Do economic sanctions prevent repaying debts? Suppose that I lend money to a business or individual associated with the government in Russia, Venezuela, or some other country. Suppose that by the time the debt is due, my country of citizenship or residence business or individual has declared sanctions on my debtors and prohibit me from doing business with them. Would the sanctions prevent me from legally getting my money back?
Yes If it is illegal to transfer money between the jurisdictions then any contract that requires that to happen is unenforceable. This is a subset of "sovereign risk" in a trans-national deal.
It is possible in principle, in the US, under the Bureau of Prison Treaty Transfer program, so that one could serve your time in Australia for example -- but not New Zealand, which isn't part of a bilateral or multilateral treaty with the US: here is the list. Canada and Australia are on the list via the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. New Zealand is (by choice) not a participant.
This is a civil case, taking away your freedom is only for criminal offenses. Not paying your bills is not a criminal offense. It is up to the creditor to look for your assets, etc. A court can make you show up and answer questions about your assets and income. While you are in court the judge can make you give your gold watch to your creditor. Outside the parameters of the question there are circumstances like failure to pay child support when you do have the funds that can lead to incarceration. In some places you can be jailed for contempt of court if the court requires your presence to let the creditor have the ability to try to get access to your assets and you do not show up.
so it's unclear to me whether the US Executive Order 13884 (August 5, 2019) targets the Property of the Government of Venezuela only or of all Venezuelans. Neither. By its literal text, it excludes any Venezuelan who is a citizen of the US, a green card holder, or lawfully present in the US, or who holds a valid US visa. More pertinently to your question, perhaps, it also excludes any Venezuelan who has never been an agent of (or purported to be an agent of) Venezuela or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities.
Is there any validity to these claims? No, except maybe in bankruptcy proceedings that involve additional circumstances/factors. A loan is a contract. What you describe is simply a debtor's attempt to replace the contract he incurred with a creditor. As such, the creditor is entitled to decline the settlement offer, thereby leaving the initial contract (in this case, the original conditions of the loan) in force. Generally speaking, declining a new proposal does not invalidate the contract that would have been replaced if the offeree were to accept such proposal.
The default is that countries are not required to repatriate alleged criminals It is one of the cardinal provisions of sovereignty that one country cannot "reach into" another country's territory for any reason. However, countries can voluntarily repatriate an alleged criminal subject to their own legal systems allowing this. This can be ad-hoc or through a longer-term extradition treaty. Even where extradition is allowed, there are common things that will prevent it: Dual criminality - generally, the alleged crime must be a crime in both jurisdictions, Political crimes are usually not subject to extradition Possibility of certain types of punishment - nations without the death penalty will generally not extradite for alleged capital crimes. This can be overcome with appropriate guarantees that such a penalty will not be sought. Jurisdictional issues Own citizens - some countries will not extradite their own citizens notably Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan), Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Syria. Fair trial standards - extradition will usually be refused when a fair trial cannot be expected.
This Reconocimiento de deuda is a real and standard thing, and they also use them in Zimbabwe, but it says that the amount should be stated exactly (&quot;Se debe indicar con exactitud la cuantía de la deuda que se reconoce&quot;). Unless you fill in an amount that you are willing to accept as your debt, you are trusting that the various people who come to be in possession of the document are trustworthy. The document basically deprives you of the right to oppose the debt.
Depends on where you are, and likely also on what they knew when. It is entirely normal to order some goods (like perishable food, or custom-fitted furniture) before it is produced. The contract may or may not include advance payment. Most jurisdictions require some sort of intent for fraud, so the non-fulfillment would not be fraud if circumstances beyond the control of the supplier prevent delivery. The question of civil damages and repayment is distinct from criminal fraud charges.