Court Decisions of Interest

September 2, 2005 – District Court Decision (Largely) Denying Arab Bank’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

The factual allegations of the complaints sufficiently support an inference that Arab Bank and the terrorist organizations were participants in a common plan under which Arab Bank would supply necessary financial services to the organizations which would themselves perform the violent acts. Administering the death and dismemberment benefit plan further supports not only the existence of an agreement but Arab Bank’s knowing and intentional participation in the agreement’s illegal goals. No more is required.

November 25, 2006 – District Court Decision (Magistrate Pohorelsky) Overruling Arab Bank’s Bank Secrecy Objections

Proof concerning the flow of money, if any, from those allegedly funding the payments through the bank to the families of known participants in the attacks is essential to the plaintiffs’ case. Furthermore, because the defendant denies knowing involvement in any such compensation scheme, proof concerning the arrangements for making such payments and the breadth of the payment scheme is also crucial.

 

In any event, as the Palestinian Monetary Authority operates in an area governed at least in part by other authorities that have themselves engaged in terrorist activity, it would be absurd for this court to exalt the bank secrecy interests of those under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Monetary Authority over the anti-terrorism interests of the United States and other recognized states in the region.

June 1, 2009 – Magistrate Pohorelsky Report and Recommendation Regarding Sanctions to Impose on Arab Bank for Its Failure to Provide Court Ordered Discovery

As explained in more detail in the discussion below regarding their content, the withheld bank records bear directly on a central element of the plaintiffs’ proof here – whether the defendant provided financial services to terrorists. Without that evidence the plaintiffs face a difficult, and perhaps insurmountable, hurdle in establishing their case.

July 12, 2010 – District Court Decision Imposing Sanctions on Arab Bank for Its Failure to Provide Court Ordered Discovery 

In this case, where defendant has intentionally failed to meet its production obligations, where plaintiffs have made specific requests and shown that the withheld evidence is not only relevant but also essential to proof of their claims, where plaintiffs have no alternative means of securing the information they seek from defendant, and where defendant has articulated no reason for its recalcitrance other than the bank secrecy grounds already rejected, significant sanctions are both “just” and “commensurate” with defendant's non-compliance.

December 6, 2011 – District Court Decision Excluding Certain of Arab Bank’s Proposed Expert Witnesses

[T]he opinions of individuals, organizations, governments, or government officials, as either expressed by or reported by defendant's experts, regarding Arab Bank (or Jordan, or other countries in the Middle East); Arab Bank's role in Middle East banking; or even whether or not Arab Bank supported terrorism, are not relevant.

January 18, 2013 – Second Circuit Panel Decision Denying Arab Bank’s Writ of Mandamus Regarding the District Court’s July 12, 2010 Sanctions Decision

Proof concerning the flow of money, if any, from those allegedly funding the payments through the bank to the families of known participants in the attacks is essential to the plaintiffs’ case. Furthermore, because the defendant denies knowing involvement in any such compensation scheme, proof concerning the arrangements for making such payments and the breadth of the payment scheme is also crucial.

 

In any event, as the Palestinian Monetary Authority operates in an area governed at least in part by other authorities that have themselves engaged in terrorist activity, it would be absurd for this court to exalt the bank secrecy interests of those under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Monetary Authority over the anti-terrorism interests of the United States and other recognized states in the region.

May 14, 2013 – District Court Decision Denying Arab Bank’s Motion to Submit Evidence of Foreign Law

In so arguing, the Bank, while purporting to accept that the ATA is the law applicable to this case, suggests that it can argue to the jury that the jury should simply ignore the ATA in favor of the foreign laws the Bank chose to follow. Such an argument is an invitation to nullification. And whether foreign law permitted the Bank to provide financial services to terrorists–or even required the Bank to return money to a known terrorist, as the Bank asserts was the case with Hamdan–offers no basis for the supposed inference that the Bank had an innocent mental state regarding compliance with United States law.

August 22, 2013 – District Court Decision Regarding Certain of the Parties’ Motions in Limine

Again, the issue in this trial is what the defendant knew. Testimony concerning the knowledge of the Israeli or United States governments or the commitment of the Jordanian or Saudi governments to fighting terrorism is, at best, tangentially relevant to this issue, and permitting these witnesses to testify runs the risk that ‘the sideshow will swallow up the circus.’