HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017898.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 833 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) with the opportunity to clarify their claims against Al Rajhi Bank, the Burnett Plain- tiffs do not offer facts to support their conclusions that Al Rajhi Bank had to know that Defendant charities WAMY, MWL, IIRC, and SJRC were supporting terrorism. See Rule 12(e) Statement 11 44-60. “[A] complaint which consists of conclusory allegations unsupported by fac- tual assertions fails even on the liberal standard of Rule 12(b)(6).” De Jesus »v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 87 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1996). This Court, like Judge Robertson before it, has found no basis for a bank’s liability for injuries funded by money passing through it on routine banking business. See Burnett [, 274 F.Supp.2d at 109. Sim- ilarly, allegations concerning the Al Rajhi family cannot support a claim against Al Rajhi Bank because there is no allegation that the family members were acting in furtherance of Al Rajhi Bank business. Tasso v. Platinum Guild Intl, 94 Civ. 8288(LAP), 1997 WL 16066, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 1997). Plaintiffs attach to their opposition brief a September 2002 SAMA report summarizing the initiatives and actions taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. See Burnett Plaintiffs’ Opp. to Al Rajhi Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 2. Neither this document, nor the complaint, alleges that SAMA or Al Rajhi Bank im- plemented “know your customer” rules that Al Rajhi failed to follow with respect to accounts held by the Defendant chari- ties. Finally, Plaintiffs’ allegations that Al Rajhi Bank has connections to Hamas sup- porters fails to state a claim because Plain- tiffs have not alleged any relationship be- tween Hamas and al Qaeda or the terrorist 41. The Ashton Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Saudi Cement Company and the Arabian Cement Company on June 10, 2004. See 03 MD 1570 Docket # 230. attacks of September 11. Even accepting all the allegations against Al Rajhi Bank as true, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that would entitle them to relief. Accord- ingly, Al Rajhi Bank’s motion to dismiss the Burnett complaint is granted in its entirety. 2. Saudi American Bank [96] Saudi American Bank is based in Rihadh, Saudi Arabia and was formed in 1980 pursuant to a royal decree to take over the then-existing branches of Citi- bank in Riyadh and Jeddah. Ashton Com- plaint 1603; Burnett Complaint 1140. It is the second largest bank in Saudi Arabia and has offices in the United States, based in New York. Ashton Complaint 1604; Burnett Complaint 19141-42. Its chair- man, Abdullahziz Bin Hamad Al Gosaibi is also the Chairman of the Saudi Cement Company in Damman, Saudi Arabia. Ash- ton Complaint 1605; Burnett Complaint 1142. Ahmed Ali Jumale, purportedly a close associate of Osama bin Laden and responsible for helping Defendant Al Bara- ka penetrate the United States banking system, allegedly worked for Saudi Ameri- can Bank as a senior employee from 1979 to 1986. Ashton Complaint 1602; Burnett Complaint 1 148.” Plaintiffs claim that Saudi American Bank is the official correspondent of the al Baraka Bank Lebanon; the Riyadh corre- spondent of Defendant Al Faisal Islamic Bank, which is managed by Defendant Prince Mohamed; and the Riyadh corre- spondent bank for a branch of Defendant Al Shamal Islamic Bank, which is involved in the financing of al Qaeda. Ashton Com- plaint 19606, 608; Burnett Complaint 11 143, 146. It is also the bank for Defen- 42. The Ashton Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Ahmed Nur Ali Jumale on June 10, 2004. See 03 MD 1570 Docket # 230. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017898