“Crashing Down on Us” 61 criminally responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide—the international crimes that fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction—if that person: For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets, or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission.161 There have been recent cases of businesspersons being held criminally liable for their role in facilitating atrocity crimes, including genocide. In 2005, a Dutch court convicted Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat on charges of complicity in war crimes in Iraq, for his role in supplying the government of Saddam Hussein with chemicals used in the production of chemical weapons, which were subsequently used in the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds by the Iraqi regime. He was given a 15-year prison sentence, which was increased to 16.5 years on appeal.162 This mode of liability could be used to hold corporate officials accountable for their role in providing the means by which the Myanmar junta is able to continue to unlawfully target civilians with airstrikes and artillery attacks. In addition to “aiding and abetting” liability, the Rome Statute establishes another mode of liability under Article 25(3)(d), where it states that if a person: In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either: (i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime.163 This form of liability, known as “common purpose” or “joint criminal enterprise” liability, could similarly be used to prosecute corporate officials for their role in furthering the Myanmar military junta’s criminal enterprise. According to a June 2024 report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews, the junta’s “ability to terrorize civilian populations through indiscriminate airstrikes is directly dependent on its ability to access the aviation fuel required to fly its jets and helicopters.”164 The Special Rapporteur analyzed trade records relating to the US$80 million worth of aviation fuel purchased by Myanmar in 2023 and found that all transactions involved two Myanmar-registered companies—National Energy Puma Aviation Services (NEPAS) and Asia Sun Group—who in turn were purchased from two Thailand-registered companies—CB Energy and Tawan-Oil Trading.165 The Special Rapporteur further noted that: The depth of public reporting on the ways that aviation fuel sales enable the junta’s atrocities, and the clear documentation of the SAC’s control over the supply chain, leave little space for financial institutions or the Thai trading companies to claim that they did not know aviation fuel could be destined for military use.166 161 Rome Statute, Art. 25(3)(c). 162 Public Prosecutor v. Frans Cornelis Addrianus van Anraat, District Court of The Hague, Case No. 09/751003-04, Judgment (Trial), December 23, 2005. 163 Rome Statute, Art. 25(3)(d). 164 U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar Tom Andrews, Banking on the Death Trade: How Banks and Governments Enable the Military Junta in Myanmar, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/56/CRP.7, June 26, 2024, para. 20, https:// www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-crp-7.pdf. 165 Id. at para. 21. 166 Id. at para. 22.