Almog v. Arab Bank, Plc

Citation471 F.Supp.2d 257
Decision Date29 January 2007
Docket NumberNo. 05-CV-0388(NG)(VVP).,No. 04-CV-5564(NG)(VVP).,04-CV-5564(NG)(VVP).,05-CV-0388(NG)(VVP).
PartiesOran ALMOG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARAB BANK, PLC, Defendant. Gila Afriat-Kurtzer, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arab Bank, PLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Allan Gerson, Attorney at Law, Washington, DC, Donald Migliori, Motley Rice, Llc, Providence, RI, Jodi Westbrook Flowers, John M. Eubanks, Justin B. Kaplan, Michael E. Elsner, Ronald L. Motley, Motley Rice, Llc, Mount Pleasant, SC, Douglas James Pepe, Gregory P. Joseph, Peter Rolf. Jerdee, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices, Llc, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Kevin Walsh, Leboeuf Lamb Greene & Macrae Llp, New York, NY, Michael E. Elsner, Motley Rice Llc, Mount Pleasant, SC, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

GERSHON, United States District Judge:

More than 1,600 plaintiffs, consisting of United States and foreign nationals, bring claims for damages against Defendant Arab Bank, PLC, for knowingly providing banking and administrative services to various organizations identified by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, that sponsored suicide bombings, and other murderous attacks on innocent civilians in Israel.1 The U.S. nationals assert claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act ("ATA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 et seq., essentially identical to those brought in Linde v. Arab Bank, 04-CV-02799, Litle v. Arab Bank, 04-CV-05449, and Coulter v. Arab Bank, 05-CV-00365, which were addressed in Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 384 F.Supp.2d 571 (E.D.N.Y.2005) ("Arab Bank I").2 The foreign nationals make similar factual allegations, but assert violations of the law of nations and base jurisdiction on the Alien Tort Claims Act ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350.3 Both the U.S. nationals and the foreign nationals also assert federal common law claims, namely, assisting in the intentional injury of others, reckless disregard of injury to others, wrongful death, survival, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS

Plaintiffs allege that, since the formation of Israel in 1948, Palestinian paramilitary and terrorist organizations have sought to destroy it through, inter alia, the systematic murder of Jews and other civilians in Israel.4 In December 1987, a collective Palestinian uprising, or intifada, erupted against Israel in the West Bank and in Gaza. In late September 2000, a second Palestinian intifada, or Al Aqsa Intifada or Intifada Al Quds (the "Second Intifada"), erupted after the collapse of peace negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Each intifada was characterized by systematic and widespread terror campaigns designed to kill Jews and Israelis, as well as to coerce the civilian population of Israel to cause Israel to cede territory to the Palestinians and ultimately to destroy the Jewish state. With the outbreak of the Second Intifada, several terrorist organizations intensified the terror campaign of widespread and systematic suicide bombings and other murderous attacks in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, resulting in the death and injury of thousands of individuals, the majority of which were innocent civilians.

Plaintiffs identify the Islamic Resistance Movement ("HAMAS"), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad ("PIJ"), the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade ("AAMB"), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ("PFLP") (collectively "the terrorist organizations") as prominent terrorist organizations in the Second Intifada, operating in Palestiniancontrolled territory and acting with the united purpose of eradicating the State of Israel through a campaign of terror, genocide, and crimes against humanity. HAMAS was named a Specially Designated Terrorist entity ("SDT") by the U.S. government in 1995 and designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization ("FTO") by the U.S. Secretary of State in 1997. The PIJ was named as an SDT in 1995 and designated an FTO by the U.S. Secretary of State in 1997. The PFLP was named an SDT in 1995 and an FTO in 1997. Finally, HAMAS, the PIJ, and the AAMB were each designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity ("SDGT"). Plaintiffs allege that these terrorist organizations openly adhere to a shared mission, "to topple and eradicate the State of Israel, murder or throw out the Jews, and liberate the area by replacing it with an Islamic and/or Palestine state ...." The terrorist organizations seek to accomplish their shared goal by cooperating in the planning and commission of suicide, bombings and other murderous attacks and by providing financial support to the relatives of "martyrs" and those injured in or imprisoned for perpetrating attacks. This has resulted in the systematic and continuous killing and injury of thousands of unarmed innocent civilians in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Plaintiffs allege that several purported charitable organizations, including the Popular Committee for Support of the Intifada (the "Popular Committee"), the Coalition of Benevolence (the "Coalition"), the Humanitarian Relief Association (the "HRA"), the Al-Ansar Society, and the Tulkarem Charitable Committee, are in fact front organizations for the terrorist organizations and act as fund-raising apparatuses that raise and launder funds to subsidize the Second Intifada and to bankroll the terrorist organizations. Plaintiffs allege that two specific committees were created in Saudi Arabia to raise funds to aid in the proliferation of the objectives of HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP: (1) the Popular Committee for Assisting the Palestinian Mujahideen (the "Mujahideen Committee"); and (2) in 2002, the Saudi Committee for Aid to the Al-Quds Intifada (the "Saudi Committee"). These two organizations set up accounts labeled "Account 98" accounts at various banks in Saudi Arabia, including the Arab National Bank (of which defendant Arab Bank owns a 40% interest), to raise funds for the families of "martyrs" of HAMAS, the AAMB, the PIJ, and the PFLP. In addition, public and private donations were deposited in numerous accounts established in various financial institutions in the Middle East, primary among them Arab Bank, for the explicit purpose of providing funds to families of "martyrs" of HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP.

According to the amended complaints, Arab Bank "knowingly and intentionally, both directly and indirectly, aided and abetted and intentionally facilitated the attacks by HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP by soliciting, collecting, transmitting, disbursing and providing the financial resources that allowed those organizations to flourish and to engage in a campaign of terror, genocide, and crimes against humanity in an attempt to eradicate the Israeli presence from the Middle East landscape." According to plaintiffs, Arab Bank is one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East and is headquartered in Jordan. It operates through various sister institutions, subsidiaries, and affiliates, which collectively make up the Arab Bank Group. To this end, Arab Bank owns a 40% interest in Saudi Arabia's Arab National Bank. Arab Bank has over 400 branch offices in over twenty-five countries, including branches located in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the United States. Its U.S. branch, located in New York, provides financial services that include clearing and correspondent banking services to its foreign bank branches, affiliated banking institutions (those that are owned or controlled by Arab Bank Group), and other foreign banks.

Plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank was part of a formalized system of financing that HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP rely upon to plan, fund, and carry out the suicide bombings and other murderous attacks. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank materially supported the efforts and goals of the terrorist organizations in two ways. First, Arab Bank provided banking services, including maintaining accounts, for HAMAS and other terrorist organizations. With respect to HAMAS specifically, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank provided banking services to HAMAS directly by collecting funds into HAMAS accounts in its Beirut, Lebanon and Gaza Strip branches. Supporters knew to donate to HAMAS directly through Arab Bank because the HAMAS, website directed supporters to make contributions to Arab Bank's Gaza Strip branch and because there were various advertisements publicized throughout the Middle East calling for donations to Arab Bank accounts. Arab Bank knew that the donations were being collected for terrorist attacks.

Plaintiffs also allege that Arab Bank maintained accounts and solicited and collected funds for the various charitable organizations, including the Popular Committee, organizations that are part of the Coalition, the HRA, the Al-Ansar Society and the Tulkarem Charitable Committee, all of which it knew are affiliated with the various terrorist organizations. In addition, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank maintained accounts for individual supporters of terrorist organizations, such as HAMAS and al Qaeda. Arab Bank knew that the accounts of these various organizations and individuals were being used to fund the suicide bombings and other attacks sponsored by the terrorist organizations. Finally, Arab Bank laundered funds for the terrorist and front organizations, including the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development ("HLF"), which raised funds for HAMAS in the United States.

Plaintiffs' second factual theory is that Arab Bank administered the financial infrastructure by which the Saudi Committee distributed a comprehensive benefit of $5,316.06 to designated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • United States v. Ahmed
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 24, 2015
    ...conduct under the "law of nations" clause, when the terrorist conduct also violates the law of nations. See Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 275-76 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding specific terrorist conduct of "widespread" and "systematic" "planning and commission of suicide bombings ......
  • Goldberg v. UBS AG
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 5, 2010
    ...18 U.S.C. § 2333(a)."); Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC, 453 F.Supp.2d 609, 613 (E.D.N.Y.2006) (same); Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F.Supp.2d 257, 268 (E.D.N.Y.2007) ("Violations of sections 2339A, 2339B(a)(1), and 2339C can serve as predicate crimes giving rise to liability under th......
  • Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 20, 2010
    ...international conventions condemning ... the provision of financial services to terrorist groups.” Id. (citing Almog v. Arab Bank, P.L.C., 471 F.Supp.2d 257, 282–83 (E.D.N.Y.2007)). If anything, then, far from intruding on the political branches' political interests, the Court's application......
  • United States v. Ahmed
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 24, 2015
    ...conduct under the “law of nations” clause, when the terrorist conduct also violates the law of nations. See Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F.Supp.2d 257, 275–76 (E.D.N.Y.2007) (finding specific terrorist conduct of “widespread” and “systematic” “planning and commission of suicide bombings and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • The Final Breaths of the Alien Tort Statute
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 23, 2013
    ...98991 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010). 4 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010). 5 See, e.g., Almog v. Arab Bank., 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 6 The Kiobel case drew wide interest from a variety of domestic and international parties, attracting approximately 70 amicus brie......
2 books & journal articles
  • ETHNIC CLEANSING AND GENOCIDAL INTENT: CONCEPTUALIZING DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL POPULATIONS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Global Studies Law Review Vol. 20 No. 4, October 2021
    • October 22, 2021
    ...forms of torture designed to destroy the religious and ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats"); Almog v. Arab Bank. PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that claim for genocide was stated by allegations that terrorist organizations planned to kill or drive out the......
  • Charles A. Shanor, Terrorism, Historical Analogies, and Modern Choices
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory International Law Reviews No. 24-2, December 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...64 Id. 65 Id. at 1524. 66 Saperstein v. Palestinian Auth., No.1:04-cv-20225-PAS, 2006 WL 3804718 (S.D. Fla. 2006); Almog v. Arab Bank, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). 67 Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 (2006). 68 United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153, 157 (1820). 69 Tel-Oren v......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT