U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 69A— CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY (LIBERTAD) › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS

22 U.S.C. § 6081

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress makes the following findings:(1) Individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.(2) The wrongful confiscation or taking of property belonging to United States nationals by the Cuban Government, and the subsequent exploitation of this property at the expense of the rightful owner, undermines the comity of nations, the free flow of commerce, and economic development.(3) Since Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba in 1959—(A) he has trampled on the fundamental rights of the Cuban people; and(B) through his personal despotism, he has confiscated the property of—(i) millions of his own citizens;(ii) thousands of United States nationals; and(iii) thousands more Cubans who claimed asylum in the United States as refugees because of persecution and later became naturalized citizens of the United States.(4) It is in the interest of the Cuban people that the Cuban Government respect equally the property rights of Cuban nationals and nationals of other countries.(5) The Cuban Government is offering foreign investors the opportunity to purchase an equity interest in, manage, or enter into joint ventures using property and assets some of which were confiscated from United States nationals.(6) This “trafficking” in confiscated property provides badly needed financial benefit, including hard currency, oil, and productive investment and expertise, to the current Cuban Government and thus undermines the foreign policy of the United States—(A) to bring democratic institutions to Cuba through the pressure of a general economic embargo at a time when the Castro regime has proven to be vulnerable to international economic pressure; and(B) to protect the claims of United States nationals who had property wrongfully confiscated by the Cuban Government.(7) The United States Department of State has notified other governments that the transfer to third parties of properties confiscated by the Cuban Government “would complicate any attempt to return them to their original owners”.(8) The international judicial system, as currently structured, lacks fully effective remedies for the wrongful confiscation of property and for unjust enrichment from the use of wrongfully confiscated property by governments and private entities at the expense of the rightful owners of the property.(9) International law recognizes that a nation has the ability to provide for rules of law with respect to conduct outside its territory that has or is intended to have substantial effect within its territory.(10) The United States Government has an obligation to its citizens to provide protection against wrongful confiscations by foreign nations and their citizens, including the provision of private remedies.(11) To deter trafficking in wrongfully confiscated property, United States nationals who were the victims of these confiscations should be endowed with a judicial remedy in the courts of the United States that would deny traffickers any profits from economically exploiting Castro’s wrongful seizures.(Pub. L. 104–114, title III, § 301, Mar. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 814.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Elvira De La Vega Glen v. Club Mediterranee, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elvira De La Vega Glen v. Club Mediterranee, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “In support of their first contention, that the Helms-Burton Act establishes their “ownership interest” in the Varadero property, the Glens cite the Findings section in Title III of the statute, 22 U.S.C. § 6081 . By paraphrasing and taking language from this section out of…”
Robert Glen v. Am. Airlines, Incorporate, 7 F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “22 U.S.C. § 6081 (3)(B)(i), (ii). In response, Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act “[t]o deter trafficking in wrongfully confiscated property” and provide “United States nationals who were the victims of 2 Case: 20-10903 Document: 00515961683 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2021 No.”
North Am. Sugar Indus., Inc. v. Xinjiang Goldwind Sci. & Tech. Co., Ltd., 124 F.4th 1322 (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “22 U.S.C. § 6081 (3)(B). In 1996, Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.”
Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki, 46 F.4th 226 (5th Cir. 2022). “” 22 U.S.C. § 6081 (11); see also id. § 6082(a)(1)(A).”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “nationals “either owned or held significant investments in Cuba’s electric company, its telephone system, a wide variety of mining operations, the petroleum sector, hotels, sugar and other agricultural products,” and more.”
Maria Dolores Canto Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos SL, 54 F.4th 641 (11th Cir. 2022). “See 22 U.S.C. § 6081 . According to Marti, the Cuban government seized a hotel called “El Imperial” that belonged in part to her father, Fernando Canto Bory, whose family had owned the land and hotel since 1909.”
Odette Blanco De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd., 135 F.4th 939 (11th Cir. 2025). “See 22 U.S.C. § 6081 (11) (“To deter trafficking in wrongfully confiscated property, .”
Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000). “Finding that the Castro government was “offering foreign investors the opportunity to purchase an equity interest in, manage, or enter into joint ventures” involving confiscated property in order to obtain “badly needed financial benefit, including hard currency, oil, and…”
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 119 F.4th 1276 (11th Cir. 2024). “See 22 U.S.C. § 6081 (1)- (11) (congressional findings).”
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD. (S.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 6× “” 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081 (2)-(3). The Act explains that foreign investors who traffic in confiscated properties through the purchase of equity interests in, management of, or entry into joint ventures with the Cuban Government to use such properties “complicate any attempt to return…”
Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 5× “” 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081 (2)-(3). The Act explains that foreign investors who traffic in confiscated properties through the purchase of equity interests in, management of, or entry into joint ventures with the Cuban Government to use such properties “complicate any attempt to return…”
Havana Docks Corp. v. MSC Cruises SA CO (S.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 5× “” 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081 (2)-(3). The Act explains that foreign investors who traffic in confiscated properties through the purchase of equity interests in, management of, or entry into joint ventures with the Cuban Government to use such properties “complicate any attempt to return…”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— 22 U.S.C. § 6081(2) — 1 case
De Fernandez v. CMA CGM S.A. (S.D. Fla. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.