Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumArab 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]
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]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-arabbank-hamas-lawsuit-idUSKBN0MZ1RU20150408
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 563 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Arab Bank fails to void U.S. liability verdict over Hamas attacks (Original Post)
Eugene
Apr 2015
OP
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)1. This is really bad news.
People outside of the US are already laughing at US legal system, and this verdict wont 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
(16,401 posts)2. and yet the judge said there was "ample evidence"
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.
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.
(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.