Enforcing a Foreign Arbitration Award against a Foreign Party under RICO
Publications
May 2023
On April 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on whether a foreign plaintiff can state a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against a foreign defendant based on actions related to the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. The two consolidated cases are Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, No. 22-381, and CMB Monaco v. Smagin, No. 22-383.
The case stems from interesting facts. Vitaly Smagin, a Russian citizen, filed suit against Ashot Yegiazaryan, another Russian who fled to California more than a decade ago, among other defendants. The lawsuit alleged that Ashot and others defrauded Smagin in Russia. In 2010, Russian authorities criminally indicted Ashot and his brother Artem Yegiazaryan for the alleged fraud. Smagin also commenced a civil arbitration proceeding against Ashot in London, eventually securing a US $84 million arbitration award against Ashot.
Smagin sought to enforce his award in California but, according to him, Ashot schemed to hide assets through shell companies and move funds around to avoid paying the judgment. In 2020, the US District Court ordered Ashot and others acting on his behalf to “immediately cease all actions . . . that would prevent, hinder, or delay [Smagin’s] ability to collect”; the court also issued an order prohibiting Ashot from further modifying a trust or the administration of a bank account without court approval. The court later found Ashot in contempt for violating these orders.
Against this backdrop, Smagin filed the instant case, bringing two claims under RICO, on the basis that Ashot and the other defendants harmed the California judgment in Smagin’s favor. To have statutory standing, a civil RICO plaintiff must show that (1) his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property and (2) his harm was by reason of the RICO violation (requiring proximate causation). See Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 37 F.4th 562, 566 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 645 (2023), and cert. granted sub nom. CMB Monaco v. Smagin, 143 S. Ct. 646 (2023) (citations omitted). Further, under RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325 (2016), the plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury to his business or property. See id. at 566–67.
In considering the question of standing, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that, “for purposes of standing under RICO, the California Judgment exist[ed] as property in California.” Id. Thus, “the alleged harm to [Smagin’s] rights under the California Judgment constitute[d] a domestic injury.” Id. In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeal recognized it was deepening a circuit split, with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits on one side, and the Seventh Circuit on the other. See id. at 568.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court agree with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ approach, foreign parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitration awards in the US against reluctant parties sheltering their assets may have powerful new leverage -- the RICO statute allows recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. A decision is expected later this year.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
The case stems from interesting facts. Vitaly Smagin, a Russian citizen, filed suit against Ashot Yegiazaryan, another Russian who fled to California more than a decade ago, among other defendants. The lawsuit alleged that Ashot and others defrauded Smagin in Russia. In 2010, Russian authorities criminally indicted Ashot and his brother Artem Yegiazaryan for the alleged fraud. Smagin also commenced a civil arbitration proceeding against Ashot in London, eventually securing a US $84 million arbitration award against Ashot.
Smagin sought to enforce his award in California but, according to him, Ashot schemed to hide assets through shell companies and move funds around to avoid paying the judgment. In 2020, the US District Court ordered Ashot and others acting on his behalf to “immediately cease all actions . . . that would prevent, hinder, or delay [Smagin’s] ability to collect”; the court also issued an order prohibiting Ashot from further modifying a trust or the administration of a bank account without court approval. The court later found Ashot in contempt for violating these orders.
Against this backdrop, Smagin filed the instant case, bringing two claims under RICO, on the basis that Ashot and the other defendants harmed the California judgment in Smagin’s favor. To have statutory standing, a civil RICO plaintiff must show that (1) his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property and (2) his harm was by reason of the RICO violation (requiring proximate causation). See Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 37 F.4th 562, 566 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 645 (2023), and cert. granted sub nom. CMB Monaco v. Smagin, 143 S. Ct. 646 (2023) (citations omitted). Further, under RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325 (2016), the plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury to his business or property. See id. at 566–67.
In considering the question of standing, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that, “for purposes of standing under RICO, the California Judgment exist[ed] as property in California.” Id. Thus, “the alleged harm to [Smagin’s] rights under the California Judgment constitute[d] a domestic injury.” Id. In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeal recognized it was deepening a circuit split, with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits on one side, and the Seventh Circuit on the other. See id. at 568.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court agree with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ approach, foreign parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitration awards in the US against reluctant parties sheltering their assets may have powerful new leverage -- the RICO statute allows recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. A decision is expected later this year.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
May 2023
On April 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on whether a foreign plaintiff can state a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against a foreign defendant based on actions related to the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. The two consolidated cases are Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, No. 22-381, and CMB Monaco v. Smagin, No. 22-383.
The case stems from interesting facts. Vitaly Smagin, a Russian citizen, filed suit against Ashot Yegiazaryan, another Russian who fled to California more than a decade ago, among other defendants. The lawsuit alleged that Ashot and others defrauded Smagin in Russia. In 2010, Russian authorities criminally indicted Ashot and his brother Artem Yegiazaryan for the alleged fraud. Smagin also commenced a civil arbitration proceeding against Ashot in London, eventually securing a US $84 million arbitration award against Ashot.
Smagin sought to enforce his award in California but, according to him, Ashot schemed to hide assets through shell companies and move funds around to avoid paying the judgment. In 2020, the US District Court ordered Ashot and others acting on his behalf to “immediately cease all actions . . . that would prevent, hinder, or delay [Smagin’s] ability to collect”; the court also issued an order prohibiting Ashot from further modifying a trust or the administration of a bank account without court approval. The court later found Ashot in contempt for violating these orders.
Against this backdrop, Smagin filed the instant case, bringing two claims under RICO, on the basis that Ashot and the other defendants harmed the California judgment in Smagin’s favor. To have statutory standing, a civil RICO plaintiff must show that (1) his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property and (2) his harm was by reason of the RICO violation (requiring proximate causation). See Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 37 F.4th 562, 566 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 645 (2023), and cert. granted sub nom. CMB Monaco v. Smagin, 143 S. Ct. 646 (2023) (citations omitted). Further, under RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325 (2016), the plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury to his business or property. See id. at 566–67.
In considering the question of standing, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that, “for purposes of standing under RICO, the California Judgment exist[ed] as property in California.” Id. Thus, “the alleged harm to [Smagin’s] rights under the California Judgment constitute[d] a domestic injury.” Id. In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeal recognized it was deepening a circuit split, with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits on one side, and the Seventh Circuit on the other. See id. at 568.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court agree with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ approach, foreign parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitration awards in the US against reluctant parties sheltering their assets may have powerful new leverage -- the RICO statute allows recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. A decision is expected later this year.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
The case stems from interesting facts. Vitaly Smagin, a Russian citizen, filed suit against Ashot Yegiazaryan, another Russian who fled to California more than a decade ago, among other defendants. The lawsuit alleged that Ashot and others defrauded Smagin in Russia. In 2010, Russian authorities criminally indicted Ashot and his brother Artem Yegiazaryan for the alleged fraud. Smagin also commenced a civil arbitration proceeding against Ashot in London, eventually securing a US $84 million arbitration award against Ashot.
Smagin sought to enforce his award in California but, according to him, Ashot schemed to hide assets through shell companies and move funds around to avoid paying the judgment. In 2020, the US District Court ordered Ashot and others acting on his behalf to “immediately cease all actions . . . that would prevent, hinder, or delay [Smagin’s] ability to collect”; the court also issued an order prohibiting Ashot from further modifying a trust or the administration of a bank account without court approval. The court later found Ashot in contempt for violating these orders.
Against this backdrop, Smagin filed the instant case, bringing two claims under RICO, on the basis that Ashot and the other defendants harmed the California judgment in Smagin’s favor. To have statutory standing, a civil RICO plaintiff must show that (1) his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property and (2) his harm was by reason of the RICO violation (requiring proximate causation). See Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 37 F.4th 562, 566 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 645 (2023), and cert. granted sub nom. CMB Monaco v. Smagin, 143 S. Ct. 646 (2023) (citations omitted). Further, under RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325 (2016), the plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury to his business or property. See id. at 566–67.
In considering the question of standing, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that, “for purposes of standing under RICO, the California Judgment exist[ed] as property in California.” Id. Thus, “the alleged harm to [Smagin’s] rights under the California Judgment constitute[d] a domestic injury.” Id. In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeal recognized it was deepening a circuit split, with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits on one side, and the Seventh Circuit on the other. See id. at 568.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court agree with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ approach, foreign parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitration awards in the US against reluctant parties sheltering their assets may have powerful new leverage -- the RICO statute allows recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. A decision is expected later this year.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026