Confiscatory Enrichment After Havana Docks and CIMEX

Confiscatory enrichment is the particular case of unjust enrichment arising from the patrimonial transfer (the shift of value from one estate to another) that results from wrongful confiscations of foreign nationals’ property, in favor of the State and, eventually, of private companies downstream. This short essay argues that the 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX (Cuba) leave that concept without a measure. Both majorities rely on the statutory finding in 22 U.S.C. § 6081(8), which frames Title III of the Helms-Burton Act in terms of unjust enrichment, yet neither engages with the technical discipline of restitution. The result is a statutory floor, no ceiling, and no rule of aggregation. The essay shows that the Court had guidance available in the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, § 51(4), and in Liu v. SEC. It also proposes the Cuban Civil Code of 1987, arts. 100-103, as a structure for measuring the remedy, since those articles tie each head of restitution to established gains rather than hypothetical ones. The essay concludes that remedies for confiscation require the constraints of a technical framework.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24005696
Primary Topic
Legal principles and applications
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
preprint

Confiscatory Enrichment After Havana Docks and CIMEX

Johannes San Miguel Giralt
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Legal principles and applications
preprint

Confiscatory Enrichment After Havana Docks and CIMEX

Johannes San Miguel Giralt
preprint en

Abstract

Confiscatory enrichment is the particular case of unjust enrichment arising from the patrimonial transfer (the shift of value from one estate to another) that results from wrongful confiscations of foreign nationals’ property, in favor of the State and, eventually, of private companies downstream. This short essay argues that the 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX (Cuba) leave that concept without a measure. Both majorities rely on the statutory finding in 22 U.S.C. § 6081(8), which frames Title III of the Helms-Burton Act in terms of unjust enrichment, yet neither engages with the technical discipline of restitution. The result is a statutory floor, no ceiling, and no rule of aggregation. The essay shows that the Court had guidance available in the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, § 51(4), and in Liu v. SEC. It also proposes the Cuban Civil Code of 1987, arts. 100-103, as a structure for measuring the remedy, since those articles tie each head of restitution to established gains rather than hypothetical ones. The essay concludes that remedies for confiscation require the constraints of a technical framework.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
University of Guayaquil (EC)
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Legal principles and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon