia, to deport the local population or to transfer 0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:30.840 that local population from where they are originally to another place, 0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:35.040 either within Ukraine or to Russia. The specifics of this 0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:38.120 alleged that they are working on have been working on 0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:43.920 a program of illegally transporting children from occupied Ukraine into Russia. 0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:46.560 And so this is a war crime, and it can 0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:50.320 also be charged as a way to commit genocide, but 0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:54.600 in this instance it was charged as two separate war crimes. 0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:58.320 It's essentially the same conduct, just charged under two different 0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:03.000 provisions of the ICC Statute. I think it's significant that 0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:05.520 it's charged as a war crime and not as a 0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:10.040 way to commit genocide, because war crimes in this instance, 0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:15.200 at least, are somewhat more straightforward charge. The prosecution would 0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:17.799 have to show that these acts occurred, so the transfer 0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:20.600 of children, and I think there's substantial evidence of that, 0:04:21.320 --> 0:04:24.000 and that it's taken place in the context of an 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:28.039 armed conflict, which is also pretty straightforward. For genocide. To 0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:31.159 charge these same conduct as genocide, the prosecution would have 0:04:31.200 --> 0:04:33.880 to show that this was done with an intent to 0:04:34.080 --> 0:04:38.200 destroy in whole or in part the Ukrainian people, and 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.159 I think that's the law has evolved in a way 0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:44.719 to make that a somewhat more difficult proposition. Are these 0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:49.160 children who are orphans or were they taken from their parents? 0:04:49.440 --> 0:04:52.200 Do we know, like what children he's taken to Russia? 0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:54.600 We don't, or at least I don't. There has been 0:04:54.680 --> 0:04:59.279 some good documentation of this from non governmental organizations. Columbia 0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:02.640 Universe City has some investigation of this, and some other 0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:06.880 non governmental organizations have and it appears, at least from 0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:09.839 the reporting that I've seen, and again is not something 0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:12.839 I've looked at on the ground. Is that some of 0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:15.840 these children may be orphans, Some maybe children who have 0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:19.240 been separated from their parents during the war, and some 0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:23.400 are children who have and know the whereabouts that their parents. 0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:26.280 So Russia has kind of tried to argue that this 0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:31.200 is a humanitarian endeavor, so they're moving orphans from Ukraine 0:05:31.240 --> 0:05:34.279 to Russia to be adopted. I think by charging this 0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:36.359 as a war crime, this is a way for the 0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:40.600 International Criminal Court to signal that no, this is not 0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:45.120 a humanitarian project that Russia's engaged in. This is a 0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:49.360 war crime, pure and simple, against the most vulnerable people 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.200 in times of war, and that is children. You mentioned 0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:57.400 the charges are narrow and conservative. Deporting civilians is an 0:05:57.520 --> 0:06:01.320 established war crime. So do you think I did it 0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:06.159 that way deliberately to make it straightforward and easier to 0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:09.080 win if it ever does go to court. I do, 0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:11.600 And I'm not sure about the easier to win part, 0:06:11.640 --> 0:06:16.039 But I think THEE shows these initial charges deliberately for 0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:19.640 a couple of reasons. One is the lead defendant is putin. 