> The Italian bank says A/I’s account showed no previous anti-money-laundering concerns—but fears U.S. secondary sanctions could endanger services for 130,000 customers and members.

> Banca Etica strongly condemns the use of counterterrorism tools to target political opponents. Evaluations are underway to prevent the closure of the bank account following A/I's inclusion on the US list of terrorist organizations.

This isn't the usual debanking as a political statement, but rather the bank trying not to be sanctioned by the US, a country already bleeding all its soft power and veering heavily into hard power and coercion.

The sanctioning of the ICC prosecutor already showed beyond any doubt the level of moral bankruptcy. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

▲

impossiblefork 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.

They can order anyone who impedes them seized and handed over for judgement to the ICC, including bank CEOs and the like participating in retaliatory measures against them. They haven't done this, presumably for political reasons, but they can.

▲

graemep 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Anyone can order anyone to do anything. What matters is whether you have the power to enforce it. If a court in my country orders me to do something and I do not I will be fined or imprisoned. What can the ICC do? Countries are not going to arrest bank CEOs for something they are forced to do by the US.

▲

adg001 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would be good if they could, but the U.S. never consented to the court's authority, and the U.S. government maintains that the ICC has no jurisdiction over American citizens or personnel. We are living a multi-tier world, where there are entities that can be held accountable, and others not so.

▲

ithkuil an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They haven't done it because their power would collapse if they try to do something and be ineffective at it.

▲

rendx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sources? When I look at the law and their mandate, it sure looks like they can't. That's not part of their soft powers. They can excusively go after a very narrow band of criminal acts.

	▲	impossiblefork 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Article 70 - Offences against the administration of justice Offences against the administration of justice [...] (c) Corruptly influencing a witness, obstructing or interfering with the attendance or testimony of a witness, retaliating against a witness for giving testimony or destroying, tampering with or interfering with the collection of evidence; (d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; (e) Retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official;" So I'd say 70 (e) covers the sanctions imposed on those court officials. They are clearly officials of the court, and the sanctions are clearly part of retaliation against them. Consequently it stands to reason that anyone who participates in their enforcement or drafting or really in any way can in principle be prosecuted.

▲

buran77 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.

That's irrelevant and unrealistic in this case. None of this factored into the US reaching for the sanctions hammer with more and more despicable intentions, like supporting war crimes even of other countries.

▲

mdp2021 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The sanctioning of the

An informative note: Banca Etica did protest against that.

▲

candlewaxchewer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]