|
 Jurors needed less than two days of deliberations to reach their
verdict after a six-week trial in Brooklyn federal court, which
lawyers described as the first terrorism financing civil case to
reach trial in the United States.
A trial on damages will be held later. Similar lawsuits are pending
in New York against Bank of China Ltd, which is accused of providing
services to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Credit Lyonnais SA, which
is accused of aiding Hamas. Those banks have denied the respective
allegations.
Nearly 300 Americans who were either victims or related to victims
of attacks linked to Hamas had sued Arab Bank in 2004.
They accused the Jordanian bank of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act,
a law that lets victims of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist
organizations such as Hamas seek damages.
"It has been a long haul," said plaintiff Maida Averbach, 76, who
said her son was paralyzed from the neck down in a 2003 suicide
bombing and died in 2010 from complications. "Unfortunately my Steve
isn't here." Averbach spoke to reporters by phone.
Arab Bank said it would appeal. In a statement, the bank said the
verdict "comes as no surprise" after a series of what it considered
legally incorrect court rulings that kept it from mounting a proper
defense, and effectively "put Hamas on trial."
The bank also said the verdict exposes banks such as itself to
"enormous liability" for providing routine banking services.
Shand Stephens, a lawyer for Arab Bank, predicted that the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals "is going to reverse this."
Mark Werbner, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, said the verdict
sends a message that "when a bank opens its doors to terrorists,
they're going to be held accountable."
In a separate case, the 2nd Circuit ruled on Monday that Royal Bank
of Scotland Group Plc's National Westminster Bank unit must face
claims by terrorism victims over banking services it gave a charity
linked to Hamas.
"GREAT DEAL OF KNOWLEDGE"
Arab Bank had been accused of knowingly maintaining accounts for
Hamas operatives, and financing millions of dollars in payments for
families of suicide bombers and those imprisoned or injured during a
Palestinian uprising that began in 2000.
"That is how we stop terrorism," Tab Turner, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, said in his closing argument last week. "You take the
money away."
Lawyers for Arab Bank countered that most of the people and
organizations alleged to have received improper banking services had
not been designated by the U.S. government as terrorists.
But one juror, 24-year-old speech therapist Jill Rath, said the
evidence showed "a great deal of knowledge within the bank" that its
activity supported Hamas.
[to top of second column] |
"Everyone was very confident in the end," she said, referring to
jurors. To find liability, jurors had to conclude that Arab Bank
knowingly supported Hamas, that its support was a "substantial
factor" in the attacks, and that the attacks were a "reasonably
foreseeable" result, according to the judge's instructions.
"Knowing your customer is essential," said Will Schwartz, senior
vice president overseeing the U.S. financial sector at the DBRS
credit rating service. "You are at least partially responsible if
it's discovered you are, inadvertently or not, financing nefarious
activity."
Lee Wolosky, a lawyer representing plaintiffs against Bank of China,
said Monday's verdict shows "it is insufficient to simply say it is
the job of governments to identify terrorists."
He also said the Arab Bank plaintiffs should be able to enforce any
damages awarded. "Arab Bank does business in many countries
throughout the world, including in Europe, that will enforce a
judgment from the United States," he said.
Stephen Landes, a lawyer who won the first lawsuit on behalf of U.S.
citizens under the ATA against U.S.-based charities accused of
funding Hamas, said it was difficult to say if the ruling would
impact the cases against Bank of China and Credit Lyonnais. But he
said, "the takeaway is that any bank that was banking a terrorist
organization has to be concerned now."
"The jury clearly responded to the conduct of the bank in providing
financial support to a terrorist organization,” said Landes, who
informally exchanged ideas with plaintiffs' lawyers in the Arab Bank
case but was not paid. "That's what needs to be shown, that the bank
knew who they were dealing with."
The case is Linde et al. v. Arab Bank, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, No. 04-2799.
(Additional reporting by Joseph Ax, Lauren Tara LaCapra and Jonathan
Stempel; Editing by Richard Chang, Grant McCool and Lisa Shumaker)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
