[JURIST] The New York Office of the Attorney General [official website] on Wednesday filed civil charges [complaint] against Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website], former CEO Ken Lewis, and former CFO Joseph Price, alleging that the bank misled investors in order to acquire financial firm Merrill Lynch [corporate website]. The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch had significant losses in the months leading up to a shareholder vote on the merger and that Lewis and Price violated the New York Martin Act [WLF backgrounder, PDF] because they knew of the losses but failed to disclose them to shareholders before the vote. The complaint criticized BOA and its executives, stating:

This merger has, in many ways, become a classic example of how the modus operandi of our nation's largest financial institutions led to the near collapse of our financial system. ... Ultimately, this was an enormous fraud on taxpayers who ended up paying billions for BOA's misdeeds. Throughout this episode, the conduct of Bank of America, through its top management, was motivated by self-interest, greed, hubris, and a palpable sense that the normal rules of fair play did not apply to them. Bank of America's management thought of itself as too big to play by the rules and, just as disturbingly, too big to tell the truth.

[JURIST] A Spanish Supreme Court [official website] judge ruled on Thursday that National Court judge Baltasar Garzon [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] may have exceeded his jurisdictional authority when he launched an investigation [JURIST report] into war crimes allegedly committed under Francisco Franco [BBC backgrounder] during the Spanish Civil War [LOC backgrounder]. In October 2008, Garzon ordered the exhumation of 19 mass graves in Spain, and ordered government agencies and the mayors of four cities to produce the names of people buried in mass graves in order to assemble a definitive national registry, despite a 1977 amnesty law. The Supreme Court allowed the investigation [JURIST report] into Garzon's actions as a result of a complaint filed by Manos Limpias [group website, in Spanish], a union of public servants in Spain, which alleged that Garzon acted without jurisdiction in violation of Penal Code Article 446 [text, in Spanish] when he began his probe into the crimes committed by the Franco regime. A five-judge panel of the Supreme court will now decide whether to uphold the court's ruling [El Pais report], which could lead to formal charges. If charged and convicted, Garzon could face disbarment. Garzon maintains that he acted within the bounds of the law and appropriately applied the law at all times.

Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Latin American dictator Augusto Pinochet [JURIST news archives]. Last week, Garzon announced he will begin an inquiry into the suspected torture and ill-treatment of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. The Obama administration has not responded to Garzon's questions regarding the open investigation of detainee abuses at the facility. Garzon's inquiry has focused on Spanish citizen and ex-Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Abderraman Hamed [CNN report], and three others whom Garzon has said have significant connections with Spain. The domestic focus is due to recently passed laws [JURIST report] that limit the use of universal jurisdiction to offenses committed by or against Spaniards, or where the perpetrators are in Spain.

[JURIST] The Italian Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Italian] approved a bill [materials, in Italian] Wednesday that would allow cabinet ministers, including Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], to postpone criminal proceedings against them on the grounds that they would interfere with official duties. The legislation, passed by a vote of 316-239 [Corriere Della Sera report, in Italian] with 40 members abstaining, would allow officials to suspend trials against them for up to 18 months by claiming a "legitimate impediment" to appearing in court. Critics contend that the legislation is specifically designed to protect Berlusconi [BBC report] from the prosecutions he faces, while supporters claim that it will modernize the country's judicial system. The bill now proceeds to the Senate [official website, in Italian] for consideration.

In January, hundreds of Italy's judges walked out of their courtrooms to protest the passage of legislation that placed strict time limits [JURIST reports] on the trial and appeals process. That bill was also criticized as being tailored for Berlusiconi's benefit and would result in the automatic dismissal of two pending corruption cases against him. Later that month, it was reported that Berlusconi could also face a third trial based on information that surfaced a week after judges postponed his trial [JURIST reports] at his lawyers' request. It was the trial's second delay since a 2008 law granting immunity to him and four others was struck down [JURIST reports] by the Italian Constitutional Court [official website, in Italian] in October. A tax fraud trial against Berlusconi was similarly postponed [JURIST report] last year. The leader has been previously acquitted of false accounting and bribery, and has had other charges against him dropped [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The president of China's Supreme People's Court [official website, in Chinese], Wang Shengjun [official profile, in Chinese], called Wednesday for increased efforts to fight corruption [Xinhua report] in the country's court system. While Shengjun noted that progress has been made, he said that efforts must continue to establish a system to prevent and punish instances of corruption in the courts. Chinese courts are under the control of the Communist Party of China (CPC) [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], which announced plans [JURIST report] in January to increase its oversight of the families of government officials to control corruption. The SPC also recently announced new anti-corruption regulations [Xinhua report; JURIST report] in an effort to increase public confidence in the rule of law.

