These comments are a little off base. First, U.S. trade history with Cuba needs to be understood. There has been a restrictive trade embargo against Cuba since 1960 and was actually codified into law in 1992. The U.S. has long accused Cuba and Castro of human rights violations and other crimes - hence the embargo. Prior to this woman's husband, the U.S. already accused Cuba of being 6 to 7 million dollars in default to America. Even today, Americans can only travel to Cuba under certain circumstances such as a reporter for a specific instance or education.
The embargoes and trade restrictions already implement strict regulations and decrease of trade between the country. Further, because the U.S. says Cuba owes them 6 to 7 million dollars, all transactions with the government or corporations can only be done in cash, no credit is extended.
When this woman was awarded her judgment (which I believe was reduced) it was awarded under 1996 anti-terrorist laws which allowed private law suits against terrorists supported by a country. It is a very common legal theory. Look at Enron. If a corporation tell an employee to commit a crime, the corporation is also liable. Same with the government. If the chief of police tells an officer to murder random people, then the city can be liable. The money was awarded to this woman with full knowledge she would never actually see it.
This was a way to punish the Cuban government - who revered Juan Pablo as a hero - for committing a terrorist act on American soil. Since Juan Pablo could not be extradited, this was a creative solution. She received $194,000 from a frozen account. Why was this account frozen? Was it found to be supporting terrorist activity in America? Why did the Cuban government have $194,000 in an account that the U.S. could freeze and ultimately seize? Even in America, accounts can't be seized without cause.
Finally, I question the validity of the fact that private Corporations are being targeted to pay of the Cuban government's debt. This would be outside the purview of the judgment and the reach of the law. The only way these entities would be garnished would be if the Cuban government ultimately controlled it.
So, for those arguing that trade is being affected by this judgment, I ask how? There is already a long standing embargo. There is already bad blood, claims of debt owed, and refusal to extend credit. The whole point of an embargo is to adversely affect the trade and economic growth of a country. Not to mention the Helms-Burton act that further restricts American Corporations from doing business in Cuba.
Was this woman "awarded" a windfall? Yes. That's also why it was reduced to 7million. Will she ever see this money? No. The Courts were sending a warning, precedence, stating that if you commit or support you citizens in committing either espionage or a terrorist act on our territory, the spy will not be the only one punished, but we will hit you where it counts - in the wallet. The Courts saw this as an opportunity to give anti-terrorist laws "teeth" without having to invade a country. What do you do to a country that wont extradite a criminal, encourages his espionage and murder? If we invaded every country that did this . . .well, the was a reason why the sun never set on the British empire. There is also a reason the Brits couldn't hold all that land. In retrospect of the Iraqi/afghani/iranian/Bush's war, this method seems to make a lot more sense. No ones sons or daughters, husbands or wives have to die to prove a point/strength this way.
with all this said, I truly believe the embargo has caused more damaged that solutions. I think its antiquated regulation implemented in the days of the bay of pigs and the cold war. We over tax trade, force embargoes etc. as punishment for human rights violations. We restrict travel so our citizens cannot unwittingly boost the economy. Hell, even the EU has passed a law making the Helms-Burton act illegal. However, saying this woman is crazy, greedy, or affecting trade is short sighted. This woman was a tool for the Courts to make their statements. Nothing more. I'm guessing the majority of that $194,000 went to attorneys fees anyway. The judges published opinion would not so heavily investigate the legality of the reach of the 1996 anti-terrorist law and later amendments so thoroughly if it wasn't trying to make a point and set precedence. The judgment also doesn't mention that the ex-wife's initial cause of action was rape and sexual assault. Because that not important. Giving teeth to the law is what mattered. As stated before, the woman was just a tool.