A Miami judge said cruise lines violated the ban on Cuba tourism. Read her reasons here.
A Miami federal judge said cruises to Cuba violated the ban on tourism and “trafficked” in property that had been confiscated by the Cuban government by carrying passengers and docking at the Havana port in a ruling released Monday.
The port facilities had been confiscated after Fidel Castro came to power and Havana Docks, an American company that had a concession to develop and exploit some of the port piers, was never compensated.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom methodically dismantled several defense arguments presented in court by the lawyers for Carnival, Norwegian, MSC Cruises and Royal Caribbean, in a ruling that could set a precedent for similar cases.
Here are some of her main arguments in the 168-page document.
On tourism and “lawful travel”
- The four companies’ cruises to Cuba “constituted tourist activities and not proper people-to-people activities, paying millions of dollars to the Cuban Government to engage in impermissible travel.” Based upon “the undisputed facts,” the judge wrote, the cruise lines “did not engage in lawful travel to Cuba” under the Helms-Burton law Congress passed in 1996.
The fact that the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury Department gave out “licenses for traveling to Cuba, and Executive Branch officials, including the President, encouraged Defendants to do so, does not automatically immunize Defendants from liability if they engaged in statutorily prohibited tourism.”
“Consistent with the strict statutory ban on tourism in Cuba, the [Treasury Department] regulations were aimed at ensuring that people did not travel to Cuba under the guise of people-of-people exchanges, when in reality, such travel was disguised tourism.”
On trafficking in confiscated property
- “By using the [Havana Docks] Terminal and one of its piers in various ways, Carnival, MSC SA, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian committed trafficking acts.”
“Defendants’ use of the Terminal and commercial contracts with Cuban entities constituted ‘engag[ing] in a commercial activity’” under the Helms-Burton Act.
On excursions organized by Cuban agencies Havanatur and Cubanacan
“The record evidence establishes that Defendants’ activities were outside the regulation’s dictates of people-to-people exchanges and thus, interpreted people-to-people travel impermissibly broad. The record reveals that the Defendants engaged in tourism expressly prohibited” by U.S. law.
- “Carnival admits that its night excursions — Tropicana Cabaret: Rhythms of the Night, Parisien Cabaret at Hotel Nacional, El Cañonazo: An Evening Out in Havana, and Buenavista Social Club at Havana Cafe — did not constitute people-to-people travel.”
“The descriptions of the evening excursions support the conclusion that the excursions constituted tourism. The Tropicana Cabaret, ‘Cuba’s largest nightclub,’ involved guests watching a ‘Vegas-style extravaganza’ with ‘a welcome drink, plus ¼ bottle of rum with mixers.’ The Parisien Cabaret likewise involved a show and drinks. And El Cañonazo was a sightseeing and photo tour through Havana landmarks, ending with a ‘cannon ceremony’ at a former Spanish fortress. None of these evening tours involved ‘a full-time schedule of activities intended to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities,’ or that result[ed] in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba.’ The excursions centered around watching shows, visiting landmarks, and taking photos— ’primarily tourist-oriented´activities.”
On payments to the Cuban government
- “One of ‘the purposes behind the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations’ is ‘[t]o deny to Cuba or its nationals hard currency which might be used to promote activities inimical to the interests of the United States.’ Yet Carnival paid more than $18 million to Cuban Government-owned and controlled entities to use the Terminal. Carnival never made any payments in Cuba to anyone or any entity that was not affiliated with the Cuban Government.” None of the other cruise lines did so, she wrote.
On engaging in “trafficking” acts “knowingly and intentionally”
- “Defendants are liable under [Helms-Burton] if they ‘knowingly and intentionally’ engaged in trafficking acts.´Here, the undisputed facts show that Defendants continued using the Terminal after gaining actual knowledge of the Certified Claim. It is also undisputed that Defendants had reason to know of the Certified Claim long before cruise operators started traveling to Havana. The Certified Claim has been a matter of public record since 1971.”
You can read the whole document here
This story was originally published March 22, 2022 at 12:53 PM.