Wang'g statements come two weeks after former SPC vice president Huang Sonyou was convicted [JURIST report] on bribery and embezzlement charges. Huang is the highest-ranking judge to be charged with corruption since the founding of the People's Republic of China. Between 2005 and 2008, Huang allegedly embezzled 3.9 million yuan (about $574,000 USD) while serving as vice president of the SPC. He also allegedly embezzled 1.2 million yuan (about $175,000 USD) while serving as president of the Intermediate People's Court of Zhanjiang in 1997.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] on Wednesday defended his decision to charge suspected terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], the so-called Christmas Day bomber, in US federal court. Holder, who has resisted calls from high-level Republicans [AP Report] to try Abdulmutallab in front of a military tribunal, said that the civilian criminal justice system was capable of handling his trial. In a letter [text, PDF] to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) [official website], Holder cited longstanding government policy, first initiated under former president George W. Bush, that suspects apprehended on US soil are tried in civilian court. Holder also defended his decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda warnings as consistent with FBI policy on custodial interrogations. He said:

The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court, and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent with the long-established and publicly known policies and practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and practices, which were not criticized when employed by previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely effective in protecting national security. They are among the many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win the war against al-Qaeda.

I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal criminal law.

[JURIST] A jury in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on Wednesday convicted Aafia Siddiqui [JURIST news archive], a Pakistani woman with alleged ties to al Qaeda, on charges of attempting to murder US personnel at the Afghan facility where she was being held. Prosecutors claimed [indictment, PDF] that while in US custody in Afghanistan, Siddiqui lunged for and grabbed an unsecured M-4 rifle and opened fire on her captors. US personnel returned fire, injuring Siddiqui. Siddiqui denies both handling the weapon and attacking the personnel. In addition to two counts of attempted murder [AP report], the jury found Siddiqui guilty of armed assault against US officers and employees, using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and assault against US officers and employees. The jury found that the attempted murders were not premeditated. Neither Siddiqui nor her lawyers have announced whether they will appeal the verdict. Sentencing is scheduled for May 6.

Siddiqui had to be removed from court [JURIST report] when her trial began last month because she began screaming and protesting her innocence as the trial opened. Siddiqui underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was judged fit to stand trial [JURIST report] in July. Siddiqui, who was extradited to the US in August of 2008, was shot in the abdomen during the July skirmish leading to her charges. She has since refused proper medical care as well as communication with her legal counsel. Siddiqui's family has insisted that she is not an al Qaeda agent and that the FBI has publicized misleading information about her. They say that Siddiqui, a former student at Brandeis University and MIT in Boston, may have been a victim of extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] after she vanished from Karachi, Pakistan in 2003. Defense lawyers have alleged that Siddiqui may have been wrongly detained and tortured [Washington Post report] at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Siddiqui was taken into custody in July 2008 after she was found loitering outside a provincial governor's compound with suspicious items in her handbag.

[JURIST] An Amsterdam trial court ruled [judgment, in Dutch; press release, in Dutch] Wednesday that it has jurisdiction to try right-wing politician Geert Wilders [personal website, in Dutch] for statements against Islam. The court rejected [Reuters report] Wilders's claim that he should be tried by the Supreme Court as a member of parliament, finding that Wilders's alleged crime was committed outside his capacity as an MP. The court also rejected all but three [Dutch News report] of the 18 witnesses Wilders had planned to call. The court will hear the three remaining witnesses, all of whom are experts on Islam, without the jury present. Wilders had hoped to defend his criticisms of Islam and show its dangers by calling to the stand Islamic extremists including Muhammed Bouyeri [JURIST news archive], who is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murdering Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. Wilders's trial is expected to begin June 1.

Last month, the court refused a motion [JURIST report] to drop or dismiss the charges against Wilders. In September, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) [official website, in Dutch] announced that they would prosecute Wilders following a January 2009 court order [press releases, in Dutch] by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals. This decision came after the OM announced in June 2008 that it would not prosecute Wilders [JURIST report]. Much of the controversy stems from Wilders' 15-minute film, Fitna, which shows images of the Quran alongside images of violence and says democratic values are threatened by the increasing number of Muslims in Europe. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the film "offensively anti-Islamic" [JURIST report] after its release. In February 2008, Pakistan blocked access to YouTube's website because it had posted a movie trailer for Wilders' film, but access was restored [JURIST reports] several days later. Indonesia followed suit [JURIST report] in April 2008. The same month, a district court in the Netherlands rejected [JURIST report] a bid by the Dutch Islamic Federation to block Wilders' anti-Quran statements, saying that his comments are protected by the right of free expression and do not constitute speech that incites hate or violence.