Judge orders foreign company to comply with grand jury subpoena in mystery case that has been linked to Mueller probe
- A federal appeals court panel issued a ruling against the unnamed company Tuesday
- The case is suspected to involve the special counsel and his Russia probe
- A D.C. courthouse shut down entire floor Friday during arguments in secret case
- Company is from ‘Country A’
- Facing escalating penalties for failure to comply
A federal appeals court panel ordered an unnamed company to comply with a subpoena Tuesday – in a case that has been connected to special counsel Robert Mueller.
The court ruled against the unnamed company in the sealed case, providing a win for prosecutors and upholding a lower court ruling.
The case has attracted attention, which peaked Friday when the judge ordered an entire floor of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals closed during a hearing in Washington.
The ruling publicized by the court does not confirm Mueller’s role, which has been suspected based in part on conversations heard around the courthouse.
A judge ruled against a company regarding a grand jury subpoena in a case that has been linked to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Prosectors prevailed in the case
An appeals court panel upheld a lower court judge’s ruling in Washington, D.C.
The order came on a day Mike Flynn appeared in court for sentencing for lying to the FBI
The company inside ‘Country A’ was claiming immunity from the subpoena under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, TPM reported.
But Judge Beryl Howell held that the company fell within an exception for commercial activities. Howell, who is overseeing the Mueller probe, held the company in contempt of court.
The judge also ordered the firm to pay a ‘fixed monetary penalty to increase each day the Corporation fails to comply.’
But the judge raised the possibility it would be hard to enforce – raising the possibility the company and the country are far afield and perhaps beyond lacking treaty obligations or other agreements where the U.S. could force compliance.
A three judge panel heard the case on appeal from a district court.
The judges did not resolve the company’s immunity claim in their ruling. During arguments, the company argued that the relevant statute didn’t apply to ‘foreign sovereign defendants.’