Law Commons^™

Plaintiffs Carry Heavy Burden In Terror Suits Against Banks, Jimmy Gurule

Journal Articles

Plaintiffs have a heavy burden to prove that the provision of routine financial services to suspected terrorists violated the ATA. While plaintiffs clearly met their burden in the Arab Bank case, that case did not involve the provision of routine banking services. Further, in the Palestinian Authority case several of the individuals who committed the terrorist attacks worked for the authority and were monetarily rewarded for their acts of terrorism.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in pending bank cases filed under the ATA therefore should be hesitant to read too much into the Arab Bank and Palestinian Authority verdicts.

Holding Banks Liable Under The Anti-Terrorism Act For Providing Financial Services To Terrorists: An Ineffective Legal Remedy In Need Of Reform, Jimmy Gurule

Journal Articles

Anti-terrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), provides a private right of action for any United States national injured by an act of international terrorism. The purpose of the statute is to deter acts of terrorism by punishing terrorists and their financial supporters “where it hurts them most: at their lifeline, their funds.” However, the threat of a large civil monetary judgment is unlikely to have a deter- rent effect on foreign terrorists or terrorist organizations that “are unlikely to have assets, much less assets in the United States.” As a result, ATA lawsuits have been filed almost exclusively against …