## Facts

- Ngoc Quang Trinh maintained a savings account denominated in Vietnamese piasters at Citibank’s Saigon branch before 1975.
- Citibank operated in South Vietnam as a branch of the New York bank, not a separate subsidiary, under Vietnamese banking restrictions.
- Vietnamese law required the branch to keep capital, assets, and records separate from the home office and to maintain a deposit-based paid-in reserve supplied by the home office.
- As revolutionary forces advanced in 1975, the Saigon branch closed and depositors lost access to their accounts.
- In 1980, Trinh contacted Citibank in New York seeking payment; Citibank responded that the National Bank of Vietnam was responsible.
- Trinh sued in federal district court in Michigan to recover his account balance; the court entered judgment for Trinh, and Citibank appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a U.S. bank’s home office remains liable for deposits made at a foreign branch that later closes due to revolution.
2. Whether Vietnamese banking law, including force majeure/impossibility concepts, excused Citibank from paying the deposit from its U.S. office.
3. Whether an asserted assumption of deposit liabilities by the National Bank of Vietnam released Citibank from its obligation to the depositor.
4. How political-risk losses from a foreign branch closure should be allocated between the bank and the depositor.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment for Trinh.
- The court held Citibank’s New York home office remained liable for the Saigon branch deposit despite the branch’s forced closure.
- The court rejected defenses based on Vietnamese law, force majeure, and impossibility because the bank could satisfy the debt from resources outside Vietnam.
- The court rejected the claimed transfer of responsibility to the National Bank of Vietnam because Citibank did not show a valid discharge of its obligation to Trinh.
- The court agreed that the loss attributable to political revolution should be borne by the bank’s home office rather than individual depositors.

## Legal Principles

- A bank branch is part of the same legal bank; absent a valid discharge, the bank’s obligation to repay deposits is enforceable against the bank as a whole.
- Political upheaval that shuts a foreign branch does not, by itself, extinguish the bank’s deposit obligation or shift liability to depositors.
- Force majeure/impossibility may excuse performance only when the obligation cannot be performed; inability to pay at the foreign branch does not excuse payment from other available bank assets.
- Regulatory requirements that a foreign branch segregate assets and maintain local reserves do not transform the branch into an independent entity that insulates the home office from depositor claims.
- A purported governmental assumption of liabilities does not release the bank absent a clear, legally effective novation or other discharge of the depositor’s claim against the bank.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held Citibank liable for a depositor’s pre-1975 Saigon branch account balance, concluding that revolution-related branch closure and related defenses did not excuse repayment by the bank’s U.S. home office and that the resulting political-risk loss rests with the bank rather than the depositor.


Trinh v. Citibank, N.A., 850 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1988)