MOSCOW, Oct. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Despite the Russian Court's initial decision to deny the Russian Federal Customs Service request for a short continuance in its RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) case against The Bank of New York (NYSE: BK) where it is seeking $22.5 billion dollars, the court eventually reversed itself and issued a six week continuance.

Russia's complaint alleges violations of the U.S. RICO statute and is pending before the Russian Arbitrage Court in Moscow. This is the same venue that the Bank of New York requested for a similarly filed RICO case arising from the same $7.5 billion dollar money laundering activity. The U.S. Justice Department criminally investigated the Bank of New York ultimately obtaining the Bank of New York's acknowledgment of responsibility. The Bank of New York signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement in November of 2005.

Even though the Russian Court initially denied the continuance request and proceeded with some limited testimony, the Court's action demonstrates the degree to which it has provided the Bank of New York with due process and fairness, contrary to the Bank of New York's claims. In the past, the Bank of New York has requested and obtained similar scheduling accommodations resulting in far greater delays. In the event a judgment is ultimately obtained and enforcement actions follow, the Bank of New York will not be able to credibly challenge the result on the lack of due process or a fair tribunal.

In media statements, the Bank of New York stresses a recent 'correction' to the 2005 U.S. Attorney's office press release. Three years after its press release was issued, the U.S. Attorney's Office is now asserting that its previous statement in which it claimed that the Bank of New York had admitted criminal culpability was incorrect. While it is not surprising that the U.S. government would now issue such a correction in light of the economic crisis and current international relations, it may be alarming to some that it would assist the subject of a criminal investigation in a pending civil matter. Regardless, changing the press release has no legal effect or consequence to the case despite media reports to the contrary.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2008, and from the plaintiffs perspective it will be interesting to see if the Bank of New York will allow its experts to be subject to cross-examination given their vulnerability.

As to Richard Thornburgh's contention that the Non-Prosecution Agreement signed by the Bank of New York does not involve the admission of criminal culpability, he and/or his firm stated the following in an article written with his assistance: 'the Non-Prosecution Agreement relates to BNY's responsibility for crimes involving fraud and money laundering, as well as BNY's failure to comply with mandatory reporting obligations ... As part of the non-prosecution agreement, BNY agreed to ... admit to its criminal conduct.'

The Bank of New York has also contended, despite taking a contrary position in a related case pending in the United States, that RICO cannot be used by foreign courts. However, another one of the Bank of New York's experts who is now asserting this position, Gregory P. Joseph, previously stated in his RICO publication that 'some foreign courts' choice of law rules may permit or require application of RICO.' Mr. Joseph, a self-proclaimed expert on RICO, is currently working with the Bank of New York's counsel and in many instances has acted more as an advocate for the Bank of New York rather than as an independent expert.

As to Abner Mikva, who is also a hired expert for the Bank of New York, it is not surprising that he does not advocate the application of RICO given that he was one of a small minority who opposed the law's passage when he was in Congress. Despite his opposition to the bill, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the RICO statute which was written by Professor Robert Blakey who is acting as an expert in support of the Russian Government's case concerning its use of the RICO statute.

Since the Bank of New York will probably not want to subject its experts for cross-examination, the Russian Government may find it necessary to address the Bank of New York's unsupported testimony through the best and most relevant experts who not only include RICO's author Robert Blakey, but also Professor Alan Dershowitz, the prominent Harvard Law School Professor, and The Honorable George Pratt, who served as a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York and later as a distinguished Appellate Judge for the very influential U.S. Second Court of Appeals. Judge Pratt has already provided testimony that the Russian Government's case not only has legal merit, but also that summary judgment would be appropriate in the U.S. based upon the Bank of New York's admissions.

The Russian Federal Customs Service does not intend to address all of the Bank of New York's inaccurate statements, but it would like to clarify that despite assertions to the contrary, the Russian Federal Customs Service independently, carefully and thoughtfully considered the legitimacy of its claim against the Bank of New York and is confident it will prevail on the merits.

The case is currently scheduled to recommence on November 13, 2008 in Moscow.

For additional information on this matter, please visit www.russianbanksuit.com .

SOURCE Russian Federal Customs Service