0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:24.040 He's at the very top of the power structure in Russia, obviously, 0:06:24.080 --> 0:06:27.280 and he's the reason that the war is happening. He's 0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:31.159 the one who initiated the war, so he has significant power, 0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:33.719 almost complete control over whether there's going to be a 0:06:33.760 --> 0:06:36.039 war and what the world will look like. So they're 0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:39.040 really going after the very top of the power structure, 0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:41.720 and this charge goes after the top of the power 0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:45.560 structure while also taking into account of harmstune to the 0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:49.479 most vulnerable people. So by going after the most powerful 0:06:49.560 --> 0:06:54.560 person and by accounting for the most vulnerable victim, I 0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:57.880 think this sends a really important symbolic message from the 0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:02.800 ICC that they're investingation has been really thorough. It's determined 0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:06.479 that putin and the logo that there's reasonable grounds to 0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:12.360 believe that they're criminally responsible for these actions and that 0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:14.480 these are the most vulnerable victims. So I think the 0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:18.680 SEC is trying to fulfill its mission to hold accountable 0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:23.040 the people who are most responsible for international atrocity crimes. 0:07:23.800 --> 0:07:29.360 Russia Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakarova called the document legally worthless. 0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:33.000 Decisions of the International Criminal Court have no value for 0:07:33.120 --> 0:07:36.480 our country, in particular from a legal point of view. 0:07:37.120 --> 0:07:40.760 I mean that is true, and the United States hasn't 0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:45.520 recognized the ICC, So how does that play into it. 0:07:46.040 --> 0:07:48.840 I think that's a good question as to whether the 0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:52.200 fact that Russia is not a member state of the ICEC, 0:07:52.480 --> 0:07:55.960 not a party to the Rome Statute, whether that means anything. 0:07:56.000 --> 0:07:58.400 So I think in this case it's a little more 0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:02.600 complicated than saying this is legally irrelevant. First of all, 0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:05.400 if Putin travels to a country that's a member state 0:08:05.440 --> 0:08:08.440 of the ICC, and that country is willing to fulfill 0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:11.680 his duty, and that is to arrest Putin, to execute 0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:16.320 the icec's arrest warrant, then the Foreign Ministry spokesperson may 0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:18.960 think that this has no power, but they will have 0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:21.800 real power if he's arrested. I don't think that's likely, 0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:25.000 it's certainly in the short to medium term, but it's 0:08:25.040 --> 0:08:28.720 possible later on. It's also possible that it's unlikely that 0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:32.120 Putin will be president of Russia forever, so I think 0:08:32.320 --> 0:08:36.360 after he's out of power, that may have some practical effect. 0:08:36.640 --> 0:08:40.559 I think also the way the law works has effects 0:08:40.559 --> 0:08:44.360 beyond just the immediate execution of the arrest warrant. So 0:08:44.480 --> 0:08:47.440 someone who's subject to an arrest warrant to travel is limited. 0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:51.520 Their trading partners are going to be more hesitant. This 0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:55.560 may have effect domestically within Russia and the Russian opposition, 0:08:55.840 --> 0:09:00.080 either the people in the streets or people who are 0:09:00.120 --> 0:09:03.840 have been so far allies or sort of tentative allies Putin. 0:09:04.240 --> 0:09:07.000 People with a lot of resources and power. They may 0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:11.640 decide doing business with an accused war criminal is too 0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:13.400 cost but we want to do business with the rest 0:09:13.440 --> 0:09:16.200 of the world. So I think it because there's the 0:09:16.320 --> 0:09:20.400 likelihood that this will have effects domestically, This can have 0:09:20.440 --> 0:09:23.559 effects in terms of Putin's travel. It's certainly not accurate 0:09:23.600 --> 0:09:27.080 to say this is irrelevant. It is true to say 0:09:27.320 --> 0:09:31.120 this arrest warrant will not be executed anytime soon, because 0:09:31.120 --> 0:09:35.559 Putin is unlikely to leave a safe territory until either 0:09:35.600 --> 0:09:38.880 the arrest warrant goes away or he's no longer president. 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:43.040 The ICEC has only indicted fifty two people. Have any 0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:47.880 of those indictments led to prosecutions trials? Yes, I sec 0:09:48.040 --> 0:09:52.560 has held the number of trials these trials, convictions, and 0:09:52.640 --> 0:09:56.680 in some cases acquittals. It's the robust system. It does 0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.840 work slowly, in part because look at the kinds of 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.280 cases it takes on. It takes on enormous cases that 0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:07.240 have just tremendous amounts of evidence. There's just a mountain 0:10:07.440 --> 0:10:11.600 of evidence that the prosecution has to go through. So yes, 0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:15.559 I SEC cases have led to prosecutions, have led to convictions. 0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:18.040 They've even led to guilty please in some cases, so 0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:20.480 there wasn't a trial, but there was a conviction and 0:10:20.679 --> 0:10:23.960 after the case, so when there is a prosecution that 0:10:24.080 --> 0:10:28.600 leads to conviction, then there's a reparations process, so the 0:10:28.640 --> 0:10:33.280 people accused can be held responsible for paying reparations or 0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:37.920 providing for reparations to victims. So the SEC has indicted 0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:41.560 fifty odd people in the number of convictions is relatively low, 0:10:41.760 --> 0:10:45.320 but compared to the magnitude of the cases, I think 0:10:45.320 --> 0:10:47.560 the work rate it certainly isn't what I or most 0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:50.600 people wish that it was, but I think it's fairly substantial. 0:10:51.000 --> 0:10:56.599 So I know that they indicted Gadafi during the Libyan uprising. 0:10:57.240 --> 0:11:02.559 Do these indictments ever lead to leaders changing their behavior? 0:11:03.320 --> 0:11:05.240 Yes and no. It's first of all, it's hard to 0:11:05.280 --> 0:11:07.840 stay for sure. So there have been two heads of 0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:11.720 state previously who were indicted, and so just to be clear, 0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:14.760 Putin has not been indicted so far. There's an arrest warrant, 0:11:14.800 --> 0:11:16.560 but not an indictment, so I don't want to misspeak. 0:11:16.640 --> 0:11:19.840 There've been two heads of state previously who were charged, 0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:22.719 and that was Lauren Bagbo from the Ivory Coast from 0:11:22.720 --> 0:11:27.640 an Albashir from Sudan, and Bagbo was eventually acquitted Albashir 0:11:27.840 --> 0:11:30.480 it took a long time for anything to happen. Other 0:11:30.640 --> 0:11:34.400 states refused to execute the arrest warrant, so that was 0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:37.400 it became a very politicized case. So the SEC and 0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:40.280 the SEC also for a while at charges against two 0:11:40.320 --> 0:11:43.840 men who became leaders in Kenya. But the icec's track 0:11:43.920 --> 0:11:46.800 record of going after heads of state, I think is 