Chiquita funded Colombian terrorists for years. A jury now says the firm is liable for killings.

Chiquita Brands was ordered on Monday by a Florida jury to pay $38.3 million to the families of eight people killed by a right-wing paramilitary group in Colombia, which the banana producer financed for years during the violent civil war. of that country.

Chiquita had already recognized the financing of the paramilitary group, claiming guilty in 2007 after the U.S. Department of Justice accused the company of providing payments to what the agency labeled a “terrorist organization.” The group, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC, received payments from Chiquita between 1997 and 2004, which the company described as “security payments” during the country’s internal conflict.

The ruling marks the first time an American jury has found a major U.S. company responsible for a serious human rights violation in another country, according to EarthRights International, a human rights firm that represented a family in the case. Chiquita still faces thousands of other complaints from AUC victims, and Monday’s decision could pave the way for more cases to come to trial or for a “global settlement,” Marco Simons, general counsel for EarthRights, said at a press conference to discuss the jury’s decision.

“Chiquita had a high degree of understanding of the armed conflict in Colombia,” said Simons. “This wasn’t a clumsy American company that didn’t know what was going on in the country where it operated.”

In a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, Chiquita said it will appeal the jury’s verdict.

“The situation in Colombia has been tragic for many, including those directly affected by the violence there, and our thoughts remain with them and their families,” the company said in the statement. “However, this does not change our belief that there is no legal basis for these claims. While we are disappointed with the decision, we remain confident that our legal position will ultimately prevail.”

“Target on your back”

The AUC was also categorized as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the U.S. Department of State in 2001, a designation that made supporting the paramilitary group a federal crime. Chiquita provided the group with 100 payments worth nearly $2 million in funding, the Justice Department said in 2007.

Several decades ago, when conflict in Colombia drove down land prices in the country’s banana-producing regions, Chiquita took advantage of the situation to expand its operations, said Marissa Vahlsing, director of transnational legal strategy at EarthRights.

“They knew this would put a target on their back, being a big multinational corporation,” with the FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a left-wing rebel group, Vahlsing said. This led Chiquita to turn to the AUC for protection, she added.

Chiquita executives testified during the trial that their AUC payments were voluntary and that the company was not threatened by the paramilitary group into making the payments, Simons said.

“We think the jury saw through Chiquita’s defense, that they were threatened and had to make life-saving payments,” Simons said. “The jury also rejected Chiquita’s defense that they presented, which is known as the duress defense, that they had no other choice, they had to do this.”

Brutal murders

The AUC were more brutal than the rebels they were fighting against, Simons said. Cases presented by survivors of people killed by the paramilitary group included one involving a young woman who was traveling with her mother and stepfather in a taxi when they were stopped by members of the AUC. She witnessed the murder of her parents by the group, who then gave her some pesos to transport back to the city, EarthRights said.

Simons noted that a former Chiquita executive, when asked during the trial whether he was concerned about payments to the terrorist group, responded that, as a human being, it concerned him. But, the executive added: “As chief accounting officer, making sure the records are appropriate was not part of my deliberation,” according to Simons.

“Unfortunately, this is the way many multinational people think,” Simons said. “They leave their humanity at the door when they engage in business practices.”