“Arab Bank has great sympathy for all victims of terrorism but is not liable for the tragic acts described by Plaintiffs. The full evidentiary record – much of which may be excluded from the jury because of the sanctions order and other pre-trial rulings by the Linde court – demonstrates that the Bank did not cause or provide material support for the acts of terrorism involved in this case. The facts show that Arab Bank provided routine banking services in compliance with applicable counterterrorism laws and regulations, and had no intention of providing support to Hamas or any other known terrorist organization. In a related case (Mati Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC), largely based on the same evidentiary record as Linde, Senior Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District Court rejected the very same sanctions and dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that ‘the evidence does not prove that the Bank acted with an improper state of mind or proximately caused plaintiffs’ injury.
“This case raises very important issues not only for Arab Bank and the plaintiffs, but also for the international finance system which processes trillions of dollars in transfers each day. Plaintiffs argue banks should be liable for the millions of routine, automated transactions that they process even when proper compliance requirements are followed and the parties were in good standing at the time. Plaintiffs’ theory, if adopted by the Court, would undermine the automated compliance systems that regulators around the world require banks to employ, and create vast uncertainty and risk in the international finance system.”
In a brief filed on behalf of the U.S. government with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General described Arab Bank as “a constructive partner with the United States in working to prevent terrorist financing,” and “a leading participant in a number of regional forums on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism.”
Arab Bank is confident it will ultimately prevail in this case.