0:11:46.880 --> 0:11:48.959 not a long one, and it shouldn't be. We shouldn't 0:11:49.000 --> 0:11:51.920 expect heads of state to be committing international crimes. I 0:11:52.000 --> 0:11:54.360 think this case is unique, so I'm not sure how 0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:57.960 much the previous examples tell us. They tell us something 0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:00.640 about the legal status, but I don't know that they 0:12:00.679 --> 0:12:03.920 help us predict how this will turn out. The lead 0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:06.679 lawyer for the government of Ukraine, Ben Emerson, has said 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.800 that this arrest warrant is like a first shot in 0:12:10.960 --> 0:12:15.480 what could be a substantial indictment against Putin. Do you 0:12:15.559 --> 0:12:18.760 think he's correct? I do My read is that the 0:12:18.960 --> 0:12:22.000 first step in what will be a series of charges 0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:25.800 against both Putin and other Russian officials, and so in 0:12:25.880 --> 0:12:29.480 the future I would expect to see indictments for several things. 0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:32.679 So I think there is substantial evidence. There's the overwhelming 0:12:32.720 --> 0:12:37.200 evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, 0:12:37.320 --> 0:12:39.160 and as a lawyer, I can't say for sure these 0:12:39.200 --> 0:12:41.520 have been entirely proven. So we've seen all the evidence 0:12:41.559 --> 0:12:44.360 and the defenses presented. But based on the news reporting, 0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:47.400 there looks like there's substantial evidence of war crimes for 0:12:47.640 --> 0:12:51.880 targeting civilian and killing civilians. The separate war crimes for 0:12:52.360 --> 0:12:56.480 using weapons that are much too imprecise for the context. 0:12:56.800 --> 0:13:00.559 You can't use the weapons that cause wide indiscriminate destruction 0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:04.360 and populated areas even if you're not directly targeting civilians. 0:13:04.520 --> 0:13:06.960 There have been war crimes and crimes against humanity relating 0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:10.280 to sexual violence against women and girls, and for torture 0:13:10.400 --> 0:13:13.880 and mistreatment of civilians and captured soldiers. Plus I would 0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:17.240 expect see a number of war crimes and crimes against 0:13:17.320 --> 0:13:20.640 humanity indictment. It's not clear to me yet whether there 0:13:20.720 --> 0:13:25.520 will be charges of genocide, genocide requires proof of the 0:13:25.679 --> 0:13:28.880 intent to destroy and whole or in parts of Ukrainian people, 0:13:29.040 --> 0:13:31.480 and I think the way the law has evolved has 0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:34.880 made it complicated to prove that. I'm not saying that 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:38.200 that hasn't happened, but just that as the legal matter, 0:13:38.280 --> 0:13:41.040 it might be difficult. So my best guess is there 0:13:41.120 --> 0:13:44.640 will be more indictments, maybe many more indictments. I have 0:13:44.760 --> 0:13:47.360 no inside information, but I would expect to see those, 0:13:47.640 --> 0:13:49.559 I would say in the short to medium term. So 0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:52.760 in the next three to six months. Does this offer 0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:58.080 any hope of Ukrainian families getting their children back? I mean, 0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:00.839 could there be some kind of deal may or is 0:14:00.880 --> 0:14:04.439 that just not in the equation? My best guess is 0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:07.600 that it's not in the equation because it would require 0:14:07.760 --> 0:14:11.280 some acknowledgement by Russia that had done something wrong, and 0:14:11.400 --> 0:14:15.199 so far Putin has shown no inclination to acknowledge that 0:14:15.520 --> 0:14:18.000 any part of this is in any way wrong. These 0:14:18.040 --> 0:14:21.160 actions are clearly illegal, right from the build up to 0:14:21.240 --> 0:14:23.480 the invasion, to the invasion to the way that the 0:14:23.600 --> 0:14:26.800 war has been conducted. So the laws clearly on one side, 0:14:26.840 --> 0:14:29.600 and Putin is kind of describing a reality that just 0:14:29.800 --> 0:14:32.480 doesn't exist when he's arguing in favor of the war, 0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:36.360 so I wouldn't want to raise the hopes