HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017897.jpg

832 from Al Rajhi accounts. Id. In “December 1999, Al Rajhi directly funded Tulkarm Charity Committee, a known front for Ha- mas.” Jd. 971. Members of the Al Rajhi family, which owns and controls Al Rajhi Bank, are al- leged to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary. [d. 179. The Al Ra- jhi family is purportedly a major donor to the SAAR Network, a Defendant here, being investigated by federal authorities in Virginia. Jd. 1980-84. Finally, Al Rajhi family members are allegedly closely asso- ciated with wealthy donors to Osama bin Laden. Jd. 185 (alleging ties with the Golden Chain). Judge Robertson found that the only allegation in the Third Amended Burnett Complaint that stated a claim upon which relief could be granted was that Al Rajhi Bank acted as an instrument “of terror, in raising, facilitating and transferring money to terrorist organizations.” Burnett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at 109 (quoting Burnett Com- plaint 146). Judge Robertson noted that there was no support “for the proposition that a bank is liable for injuries done with money that passes through its hands in the form of deposits, withdrawals, check clear- ing services, or any other routine banking service.” Jd. In light of the liberal plead- ing standards, however, Judge Robertson denied Al Rajhi Bank’s motion to dismiss and permitted it to request a more defini- tive statement under Rule 12(e). Jd. at 110. The Burnett Plaintiffs provided an 89-paragraph response on August 27, 2003. Thereafter, Al Rajhi Bank renewed its motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 40. Under Islamic banking laws, Hararm is forbidden income that must be given away. The disposal of Hararm cannot be considered charitable giving. Rule 12(e) Statement 19. In the 12(e) statement, the Burnett Plaintiffs explain that al Qaeda takes advantage of the under-regulated Islamic banking system to 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Al Rajhi Bank argues that Plaintiffs of- fer no factual allegations in support of their conclusion that Al Rajhi Bank had to know that the charities it supported through Zakat and Hararm“ payments were really fronts for al Qaeda. Al Rajhi Bank contends it had a legal and religious duty to make its charitable donations and any terrorist activity by the recipient char- ities was unknown to Al Rajhi Bank. See Rule 12(e) Statement 11 26, 29. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, Al Rajhi Bank submits it did not have a duty, or a right, to inspect the Defendant charities’ finan- cial transactions to ascertain the ultimate destination of its donations. But see Rule 12(e) Statement 132 (“Al Rajhi is required to determine that the ultimate recipients of these contributions fall within one of the categories prescribed in the Quran for re- cipients of Zakat.”). Al Rajhi Bank sub- mits that SAMA did not implement any duty to investigate Zakat payments after its meeting with representatives of the Na- tional Security Council and Office of For- eign Assets Control. [95] Plaintiffs do not allege that Al Rajhi Bank provided direct material sup- port to al Qaeda. Rather, Plaintiffs claim Al Rajhi Bank aided and abetted the Sep- tember 11 terrorists by donating to certain Defendant charities and acting as the bank for these Defendants. New York law and the courts interpreting the ATA in Boim make very clear that concerted action lia- bility requires general knowledge of the primary actor’s conduct. See Pittman, 149 F.3d at 123; Boim IJ, 291 F.3d at 1023; Bown ITI, 340 F.Supp.2d at 906. Even move and launder money. 12(e) Statement 111. Plaintiffs allege that al Qaeda has pervert- ed the Zakat and Hararm principles in Islam- ic banking to collect and distribute money to individuals and cells throughout the world. Id. 494-9; see also Burnett Complaint 1 43. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017897