Israel/Palestine

Eugene

(61,945 posts) Wed Apr 8, 2015, 02:35 PM Apr 2015

Arab Bank fails to void U.S. liability verdict over Hamas attacks

Source: Reuters

US | Wed Apr 8, 2015 1:19pm EDT

Arab Bank fails to void U.S. liability verdict over Hamas attacks

NEW YORK | BY JONATHAN STEMPEL

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday rejected Arab Bank Plc's bid to overturn a jury verdict finding it liable for knowingly supporting terrorism efforts related to a series of attacks in the Middle East.

The Jordan-based bank had been accused by victims of 24 attacks in and around Israel in the early 2000s of handling transactions for Hamas, which the plaintiffs said carried out the attacks, and routing money to charities that supported Hamas or families of suicide bombers.

U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn, New York found "ample" evidence for jurors to conclude last Sept. 22 that Arab Bank knowingly provided services directly to senior Hamas officials like Osama Hamdan, a well-known spokesman who often appeared on television to claim responsibility for attacks.

Cogan also found a "cornucopia" of circumstantial evidence to show that Arab Bank knew or was "willfully blind" to the charities' Hamas affiliations.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Arab Bank fails to void U.S. liability verdict over Hamas attacks (Original Post) Eugene Apr 2015 OP

This is really bad news. Little Tich Apr 2015 #1

and yet the judge said there was "ample evidence" Mosby Apr 2015 #2

Here is a wordy article from a Reuters blog (?) on the subject. Little Tich Apr 2015 #3

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)

1. This is really bad news.

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Apr 8, 2015, 09:58 PM

Apr 2015

People outside of the US are already laughing at US legal system, and this verdict won’t help. The amount of proof needed for winning a law suit is already too low. When it comes to cases related to terrorism, the standards are lowered and the damages higher.

The Arab Bank has followed all compliance standards, and still it gets sued. Apparently, there are similar lawsuits against Bank of China, Crédit Lyonnais and Natwest.

Mosby

(16,350 posts)

2. and yet the judge said there was "ample evidence"

Reply to Little Tich (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 8, 2015, 10:39 PM

Apr 2015

That they were funding terrorists.

The verdict was based on volumes of circumstantial evidence that defendant knew its customers were terrorists," Cogan wrote in a 96-page decision.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)

3. Here is a wordy article from a Reuters blog (?) on the subject.

Reply to Mosby (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 8, 2015, 10:54 PM

Apr 2015

Arab Bank judge sets low causation bar for Anti-Terrorism claims
(Reuters) – The Anti-Terrorism Act – which grafts civil remedies onto criminal statutes aimed at international attacks by militant groups – is confusing. As U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan of Brooklyn explained Wednesday in an opinion upholding a jury verdict of liability under the ATA against Jordan-based Arab Bank, the civil provisions “are derived from a complicated series of incorporations by reference” from the criminal laws – not, in other words, the easiest statutory texts for judges to interpret.

Read more: http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/04/08/arab-bank-judge-sets-low-causation-bar-for-anti-terrorism-claims/

The issue that seems to be argued is that the verdict is fundamentally flawed, as it sets a lower standard for liability than previously.

Reply to this discussion