of people 0:14:36.440 --> 0:14:40.120 who are desperately looking for hope for their children back. 0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:43.320 There is one kind of small life of this that 0:14:43.480 --> 0:14:45.760 I think it hasn't gotten a lot of attention, and 0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:49.560 that is that unto the ICC rules, there's a little 0:14:49.640 --> 0:14:53.120 known provision in the ICC Statute that would allow the 0:14:53.280 --> 0:14:57.880 UN Security Council to suspend an ICC prosecution for twelve 0:14:58.000 --> 0:15:01.000 months in the interests of international He's in security and 0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:03.640 I'm not predicting this will happen, but I just want 0:15:03.680 --> 0:15:06.200 to describe it as a possibility, or note it as 0:15:06.240 --> 0:15:09.600 a possibility. So what that means is the Security Council 0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:13.560 could say, ICC stand down for twelve months, and we'll 0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:17.000 use this twelve months to negotiate a peaceful ends in 0:15:17.040 --> 0:15:20.440 the situation, or maybe negotiate the return of the children 0:15:20.880 --> 0:15:25.520 who have been illegally deported and illegally transferred to Russia. 0:15:26.040 --> 0:15:32.240 I'm curious to see whether any momentum develops behind that possibility. Again, 0:15:32.280 --> 0:15:34.840 I'm not predicting it, but I think that's the one 0:15:34.920 --> 0:15:38.040 place where I see at least the possibility that the 0:15:38.160 --> 0:15:42.000 indictment could lead to some kind of negotiation that could 0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:45.000 provide some hope. And I don't want to raise false hope, 0:15:45.280 --> 0:15:48.480 but I think that that's legally possible. And I'm curious 0:15:48.560 --> 0:15:51.360 to see whether any countries really want to step up 0:15:51.360 --> 0:15:53.560 and see if they can broke or something like that. 0:15:53.960 --> 0:15:56.600 That would be wonderful. And why isn't the US a 0:15:56.680 --> 0:16:01.360 member of the ICC? So when the SEC was being created, 0:16:01.480 --> 0:16:05.239 the US was an active participant in drafting the statute. 0:16:05.280 --> 0:16:08.040 So the US, both official negotiators and people who were 0:16:08.200 --> 0:16:12.080 Americans just working on the issues, had substantial influence on 0:16:12.200 --> 0:16:15.360 what the ICC statute looks like. There was a structure 0:16:15.480 --> 0:16:17.960 of the court and the crimes that are available in 0:16:18.080 --> 0:16:22.320 The Clinton administration wanted to join ICEC, or at least 0:16:22.360 --> 0:16:26.080 made some noise about joining the IEC, and then ultimately decided, 0:16:26.680 --> 0:16:29.720 And so the US is not a member of the 0:16:29.960 --> 0:16:32.560 International Criminal Court at this point, and I think it's 0:16:32.600 --> 0:16:36.200 unlikely that it ever will. I think the reason behind 0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:40.200 that is that there is at least some fear on 0:16:40.280 --> 0:16:43.640 the part of US officials that US service members or 0:16:43.720 --> 0:16:47.360 US forces could end up being targets of prosecution by 0:16:47.400 --> 0:16:52.320 the ICC. The SEC has investigated the situation in Afghanistan, 0:16:52.840 --> 0:16:55.760 and indicated that there were reasons to believe that parts 0:16:55.840 --> 0:17:00.840 of the US operations in Afghanistan violated the ICC statute. 0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:04.680 The defendants in those cases, they're not cases yet, but 0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:07.560 if they turned out to be indictments or a restaurants, 0:17:07.720 --> 0:17:11.680 those defendants would be US service members or US officials. 0:17:11.800 --> 0:17:14.960 So the US doesn't want to join the ICEC because 0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:17.920 it doesn't want to make that kind of thing any easier. 0:17:18.359 --> 0:17:22.200 And with respect to Ukraine, though the US has I 0:17:22.280 --> 0:17:26.280 think been more cooperative, more open to, and complementary of 0:17:26.440 --> 0:17:28.720 the ICC than it has been at any time in 0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:32.520 the recent past. Are there other areas for criminal charges 0:17:33.000 --> 0:17:36.720 from the ICC in the Ukrainian invasion? The treatment of 0:17:36.760 --> 0:17:39.720 women and girls in this conflict has been achis and 0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:42.359 this is the case in every conflict, and so I 0:17:42.440 --> 0:17:45.760 would be interested to see if there are cases that 0:17:45.880 --> 0:17:50.520 the ICEC pursues that specifically prioritize the harms that affect 0:17:50.600 --> 0:17:53.320 women and girls. And this is not a criticism of anyone, 0:17:53.560 --> 0:17:55.680 but I think we should all be paying more attention 0:17:55.920 --> 0:17:59.160 to the various ways that women and girls have been 0:17:59.520 --> 0:18:03.840 treated abominably, torture, crimes of sexual violence, and all manner 0:18:03.920 --> 0:18:06.600 of harm. So I think even though there has been 0:18:06.680 --> 0:18:09.520 reporting on this, if not enough, and we haven't really 0:18:09.600 --> 0:18:12.680 paid a close attention to that issue as we should. 0:18:12.840 --> 0:18:16.400 Those are substantial harms. They're still happening, and they should 0:18:16.480 --> 0:18:19.320 lead to criminal charges. Thanks for speaking to this, Patrick, 0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:22.840 that's Professor Patrick Keenan of the University of Illinois College 0:18:22.880 --> 0:18:28.000 of Law. David Boys is a prominent litigator known for 0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:32.119 national cases from Microsoft to Bush, Fee, Gore, and Boys 0:18:32.160 --> 0:18:35.959 has been representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims pro bono for more 0:18:36.040 --> 0:18:43.680 than a decade. These were girls who were procured, transported 0:18:43.720 --> 0:18:47.600 across kept line of state lines. This was as commercial 0:18:48.000 --> 0:18:50.960 a sex trafficking operation as you can imagine it. Now 0:18:51.040 --> 0:18:54.920 he's suing JP Morgan Chase on behalf of victim Jane Doe, 0:18:55.400 --> 0:19:00.119 accusing the bank of supporting Epstein's sex trafficking network. Ep 0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:04.200 Morgan has denied any knowledge of epstein sex trafficking, even 0:19:04.240 --> 0:19:07.639 though the bank, in turn has sued its former top executive, 0:19:07.760 --> 0:19:12.360 Jess Staley, accusing him of sexually assaulting one of Epstein's victims. 0:19:12.800 --> 0:19:16.560 Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eva Benny Morrison, Eva 0:19:16.600 --> 0:19:19.520 tell Us about the nub of the plaintiff's case. In 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:23.720 November last year, Jane Doe, who was a victim of 0:19:23.800 --> 0:19:28.399 Jeffrey Epstein, filed the lawsuit against JP Morgan, alleging at 0:19:28.440 --> 0:19:33.120 the bank facilitated and supported his sex trafficking network. Jane 0:19:33.160 --> 0:19:38.080 Doe alleges that by JP Morgan providing financial services to Epstein, 0:19:38.560 --> 0:19:41.680 it was part of his sex trafficking venture and it 0:19:41.880 --> 0:19:44.520 benefited from it as well. He had millions and millions 0:19:44.560 --> 0:19:47.680 of dollars moving through multiple accounts for the bank, which 0:19:47.680 --> 0:19:50.920 would have attracted high fees, which they say goes to 0:19:51.040 --> 0:19:55.439 the financial benefitsit element of this case. The lawyer behind 0:19:55.520 --> 0:20:01.120 this lawsuit is rather famous. David Boys. Tell us about him. 0:20:01.760 --> 0:20:04.640 David Boys is probably one of the most well known 0:20:05.080 --> 0:20:09.919 litigators in America. He has been a lawyer for fifty 0:20:10.000 --> 0:20:14.320 plus years. He's worked on some major cases, including the 0:20:14.480 --> 0:20:18.960 Microsoft antitrust case in the late nineties. He also has 0:20:19.160 --> 0:20:23.160 represented the victims of Jeffrey Epstein pro bono for more 0:20:23.359 --> 0:20:28.680 than a decade, and more controversially represented Harvey Weinstein and 0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:33.120 as the homes And. He's known for using hardball tactics 0:20:33.200 --> 0:20:36.400 no matter which side of the case he's on. Yes, 0:20:36.640 --> 0:20:40.680 he can be very aggressive, have a very aggressive sort 0:20:40.720 --> 0:20:44.480 of litigation style, which obviously has its supporters and its detractors. 0:20:45.320 --> 0:20:48.760 He really goes in hard in fighting for his clients. 