09-Apr-15: Another decision against Jordan's Arab Bank in Anti-Terrorism Act law case

Arab Bank premises in the financial district of downtown Amman,
Jordan [Image Source]

Another court decision (text here) was handed down Wednesday in the long-running Anti-Terrorism Act litigation in New York known as Courtney Linde et al -v- Arab Bank PLC. 

It's a major legal event in which the Jordan-based bank, which refers to itself as "the largest global Arab banking network", is being sued by multiple plaintiffs for giving support to the terrorists of Hamas. Those plaintiffs are the families of more than 100 American citizens killed or injured in two dozen terror attacks that we describe below.

Most of Arab Bank Verdict Survives Defense Motions
Andrew Keshner | New York Law Journal | April 9, 2015 

A judge has refused to upset most of a jury verdict that found Arab Bank civilly liable for the material support of Hamas during the Second Intifada.
"The verdict was based on volumes of damning circumstantial evidence that the defendant knew its customers were terrorists," Eastern District Judge Brian Cogan wrote in a 94-page decision released today, denying most of the bank's bid for judgment as a matter of law.
In September, jurors decided that Arab Bank's knowing material support, in the form of financial services, was linked to 24 terror attacks in Israel carried out by Hamas. Cogan presided over the six-week trial leading up to the closely-watched verdict (NYLJ, Sept. 23, 2014).
On Wednesday, Cogan said the plaintiffs, survivors of the attacks or their relatives, failed to show Hamas' responsibility for two of the 24 attacks. Cogan rebuffed the bank's call for a new trial under the civil liability provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. He also refused to certify an interlocutory appeal on the liability verdict.
The case is thought to be the first time a financial institution had been tried on allegations it violated the Anti-Terrorism Act's civil provisions.
In their post-verdict motions, the bank - which hotly disputes that it knowingly aided terrorists - called the jury's conclusions "a miscarriage of justice" (NYLJ, Oct. 14, 2014). A trial on the damages portion of the case, Linde v. Arab Bank, 04-CV-2799, is upcoming.

The legal case against Arab Bank, Jordan's largest financial institution, got underway in 2004. It relates to some 24 specific acts of terror alleged by the plaintiffs to have been committed by Hamas between 2001 and 2004. From September 22, 2014 onwards, the word "alleged" is less relevant since, on that date, the federal jury in the trial "found Arab Bank liable for knowingly supporting terrorism efforts connected to two dozen attacks in the Middle East, the first time a bank has ever been held liable in a civil suit under a broad antiterrorism statute" [NYTimes].

The 24 Hamas-executed terror attacks [based on OsenLaw website's listing] that have been at the heart of this legal case, involving innocent people murdered, injured, bereaved and suffering, are:

• Bombing of a gas station at Neve Yamin (near Kfar Saba) - March 28, 2001
• Bombing of the Tel Aviv Dolphinarium - June 1, 2001
• Human-bomb attack on the central Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria - August 9, 2001
• Multiple bombings at central Jerusalem's Ben Yehuda mall - December 1, 2001
• Bombing and shooting attack in Emmanuel (Samaria District) - December 12, 2001
• Shooting attack in Atzmona - March 7, 2002
• Bombing of Jerusalem's Café Moment - March 9, 2002
• Bombing of Park Hotel in Netanya on Passover night - March 27, 2002
• Bombing of the Sheffield Club, Rishon Letzion - May 7, 2002
• Bombing of Egged city bus 32A in Jerusalem, close to Pat Junction - June 18, 2002
• Bombing of Frank Sinatra Cafeteria, Hebrew University of Jerusalem - July 31, 2002
• Bombing of Dan bus 4 on Allenby Street in central Tel Aviv - September 19, 2002
• Shooting attack in Ofra on Route 60  - January 29, 2003
• Bombing of Haifa bus 37 - March 5, 2003
• Shooting attack in Kiryat Arba - March 7, 2003
• Bombing of Tel Aviv beachside Mike's Place club - April 30, 2003
• Bombing of Egged bus 6 in Jerusalem's French Hill neighbourhood - May 18, 2003
• Bombing of Egged bus 14A on Jerusalem's Jaffa Road - June 11, 2003 
• Sniper-shooting attack on a vehicle traveling on Route 60, near Ofra, north of Jerusalem - June 20, 2003 
• Bombing of Egged bus 2 in north Jerusalem - August 19, 2003
• Bombing of Jerusalem's Café Hillel (German Colony/Emek Refaim) - September 9, 2003
• Shooting attack at Tel Romeida, Hevron - October 22, 2003
• Bombing of Jerusalem Egged bus 19 very close to the Prime Minister's official residence in Rehavia - January 29, 2004 [but see below]
• Mortar attack on Neve Dekalim community in Gush Katif (Gaza Strip) - September 24, 2004 [but see below]

Judge Cogan refers in yesterday's decision to the assertion by Arab Bank's lawyers that the plaintiffs failed to prove Hamas’ responsibility for perpetrating all 24 attacks. This, he says, is "not remotely supported by the record..." other than in the case of the last two attacks in the list above: the January 29, 2004 bombing of the Jerusalem Egged bus 19, and the mortar attack on Neve Dekalim on September 24, 2004. "As to these two attacks, defendant is correct", he wrote, citing "insufficient evidence". For the purposes of this litigation, the other 22 attacks remain the responsibility of Hamas. 

The next phase of the trial is likely to get underway in July when the parties come before Judge Cogan again in a hearing to determine how much will have to be paid by Arab Bank by way of damages in three specific attacks of the 22. Until then, according to a Newsday report, Judge Cogan  

ruled that no appeal of his controversial rulings will be allowed until a trial to assess damages is complete.

25-Feb-15: A step closer to making the PA unable to keep funding its terror addiction

Aftermath of a January 27, 2002 human bomb attack on central Jerusalem's
Jaffa Road, directly across the street from the Sbarro pizzeria,
[Image Source]

Many readers will already know about the major legal victory ["Palestinian Groups Are Found Liable at Manhattan Terror Trial"] achieved on Monday when the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization were found liable by a jury in Federal District Court, Manhattan, for the roles they played in knowingly supporting six terror attacks in the Jerusalem, Israel, area between 2002 and 2004.

A relevant terrorism law provides for the automatic tripling of the $218.5 million damages awarded by the jury. (The plaintiffs’ attorney sought an order of $350 million.) So the defendants are ordered to pay $655.5 million. According to the New York Times report,

In at least two previous cases, in which judges entered default judgments against them for more than $100 million, the groups reached confidential settlements, court records show.

So there's some history of extracting money from them. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that if the Palestinian Arab entities fail to pay, the groups’ assets can be seized in the United States and elsewhere.

This case was filed by the plaintiffs in 2004. A decade is a long time for a case to run its course, but the likelihood is there will be still more delays before the court-ordered damages are collected. To no one's great surprise, the PA have said they will appeal. Mahmoud Khalifa, their deputy minister of information, says the PA are

"confident that we will prevail, as we have faith in the U.S. legal system and are certain about our common sense belief and our strong legal standing. This case is just the latest attempt by hard-line antipeace factions in Israel to use and abuse the U.S. legal system to advance their narrow political and ideological agenda..." [New York Times]

But meanwhile, it's clear that several things of enduring importance have been achieved. In the words of the NYT report: 

While the decision on Monday was a huge victory for the dozens of plaintiffs, it could also serve to strengthen Israel’s claim that the supposedly more moderate Palestinian forces were directly linked to terrorism.

Does the word claim really belong in that last sentence? A jury and a judge sat listening to testimony and evaluating piles of evidence for nearly seven weeks. In the end, they found they had a solid basis for deciding and so they handed down a resounding verdict. The evidence made it impossible to ignore, and the political spinmeisters with their pretentious circumlocutions ("violent extremism" is an egregious example) are not allowed into the court.

The plaintiffs are 10 families, about three dozen people. Eight individual plaintiffs had been physically injured in the attacks; many of the others were "left with deep psychological scars, testimony showed" (NYT). In all, the terror attacks that underpin the case took the lives of 33 people and left more than 450 injured.

The law under which the action was brought - the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows cases dealing with international terrorism to be heard in United States courts - requires that the injured and dead must be Americans. The number of plaintiffs would have been far larger otherwise.

The usually taciturn Mahmoud Abbas comes perilously
close to smiling as he and freshly released life-term
murdering terrorists strut and high-five in a Ramallah
victory parade, August 13, 2013 [Image Source]

We are struck by the high-sounding words of that information ministry politician. When he blames the bad outcome (all bad outcomes have to be blamed on someone else, according to the Palestinian Arab playbook) on "hard-line antipeace factions in Israel", was he deaf to the blood-curdling shrieks of joy, jubilation and triumph from his side (presumably he would call them the pro-peace side) cheering the undeserved freedom of convicted and unrepentant murderers during three rounds of US State Department-inspired prisoner releases of Palestinian Arabs from Israeli prisons in 2013-2014?

Those scenes - like the one depicted in the photo on the right - are indelibly engraved in our memory. We expressed the despair of seeing and hearing it happen in several posts like, for instance, "25-Aug-13: Wake up call for those who thought the terrorists are walking free for peace", written after we witnessed the murderers of unarmed Jews

placed on pedestals and given lavish foreign-funded pensions for life... Abbas, who ought to be believed on such things, says this has nothing to do with making peace.

PLO's Ashrawi in Ramallah yesterday: “We cannot pay.
We do not have this money... the Authority is fighting
for its survival. If it collapses, there will be consequences for
the entire world.” [Image Source]

We take some small comfort in the knowledge that Hanan Ashrawi, a smooth-talking, long-term member of the PLO executive committee who testified for the defense in the late stages of the trial, told the jury "We tried to prevent violence from all sides" and was clearly disbelieved.

In fact, as the NY Times account reports,

the plaintiffs showed that many of those involved in the planning and carrying out of the attacks had been employees of the Palestinian Authority, and that the authority had paid salaries to terrorists imprisoned in Israel and had made martyr payments to the families of suicide bombers [New York Times]

and certainly still do today, they might have added.

How much does that cost? Back in 2011, Palestinian Media Watch presented data to US Congressional lawmakers showing the monthly PA outlay on salaries to convicted and imprisoned terrorists came to more than $5 million per month. Assume it has not shrunk since then, and we are talking of about $65 million per year at least. Now terminate that illegal and immoral policy immediately and the PA will have been able to set aside enough in the next decade to satisfy its liability under the verdict. (But holding breaths would probably be a mistake.)

The day their financial condition renders them unable to keep making those payments (may it come soon!) will be one of celebration for those Palestinian Arabs who understand the corrosive effect on their lives of the Arafat/Abbas/Hamas circles' addiction to terror.

23-Apr-14: Litigation against bank accused of funding terrorism is "splitting" US government

US Supreme Court, Washington [Image Source]

The Jerusalem Post has a report tonight ["US Solicitor General to tell Supreme Court stance on Arab Bank terror financing case"] authored by Yonah Jeremy Bob, focusing on a massive private law action in which multiple plaintiffs are suing for civil damages the Kingdom of Jordan's largest commercial enterprise, Arab Bank. It's a cluster of cases that has been working its way through the US court system for a decade. The New York Times recently called it "a multibillion-dollar lawsuit [that] has provoked a significant split in the Obama administration".

What attracted Bob's attention is the prospect of the US Solicitor General filing an opinion with the US Supreme Court in the next few weeks, stating the US government's position on the case, and in effect

refereeing a dispute between the US State Department on one side, and the US Justice and Treasury Departments on the other side, of how to handle the case. The case itself, which has been featured on CBS News's Sunday Morning program, involves allegations that Arab Bank facilitated massive transfer of funds to Hamas leaders and institutions... The plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank knew that the funds related to terrorists and terror groups, and is thus, civilly liable for wrongful death damages resulting from terror attacks perpetrated using the transferred funds. [Jerusalem Post today]

The court asked the US government to say how it views a ruling by the trial court that imposed penalties on Arab Bank for non-production of certain documents. Arab Bank, the defendant in these actions, has claimed it is unable to comply with court orders to produce those documents because of bank secrecy laws in certain Arab states. Arab Bank wants the US Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.

Logo of Arab Bank Group

The JPost article says the Departments of Justice and the Treasury have supported the trial court's tough line with Arab Bank on the non-production issue. They want the US Supreme Court to stay out of the case. The State Department is said to want the court to intervene on Arab Bank's behalf for foreign policy reasons.

The Government of Jordan itself has taken the unusual step of filing its own legal brief in the case in support of the bank's defense and in support of the US Supreme Court interceding on the bank's behalf. Jordan's brief cited alleged disastrous consequences to the whole country, citing statistics that the bank accounts for as high as one-third of Jordan's stock exchange and 15% of all pension funds, if the bank is hit with a damages award which could be in the billions of dollars. Jordan also said that the Palestinian Authority could collapse as Arab Bank is one of the few institutions providing financial services in the Palestinian areas. It also implied that a major blow to Arab Bank could undermine Jordanian cooperation in the fight against terror, in the use of Jordan for a base of some military operations and in Jordan's ability to be a stabilizing factor regarding the Syrian civil war.  [Jerusalem Post today]

The article says a letter has been sent to President Barack Obama on behalf of the plaintiffs decrying the notion that

"any part of the United States government could possibly line up against US victims of terror and instead support an institution" accused of transferring funds to terrorists. The plaintiffs' letter to Obama also said that "siding with Arab Bank now would not only be a slap in the face of every American terror victim" but it would also "set a poisonous precedent" and "shield terrorists' financial information" from the US courts... [Jerusalem Post]

Jonathan Tobin, writing in Commentary Magazine earlier this month, fiercely criticizes what he describes as the State Department position:

While this sounds like a complicated litigation, the issues at stake here are not difficult to comprehend. At issue is whether the United States will ignore the standards it has applied to other terror-related cases as well as its past stands on foreign bank secrecy rules in order to help get a bank owned by friendly Arabs off the hook for their role in funding the murder of American citizens... Despite the Arab Bank’s pleas of innocence, the facts of their funding of Hamas are not in dispute. But, as the Times notes, Secretary of State John Kerry doesn’t want to upset either Jordan or the Saudis any more than they have already been by Obama administration policies that have strengthened Iran at their expense. What he wants is for the U.S. government to plead diplomatic necessity to the courts and tie up the plaintiffs in circles... If President Obama’s solicitor general does what the State Department is asking him to do, it will mean the nation is not only turning its back on American victims of Hamas terrorism. It will also show that the administration’s much ballyhooed toughness on terror doesn’t apply to its efforts to bring supporters of Palestinian murderers to justice...  ["State Dept. Sides with Hamas Funders", Commentary, April 2, 2014]

A US law commentary publication quotes one of the counsel for the plaintiffs:

"What we want the government to do is permit the court case to proceed the way every other case proceeds in U.S. courts. That’s really in a nutshell what we’d like to do.”

Subject to what the Supreme Court says, the trial is set to get started in August 2014.

19-Apr-14: One small step for civilized society; one substantial leap in the fight against the terrorists

Iran's official response: the property confiscation breaches their rights of
religious freedom [Image Source]

Families whose loved ones were killed or maimed in acts of terror connected with Iran have a bit of encouraging news to share. 

In New York City on Thursday, prosecutors announced plans to sell a Manhattan skyscraper that is owned by an arm of the Iranian regime. It's part of a terror-related seizure that we described here some months ago ["18-Sep-13: Striking back at the money that enables the terrorists"]. Earlier, we posted some details ["15-Feb-12:Is New York threatened by an Iranian attack? You might be surprised to know how real this is."] of how the sophisticated Iranian structure, which sought to conceal the regime's ownership, operated.

The settlement was approved yesterday by a federal judge in an action brought by 19 plaintiffs. It relates to the Piaget Building, a 36-story office tower located at 650 Fifth Avenue in the heart of New York City. AFP says ["US to sell Iran-owned building in New York"] the claimants in the NY property seizure case are the families and estates of victims of the 1983 bombings of US Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 military personnel, as well as the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US service members.

In addition to the Manhattan tower, US authorities will also sell Iran-linked properties in California, Maryland, Texas, Virginia and the Queens borough of New York, along with the contents of bank accounts formerly in the name of entities that served as fronts for Iran. "With this settlement, we have taken an important step toward completing what will be the largest ever terrorism-related forfeiture and providing a substantial recovery for victims of terrorism," Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.

This comes less than a month after a groundbreaking court decision in Canada ["24-Mar-14: In Canada, a court-ordered counter-attack on Iranian terrorism"] arising from four lawsuits brought by terror victims seeking damages from the Iranians for training, arming and financing Hamas and Hezbollah. There too Iranian assets are being confiscated.

Few will be be surprised to know the Iranians are not happy. A report published in Tehran today says:

Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman lashed out at a US court’s decision to seize the assets of Alavi Foundation, an Iranian charitable organization in New York City, saying the ruling lacks legitimacy and credibility. Marzieh Afkham was reacting to a ruling by a New York City court that authorizes the confiscation of property of the non-profitable organization... The Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman strongly rejected the allegations as baseless and politically motivated, saying Iran has already been a victim of terrorism. “This foundation is not linked to Iran… Terrorism allegations leveled against Iran are repetitive and baseless,” said Afkham. She also said the confiscation of a charitable organization by the US government constitutes a blatant violation of freedom of religion.

There's more than a little room for skepticism when the subject is Iran's approach to freedom and rights. For the record, here's how one of the world's leading research centers on religious freedom in Iran sizes up religious freedom in Iran:

Iran’s Constitution defines Iran as an Islamic State based on the tenets of Jafari Shi’a Islam. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei exercises control of the government through vilayat al-faqih (guardianship of the jurist), a concept put forth by his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini. The state holds a monopoly on Shi’a religious discourse, and Shi’a clerics who disagree with the state version of Shi’a Islam face persecution and imprisonment. Iran is home to sizeable Sunni Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Baha’i, and Zoroastrian communities. With the exception of Baha’is, these groups are legally protected minorities, though they sometimes face persecution and discrimination in practice. The Iranian Constitution guarantees the rights of protected religious minorities to practice their faith and allots five seats in the Iranian parliament to representatives of recognized minority religions. However, non-Shi’a Muslims often struggle to gain entrance to universities, encounter institutional barriers in securing employment, and occasionally face police harassment. The Baha’i community is legally understood as an apostate sect of Islam. Almost 100 Baha’is are currently held in Iranian prisons for religious reasons, and arsons of Baha’i property in 2011 and 2012 have been ignored by the Iranian government. Despite current President Ahmadinejad’s strained relationship with Israel and his denial of the Holocaust, Iranian Jews face minimal restrictions on their ability to practice their faith. [Source: Religious Freedom in Iran: The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University]

Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman probably prefers we don't look at these details of religious minority oppression in her freedom-minded country. And to put the point beyond doubt, there's this:

According to Iranian law, Baha'i blood or anyones' who marries or helps a Bahá'í or gets involved with them is considered Mobah, meaning it can be spilled with impunity. [Iran: International Religious Freedom Report - Department of State, US]