The Supreme Court rules against a "Country A" company in the "Mystery" case in the Mueller case investigation

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court left in place an order of a lower court ordering an uncontrolled foreign corporation to comply with a subpoena being part of the investigation of the special advocate Robert S. Mueller III on the interference of Russia in the 2016 Election case.

The Court suspended a temporary suspension set up by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. In a brief order, she did not motivate her decision nor noted a dissent. [19659007] The entity that is the subject of the concealed judicial battle – known in court documents as merely a "company" of "country A" – is a foreign financial institution to which evidence to appear Investigation Special advocate, according to two people familiar with the case.

It is believed that this is the first time that an aspect of the in-depth investigation conducted by Mueller on the interference of Russia in the 2016 campaign is submitted to the Supreme Court .

Last year, a federal court in Washington sentenced the company to pay a daily fine until it complies with the subpoena, according to court records. An appeal court upheld this decision last month, prompting the company's lawyers to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Last month, Roberts, who received urgent appeals from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, ordered fines are pending until judges can consider the matter.

The secrecy of the case sparked a guessing game in Washington over information that Mueller is looking for.

in the courts below and in the Supreme Court, details of the legal battle to obtain information from the society was sealed. At one point, an entire floor of the DC circuit was closed to the public to protect the parties' identities.

[Who’s been charged in Mueller-linked probes, and why]

On December 18, a panel of the DC circuit made a vague decision that solved at least some of the mystery.

"The grand jury seeks information from a company belonging to country A," says the three-page notice. The company had sought to quash the subpoena by asserting that it was protected from such requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act and that, if respected, it would violate its own law. national laws, according to the notice.

disagreed, saying that in this case the prosecutors assumed their burden. The judges, in the unsigned opinion, stated that there was reason to believe that the evidence sought by the prosecutors concerned an act "committed outside the United States", but also having "a direct effect in the United States ".

According to the judgment, a lower court judge was already on the side of American prosecutors and the company,

"When the company did not provide the information requested she was sentenced for contempt of court, imposing a fixed fine. increase every day the company does not comply, "noted the court of appeal.

[Prosecutors win fight over subpoena to foreign corporation]

In his judgment, the court of appeal particularly rejected claims that the national laws of the unidentified country

"far from fulfilling the legal requirements for such a claim," writes the court. "The text of the foreign law provision on which the company supports does not corroborate its position" as well as the statements of one of the country's regulators and the company's attorney " lacking critical reliability indices, "says the judgment.

For this reason. , the court of appeal concluded: "We are not convinced that the law of country A actually prohibits the company from complying with the assignment."

This suggests that whatever the identity of society, it is not significantly present in the United States. because foreign companies operating in America generally comply with US evidence requirements.

The case is simply entitled In the Re Grand Jury Subpoena case .