0:20:49.000 --> 0:20:51.520 He's caught it a little bit of controversy, I guess 0:20:51.640 --> 0:20:54.439 for doing that, especially in the Harvey Weinstein case, when 0:20:54.520 --> 0:20:57.280 his firm signed off on a contract with a private 0:20:57.400 --> 0:21:00.399 investigator to look into some of the men who were 0:21:00.400 --> 0:21:03.080 coming forward making allegations about Weinstein and some of the 0:21:03.200 --> 0:21:05.400 journalists who were trying to report it. But I guess 0:21:05.440 --> 0:21:08.960 on the other side, he's had huge success in obtaining 0:21:09.359 --> 0:21:12.800 settlements for his clients and having some big wins in court, 0:21:13.480 --> 0:21:17.040 one of those against Prince Andrew. Explain how that came about, 0:21:17.520 --> 0:21:20.720 that's right. So this was part of the Epstein case. 0:21:21.200 --> 0:21:23.760 A victim of Jeffrey Epstein, a woman by the name 0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:27.960 of Virginia Dufray, was represented by Boys, and she alleged 0:21:28.040 --> 0:21:31.120 that Prince Andrew was one of the men who sexually 0:21:31.160 --> 0:21:35.440 assaulted her when she was working with Epstein. Epstein and 0:21:35.600 --> 0:21:40.760 Prince Andrew were friends, so on behalf of Virginia Boys 0:21:41.119 --> 0:21:45.040 sued Prince Andrew and that settled out of court. Last year, 0:21:45.240 --> 0:21:48.240 just before Prince Andrew was meant to be deposed about 0:21:48.320 --> 0:21:52.639 what he knew about Epstein's trafficking. JP Morgan is asking 0:21:52.760 --> 0:21:55.399 a federal judge to throw out the case. What are 0:21:55.440 --> 0:21:59.920 its arguments? JP Morgan says that Jane Doe hasn't propped 0:22:00.680 --> 0:22:03.560 shown that the bank knew or should have known, what 0:22:03.760 --> 0:22:07.240 Epstein was doing in terms of sex trafficking. Epstein was 0:22:07.280 --> 0:22:10.720 a client of JP Morgan between the late nineties. In 0:22:10.760 --> 0:22:13.720 two and thirteen, when the bank cut ties with him, 0:22:14.000 --> 0:22:16.639 Jane Doe was essentially saying that if they didn't have 0:22:16.800 --> 0:22:19.119 direct knowledge, then they ought to have known because there 0:22:19.160 --> 0:22:22.000 were so many red flags. Much of Jane Doo's case 0:22:22.160 --> 0:22:25.520 is centered around the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and a 0:22:25.600 --> 0:22:28.280 former executive at the bank, a man named Jeff Daley. 0:22:28.680 --> 0:22:31.880 There has been a lot of emails and details come 0:22:31.920 --> 0:22:35.879 out about how strong their friendship was, and it hasn't 0:22:35.880 --> 0:22:38.960 reflected very well on Jeff Daley. JP Morgan has tried 0:22:39.000 --> 0:22:42.320 to say, yes, some of the conversations that he had 0:22:42.359 --> 0:22:45.040 on his work email with Epstein wit inappropriate, but they 0:22:45.160 --> 0:22:48.399 fell outside the scope of his employment, so they cannot 0:22:48.440 --> 0:22:51.119 be held responsible and as a bank, they didn't have 0:22:51.200 --> 0:22:54.440 a duty to non customers, meaning Jane Doo, and the 0:22:54.520 --> 0:22:59.240 bank went from defending Staley to suing Staley. Yes. Initially, 0:22:59.280 --> 0:23:02.840 when this laws it was filed, JP Morgan had said 0:23:02.960 --> 0:23:07.440 that the allegations made against Daily were speculatives essentially and 0:23:07.600 --> 0:23:11.840 not properly supported by fats. That strategy change earlier this 0:23:12.040 --> 0:23:15.959 month when the bank actually filed its own lawsuit against 0:23:16.040 --> 0:23:19.600 Jess Daily, saying that if damages are awarded against the bank, 0:23:19.720 --> 0:23:22.240 that he should be held liable for them. The banks 0:23:22.320 --> 0:23:25.040 also going after him to try and call back more 0:23:25.080 --> 0:23:27.520 than eighty million dollars it paid him during his time 0:23:27.600 --> 0:23:31.040 at JP Morgan, alleging that he was disloyal to the 0:23:31.119 --> 0:23:33.960 bank and he vouched for Epstein when they were trying 0:23:34.000 --> 0:23:36.040 to decide whether to keep him an honors a client 0:23:36.280 --> 0:23:40.520 and over his faithless service. How strong are the bank's arguments? 0:23:40.760 --> 0:23:43.640 How strong is its defense? I interviewed a few legal 0:23:43.760 --> 0:23:47.840 experts who said that the bank's defense was pretty strong 0:23:47.960 --> 0:23:50.560 and they did make some solid arguments. There is a 0:23:50.600 --> 0:23:53.960 lot of case law around who the banks have a 0:23:54.080 --> 0:23:56.960 duty too, and some of that law has found that 0:23:57.280 --> 0:24:00.240 banks don't have a duty to non customers or heart 0:24:00.280 --> 0:24:03.520 be held responsible for the actions of their clients. So 0:24:03.840 --> 0:24:07.359 that's something that certainly works in JP Morgan's favor. Another 0:24:07.440 --> 0:24:12.720 massive hurdle for Jane Doe is trying to prove that 0:24:13.080 --> 0:24:18.480 what Staley knew about Epstein sex trafficking, JP Morgan knew, 0:24:18.920 --> 0:24:21.040 and that's sort of an extra step and that's going 0:24:21.080 --> 0:24:23.119 to be a bit of a challenge. But a couple 0:24:23.160 --> 0:24:26.280 of the legal experts said, what's unusual about this case 0:24:26.359 --> 0:24:29.560 compared to other sex trafficking civil cases is that there 0:24:29.800 --> 0:24:33.119 is a lad of evidence and material suggesting that the 0:24:33.240 --> 0:24:36.680