4 ms·

technically wasn't the ayatollah that had to pay that price? You're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frozen_assets https://en.wikipedia.org/

• fmajid 6y ago
  Yes. He thought he’d be able to live his exile in luxury, but what he thought of as his assets (really belonging to the Iranian people he looted, of course) were frozen by Carter.
  • aspenmayer 6y ago
    Not just Carter, the Supreme Court too. After Congress made a law to specifically make the seizure legal, the bank challenged the constitutionality of changing laws to be interpreted against the bank only when applied to that bank’s seized Iranian linked account. The Court sided with the government 7-2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Markazi_v._Peterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Markazi_v._Peterson