Stoutt v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
320 F.3d 26 (2003)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Palmer Stoutt (plaintiff) engaged in a financial transaction that his bank, the Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (bank) (defendant) allegedly suggested. The transaction involved Stoutt presenting a check that he knew was drawn on an account with insufficient funds. The transaction left Stoutt with a $300,000 overdraft on his account with the bank. The bank filed a Report of Apparent Crime with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which arrested Stoutt for money laundering and check kiting, but prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges. Stoutt then sued the bank. The bank pleaded the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act’s safe-harbor provision as an affirmative defense. The district court granted summary judgment to the bank. Stoutt appealed, arguing that (1) even if the bank’s initial report to the FBI was immunized by the act, the bank’s follow-up discussions with the FBI were outside the act’s safe harbor and (2) the bank was not entitled to the act’s safe harbor because it did not have a good-faith belief that Stoutt committed a crime in light of the fact that the bank itself allegedly suggested the transaction. Stoutt further contended that the bank’s government disclosures were malicious.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boudin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.