Al-Ibrahim v. Edde
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13155, 897 F. Supp. 620, 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1828 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract whose purpose is to perform an illegal act is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. A party who knowingly participates in such an illegal act will be barred from seeking relief at law (breach of contract) or in equity (restitution, fraud) under the 'unclean hands' doctrine.
Facts:
- Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Ibrahim Al-Ibrahim employed George Edde as his constant companion.
- The Sheikh, a high-stakes gambler, insisted that Edde claim the Sheikh's gambling winnings as his own on official documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
- Edde understood that his participation in this scheme was a condition of his continued employment.
- The Sheikh orally promised to reimburse Edde for any tax liability Edde incurred as a result of claiming the winnings.
- Edde signed for the winnings, and the IRS subsequently contacted him demanding payment for taxes due.
- Edde resigned his employment in late 1991.
- In 1992, Edde reached an agreement with the IRS to pay approximately $400,000 in past taxes, interest, and penalties on the Sheikh's winnings.
- The Sheikh refused to reimburse Edde for the payments made to the IRS.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheikh Al-Ibrahim filed an unspecified complaint against George Edde in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court.
- In response, Edde filed a counterclaim against Sheikh Al-Ibrahim, alleging breach of contract, restitution, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Sheikh Al-Ibrahim, as the counter-defendant, then filed a motion to dismiss Edde's counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who knowingly participates in an illegal tax evasion scheme by falsely claiming another's gambling winnings have an enforceable claim for breach of contract, restitution, fraud, or intentional infliction of emotional distress against the other party to the scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, J.
No. A party who knowingly participates in an illegal tax evasion scheme does not have an enforceable claim against the other party to the scheme. The court dismissed all of Edde's counterclaims. For the breach of contract claim, the court reasoned that a contract to perform an illegal act is void and unenforceable on public policy grounds. Enforcing this contract would mean excusing Edde's illegal conduct of making false statements to the IRS. For the equitable claims of restitution and fraud, the court held they were barred by the 'unclean hands' doctrine, as Edde was a knowing participant in the illegal scheme and thus could not seek relief from a court of equity. Finally, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress failed both because the Sheikh's conduct was not sufficiently 'extreme and outrageous' and because this claim was also barred by the unclean hands doctrine, since Edde's distress was a direct result of his own illegal activity.
Analysis:
This case serves as a strong modern reaffirmation of the public policy doctrine that courts will not act as arbiters for disputes arising from illegal contracts. It demonstrates the broad power of the 'unclean hands' doctrine to bar not only traditional equitable claims like restitution but also tort claims like fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress when they are inextricably linked to the plaintiff's own wrongdoing. The decision clarifies that the exception for parties with unequal culpability (in pari delicto) is narrow and does not apply when a party, even one in a subordinate economic position, knowingly and willingly participates in the illegal act. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for any party to an illegal agreement to seek judicial remedy if the agreement sours.
