Author: Poblete Tamargo LLP

Background

After the 1959 Cuban revolution the government of Cuba confiscated properties from American citizens and others. To date, this remains the largest confiscation of American property by any foreign government in history.  The confiscations took place under the color of law, some were confiscated with the use of force and violence. The Cuban government has refused to compensate the former owners of the property in violation of Cuban law and international law.

The Helms-Burton law was enacted to, in part, “protect United States nationals against confiscatory takings and the wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by Cuba.” This law provides American citizens with a legal tool to defend their property rights in relation to claims arising from the confiscation of their real and personal property in Cuba. This remedy, the filing of a Helms-Burton Title III lawsuit, has not been available to U.S. citizens because it has been waived by every President since it was enacted into law in 1996.

The Helms-Burton law has two sections or titles, Title III and Title IV, which are specially designed to defend property rights of U.S. persons with a claim, either certified or uncertified, against Cuba. Title III allows American citizens to file lawsuits in U.S. courts against a corporation, the Cuban government, or other persons trafficking in property that is the subject of a certified claim or an uncertified claim. Title IV is an administrative tool that is administered by the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis which denies U.S. visas to those who traffic in such property.

Request for Records & FOIA Lawsuit

PobleteTamargo Attorneys and Public Policy professionals have decades of experience handling international claims. In the case of Cuba, one of the firm’s attorneys helped draft the Helms-Burton law. The firm is exploring every possible tool to assist clients in settling claims. Filed in fall 2018, the lawsuit aims to raise awareness of US-Cuba claims among interested parties, including fellow lawyers, policymakers, scholars, and the media. The Complaint is attached below.

Poblete Tamargo v Dep’t… by on Scribd

Nearly 60 years ago, American’s living in Cuba were forced to flee the island as Fidel Castro took power and began expropriating property. They left Cuba with the notion that they were not abandoning their homes and property, and had every intention of returning to the island in the near future. The new regime was quick to criminalize those that were forced to flee the island and declared that any property left behind was now owned by the Cuban government.

Decades later, possessions that were left behind during the Castro revolution are turning up in the United States as stolen heirlooms are being sold to the highest bidder.

In an article from The Miami Herald, PobleteTamargo attorney Jason Poblete discusses the difference between confiscated and abandoned properties, a necessary clarification in establishing ownership, that can be legally uncertain based on Cuba’s definition of abandoned property, which is not internationally recognized.

“That’s the Nazis’ defense, which frustrated efforts to win justice for many years … and has been used by communist governments but is not recognized in international law,” said Jason Poblete, an expert on U.S. sanctions on Cuba who has represented clients whose properties were confiscated.

Poblete goes on to express the importance in discussing questions about property and ownership in the Cuba of the Future.

“In a transition process, these are questions that must be raised. What was done in 1959 must be studied,” he said. “Sadly, what is happening now is a black market on Cuban art, for example. Very valuable pieces are being trafficked. This is part of a discussion that must take place when we talk about ‘transitional justice.’ ”

The Miami Herald article found below was originally published on May 3, and can be found here.