Liu v. Republic of China

Decision Date29 December 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-2976,87-2976
Citation892 F.2d 1419
PartiesHelen LIU, in her individual capacity, as heir and special administrator of the estate of Henry Liu, and as guardian ad litem for George Liu, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The REPUBLIC OF CHINA, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Gerard E. Harper and Arthur L. Liman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, Jerome Garchik, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Daniel K. Mayers and David Westin, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Thomas G. Corcoran, Jr., Corcoran, Youngman & Rowe, Washington, D.C., John S. Martel, Farella, Braun & Martel, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before HUG, TANG and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:

OVERVIEW

Two gunmen acting on orders of Admiral Wong Hsi-ling (Wong), Director of the Defense Intelligence Bureau (DIB) of the Republic of China (ROC), shot and killed Henry Liu in Daly City, California. Helen Liu (Liu), his widow, appeals the district court's dismissal of her complaint for damages against the ROC. Liu asserted claims against the ROC and various individuals for wrongful death under California law, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986 of the Civil Rights Acts. Because of the district court's concern with the act of state doctrine, it ordered Liu to file a motion for partial summary judgment relying solely on the findings of the ROC tribunals in criminal cases arising out of the murder. The district court held that the ROC could not be held vicariously liable under California law because Wong's act of ordering Henry Liu's assassination was outside the scope of his employment, and that the act of state doctrine precluded Liu from piercing the findings of the ROC tribunals.

We reverse and remand.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT

In her complaint Liu asserts that the ROC was involved in the conspiracy to kill Henry Liu. The ROC filed a motion based on the act of state doctrine to dismiss it as a party defendant. The district court denied this motion initially to give Liu a chance to establish that, based on the findings of the ROC courts, the ROC was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Liu v. Republic of China, 642 F.Supp. 297 (N.D.Cal.1986).

The district court denied Liu's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the ROC's motion to dismiss it as a party defendant on act of state grounds. The district court held that Wong's act was not incidental to his duties as Director of the DIB, or reasonably foreseeable to the ROC.

The district court also held that the act of state doctrine precluded an American court from piercing the findings of the ROC tribunals. The court found that the ROC decisions were "acts of state" because the judgments represented "an exercise of the ROC's jurisdiction to give effect to its public interests in assessing responsibility Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the district court entered a final judgment dismissing the ROC as a party defendant after finding that there was no just reason for delay. Liu filed a timely notice of appeal.

                for the murder."   Additionally, the district court held that the doctrine applied because the intrusive discovery necessary in this case would involve the judiciary in the most sensitive areas of a foreign nation's national security and intelligence affairs
                
FACTS

Liu was ordered by the district court to submit a motion for partial summary judgment limiting the facts to the findings of the ROC courts. Based on those findings it appears that the two gunmen, Wu Tun (Wu), and Tung Kuei-sen, (Tung), were members of the Chinese Bamboo Union Gang of criminals. Chen Chi-li, an alleged leader of the Bamboo Union Gang, recruited these two men to kill Henry Liu. 1 At this time, Chen Chi-li was working for the DIB, under its Director, Wong.

In May of 1984, Wong met Shuai Yueh-feng (Shuai), a member of the Bamboo Union Gang. Shuai told Wong that the gang had useful connections in the United States and Hong Kong, and could assist the DIB in extending its operations on the Chinese mainland. Shuai, however, recommended that Wong contact Chen Chi-li, the leader of the gang. Wong met Chen Chi-li at a party in July of 1984. Wong later invited Chen Chi-li and Shuai to a DIB guest house in August of 1984. At this meeting Chen Chi-li and Shuai agreed to work for the DIB.

At the same meeting, Chen Chi-li and Wong discussed Henry Liu. Wong complained about the Chinese people overseas who criticized the ROC after they had received favorable treatment in Taiwan. Wong used Henry Liu as an example of this type of "ungrateful" Chinese person. Chen Chi-li stated that such people should be "taught a lesson," and that he could be trusted with such an assignment. Wong agreed that Henry Liu should be "given a lesson" once the opportunity presented itself.

At the August meeting, Chen Chi-li and Shuai also requested intelligence training at the DIB's training center. Wong agreed and sent both men to the DIB's school for a four-day training session. Wong visited Chen Chi-li at the training center, and Chen Chi-li again brought up the subject of teaching Henry Liu a lesson. Chen Chi-li asked for background information on Liu, and Wong promised to send this information to him later.

In September of 1984, Wong ordered a subordinate, Hu Yi-men, to obtain the information file on Henry Liu from a department of the DIB. Wong directed Chen Hu-men, another subordinate, to deliver the file to Chen Chi-li, and appointed Chen Hu-men to be Chen Chi-li's and Shuai's DIB contact. Chen Chi-li and Shuai then went to the United States to assassinate Henry Liu. In September, Chen Chi-li and Shuai decided that any attempt on Liu while he was at work would be too dangerous due to police monitoring of a strike in the nearby area. Chen Chi-li reported this development to Chen Hu-men, and stated that Henry Liu would be taken care of later.

