Are blocked EFTs, originating with Iran, transferred into the U.S. by agents of Iran, and used to benefit its financial interests, immune from recovery by victims of terrorism and holders of TRIA judgments when the agent immediately sending the EFT is not itself an Iranian owned bank entity?

QUESTION PRESENTED CNN bureau chief, Jeremy Levin, was abducted by Tranian agents of Hezbollah in Beirut, Lebanon in the 1980s. Mr. Levin was held hostage, starved, and tortured, until his escape. Mr. Levin and his wife, Dr. Lucille Levin (the “Levins”), both octogenarians, have partially unsatisfied judgments against Iran under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) and seek to collect against Iranian assets in New York banks, including those made by electronic fund transfer (“EFT”). In 2017, the Levins sought to attach a blocked account that was the product of an Iranian EFT, processed through its correspondent bank in London. The District Court, affirmed by the Second Circuit, denied the Levins’ motion to supplement their complaint with this blocked asset, holding that EFTs are exempt from TRIA if Iran does not directly transfer the fund to the account, applying only state law, namely N.Y. U.C.C. section 4-A-503, and ignoring federal law, TRIA’s preemption clause, and N.Y. U.C.C. sections 4-A-402 and 4-A-501. In doing so, the Second Circuit has charted a path for terrorists to launder money using domestic and international banking systems in contravention of U.S. anti-terrorism law and in conflict with the D.C. Circuit. The Question for the Court is: Are blocked EFTs, originating with Iran, transferred into the U.S. by agents of Iran, and used to benefit its financial interests, immune from recovery by victims of terrorism and holders of TRIA judgments when the agent immediately sending the EFT is not itself an Iranian owned bank entity?