Trinh v. Citibank, N.A.

In July 1974, Quang Trinh opened a savings account for himself and his son, Ngoc Trinh (plaintiff), with the Saigon branch of Citibank, N.A. (defendant). The deposit agreement stated that (1) withdrawals would be permitted only in Saigon, (2) withdrawals were payable only in Vietnamese piastres, and (3) Citibank did not accept responsibility for losses due to government orders, laws, or other causes beyond its control. Citibank closed the Saigon branch on April 24, 1975, in advance of Saigon’s imminent fall to communist control. The South Vietnamese government fell on April 30, and on May 1, the new revolutionary government confiscated all banks. The revolutionary government subsequently announced that the reopened National Bank of Vietnam (National Bank) would oversee the possible return of deposits with private banks. Upon his 1980 release from a reeducation camp, Quang sent the Citibank account passbook to Ngoc in Michigan, who asked Citibank about the account. Citibank responded that the National Bank was responsible for the account. Ngoc sued Citibank. The district court ruled for Ngoc. Citibank appealed, arguing that the deposit agreement, as interpreted by Vietnamese law regarding force majeure, placed the risk of loss for any sovereign risk (as distinct from credit risk) on Ngoc and Quang rather than on Citibank’s home office.