At the end of September Chen Chi-li recruited Wu and Tung to murder Liu. These plans were also relayed to Chen Hu-men and Wong by Shuai. On October 15, 1984, Chen Chi-li telephoned Chen Hu-men and informed him of Liu's murder by using these code words: "The deal is concluded; the effect will become clear tomorrow." Chen Chi-li, Wu, and Tung were ordered to return to Taiwan as soon as possible. The three men were met by Chen Hu-men at the airport in Taiwan on October 21, 1984. Three days later Chen Chi-li and Shuai attended another dinner at the DIB guest house. Chen Chi-li reported the murder to Wong, Chen Hu-men, and another DIB employee were convicted by ROC military courts of conspiracy for their part in the Henry Liu murder. The trial court issued an opinion, and on appeal, the Superior Appellate Review Court of the Ministry of National Defense affirmed the convictions in a published opinion. Chen Chi-li and Wu were convicted of homicide in separate proceedings before the civilian courts of the ROC. The trial court, the Taiwan High Court (the intermediate appellate court), and the Supreme Court of Taiwan all issued opinions in Chen Chi-li's and Wu's convictions.

Wong, and Wong offered him $20,000, which Chen Chi-li refused.

These courts never explicitly stated that no other ROC officials were involved. That finding is implicit, however, in the courts' decisions. One ROC court stated: "[w]hen the murder of Henry Liu proceeded to become a major story in both the Chinese and English-language press in the United States, Wong finally began to perceive the seriousness of the consequences; but he never had the courage to report the situation to his superiors." The courts stated that ROC officials discovered Wong's role in the murder only after Chen Chi-li, during an interrogation about an unrelated matter, implicated him and his subordinates.

Henry Liu was an historian and journalist who had published several articles critical of Taiwan's one-family rule. Some of these articles were consolidated into a book entitled The Biography of C.K. Chiang, which was banned in the ROC but otherwise published and distributed worldwide. The military trial court stated:

During the extended conversation [between Wong and Chen Chi-li], the topic shifted to overseas Chinese and their various activities in the United States, and Wong mentioned then that some people, once educated here and favorably treated in this country, frequently engaged in spoken and written attacks on the country; he [Wong] indicated that this was much to be regretted.

Wong Hsi-ling had learned [via a letter] from a friend, Hsia Hsiao-hue [Hsia], in June, that Henry Liu was not happy with him and would initiate some action detrimental to Wong. Because Wong was concerned with trying to prevent such action by Liu, he cited Liu as an illustration, specifically pointing out that Liu was such a man, educated here and favorably treated by the people of this country, but so ungrateful he frequently turned out writings that denigrated this government and smeared this country's image.

Thus apprised of Wong's dissatisfaction with Liu, Chen Chi-li now immediately echoed Wong's sentiment, declaring that, "This kind of person should be taught a lesson. I can be trusted with the assignment." Wong responded, "when the opportunity arises, he should be given a lesson."

Hsia's letter was destroyed, and the ROC courts never stated explicitly whether Liu's alleged grievance with Wong was based on his official performance or some other personal matter between the men.

Later in its opinion, however, the trial court stated: "[d]efendant Wong Hsi-ling, from the base of his personal impression of, and individual grudge against Henry Liu ... grossly misuse[d] his office to employ without seeking official...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 1 Septiembre 2011
    ...limit on courts,’ ” Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 707 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1431 (9th Cir.1989)), and a motion to dismiss based on the act of state doctrine is therefore properly considered under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule ......
  • Shamoun v. Republic Iraq
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 26 Febrero 2020
    ...over the claim." Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina , 965 F.2d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Liu v. Republic of China , 892 F.2d 1419, 1424 (9th Cir. 1989) ). "A federal court lacks subject[-]matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state unless the claim falls within a......
  • Doe v. Fed. Democratic Republic of Eth., Civil Action No. 14-372 (RDM)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 24 Mayo 2016
    ...at 675 (considering "both national and international law"). Is the law of the foreign country relevant? Cf. Liu v. Republic of China , 892 F.2d 1419, 1431 (9th Cir.1989) (concluding that it is).Not surprisingly, Ethiopia argues for the broadest interpretation of the scope of the exception. ......
  • Usoyan v. Republic of Turk., Civil Action No. 18-1141 (CKK)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 6 Febrero 2020
    ...which was previously been found to be non-discretionary in Letelier . 488 F. Supp. at 673 ; see also Liu v. Republic of China , 892 F.2d 1419, 1431 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that Defendant China's alleged acts involving murder were non-discretionary).Looking beyond FSIA cases, as further sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Antitrust and International Commerce
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • 2 Febrero 2022
    ...404-05 (1990). Courts also have declined to apply the act of state doctrine to infamous conduct. See, e.g., Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1432-34 (9th Cir. 1989) (a foreign intelligence officer who allegedly ordered an assassination in the United States could not raise the doctri......
  • Bubbles over Barriers: Amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for Cyber Accountability
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy No. 12-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...223 (2015); Goldman & Strong, supra note 51. 57. Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F.Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980); Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1989). 58. Doe v. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 851 F.3d 7, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 59. Id. 2022] FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNI......
  • Policing the Corporate Citizen: Arguments for Prosecuting Organizations
    • United States
    • Duke University School of Law Alaska Law Review No. 25, December 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...fraud charges against company who bribed a state representative). [100] 596 F.2d at 877. [101]Id.; see also Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1428-29 (9th Cir. 1989) (having purpose to benefit the principal is required, rather than actual benefit, if agent's actions are to be imputed......
  • The international law of state immunity and its development by national institutions.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 44 No. 4, October 2011
    • 1 Octubre 2011
    ...note 79, at 12, 45. (84.) Id. (85.) De Letelier v. Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665, 672-74 (D.D.C. 1980); see also Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that wrongful death case was not barred by "acts of state doctrine" in case of alleged murder authorized by former dire......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT