- Abecassis et al . v. Wyatt Jr. et al.

- Abur et al. v. Republic of Sudan et al.

- ACLU Motion for Release of NSA Wiretapping Records

- Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and Multicultural Association of Southern Oregon v. U.S. Department of Treasury et al. 

- Almog et al. v. Arab Bank

- Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute et al.

- Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

- Boumediene et al. v. President Bush et al.

- Burnett et al. v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation et al.

- Coulter et al. v. Arab Bank

- Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz

- El-Ganayni v. Department of Energy et al.

- Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran

- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran

- Habib v. Chertoff

- Heiser et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

- Heroth et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia et al.

- Higazy v. Millenium Hotel and Resorts et al.

- Holy Land Foundation v. Ashcroft

- Humanitarian Law Project v. Department of Justice

- Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran

- John Doe Anti-Terrorism Officer v. The City of New York & Bruce Tefft

- Kadi v. Paulson et al.

- Kaplan et al. v. North Korea et al.

- Khaliq et al. v. Republic of Sudan et al.

- KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development Inc. v. Paulson et al.

- Licci et al. v. American Express Bank Ltd. and Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL

- Linde et al. v. Arab Bank

- Litle et al. v. Arab Bank

- Lopez et al. v. Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network et al. (CAIR Sued for Racketeering, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duties)

- MacWade v. New York Police Department

- Mallouk et al. v. Bush et al.

- Al-Owhali v. Gonzales

- Owens et al. v. Republic of Sudan

- Peres et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

- Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

- Pugh et al. v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya et al.

- Rajah et al. v. Mukasey et al.

- Rahman et al. v. Chertoff

- Ramadan v. Chertoff

- Rux et al. v. Republic of Sudan

- Saperstein et al. v. Palestinian Authority et al.

- Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations

- Scherfen v. Department of Homeland Security et al.

- Tabaa v. Chertoff

- U.S. v. Arab Bank

- U.S. v. Assa Corporation

- U.S. DOJ and New York County District Attorney’s Office v. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

- Weiss et al. v. National Westminster Bank

- World Trade Center Properties LLC. v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation et al.

- Wright v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

- Yasin v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

- Zahavi et al. v. Bank of China Limited

• Abecassis et al. v. Wyatt Jr. et al. (Victims of terror attacks sue U.S. oil companies):

- Complaint (Added 2/20/09) In a lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court, 193 plaintiffs sued several U.S. oil companies, including NuCoastal Corporation, El Paso Energy Corporation, and Bayoil Bahamas, alleging that they “provided illegal, financial, and material support for known terrorists including directly providing funding and support to Saddam Hussein (‘Saddam’) and his regime (‘Saddam Regime’) who directly and through the Arab Liberation Front (‘ALF’) worked in concert with the Islamic Resistance Movement (‘Hamas’), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (‘PIJ’), and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade (‘AAMB’)…” The firms allegedly “laundered and delivered to Saddam and the Saddam Regime tens of millions of dollars through circuitous routes involving international wire transfers through numerous countries and tax havens in blatant violation of United States and international laws.”

• Abur et al. v. Republic of Sudan et al. (Families of victims of Africa Embassy bombings sue Sudan, Iran, others):

- Fourth Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08) The complaint alleges that "Iran and...Sudan...aided and abetted, conspired with and materially supported the terrorist group that destroyed the two US embassies" in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

- Order (Added 1/13/08) A judge issued a default judgment against Sudan and Iran.

• ACLU Motion for Release of NSA Wiretapping Records:

- Opinion Responding to a motion by the ACLU seeking documents pertaining to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court publicly released its third opinion in history. In denying the ACLU's motion, the court ruled that "the identification of targets and methods of surveillance would permit adversaries to evade surveillance, conceal their activities, and possibly mislead investigators through false information." (Note: In January 2009, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review issued a rare public opinion, addressing warrantless surveillance.)

• Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF) and Multicultural Association of Southern Oregon v. U.S. Department of Treasury et al. (Challenging terrorist designation):

- Complaint (Added 11/9/08) The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF) filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department seeking “revocation of its designation on the grounds that the designation is not supported by the administrative record, and that the designation and review process violated its First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, including by failing to provide it with adequate notice of the charges against it or a meaningful opportunity to respond, by relying on classified evidence that AHIF had no opportunity to rebut, by illegally wiretapping privileged attorney-client communications between AHIF director Soliman H. Al-Buthi and AHIF attorneys in Washington D.C., and then using the information illegally obtained in the wiretaps to designate, and by refusing to permit AHIF to pay for its own legal defense out of its frozen assets."

- Declaration of Adam Szubin (Added 11/9/08) In this declaration, OFAC Director Adam Szubin wrote that "In the U.S. Government’s efforts to combat terrorist abuse of charities, the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation ('AHIF') loomed as a major concern. AHIF was a Saudi Arabia-based charity that, at its peak, was said to have operated in over 50 countries and had an annual budget  estimated at between $30-$80 million...The Administrative Record demonstrates that the charity used its worldwide geographical reach and deep funding base to support al Qaida’s activities."

- Opinion and Order (Added 11/9/08) Ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF), federal judge Garr M. King concluded that "there is sufficient evidence in the classified and unclassified record demonstrating that AHIF-Oregon supported SDGTs as a branch of AHIF. The record contains substantial evidence to support OFAC's reasonable belief that AHIF provided financial, material, technological and other support to SDGTs and to support OFAC's decision to block the assets of branch offices deemed a threat to the interests of the United States." However, Judge King did assert that "the government violated AHIF-Oregon's due process right to adequate notice prior to designating it as an SDGT, although the violation may be harmless."

• Almog et al. v. Arab Bank (Families of victims of Palestinian terrorism sue bank for allegedly conducting business with terrorists):

- Complaint (Added 1/13/08) This filing alleges that "by serving as the ultimate paymaster to the families and charitable committees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip operated on behalf of Hamas, PIJ, AAMB, and PFLP, the Arab Bank facilitated the increase in terrorist operations carried out by these organizations by incentivizing this conduct. The individual terrorist knew that if he committed a suicide operation, his family would be supported by funds held in their name by the Arab Bank."

- Opinion and Order (Added 1/13/08) This ruling granted certain motions to dismiss by the defendant and denied others.

• Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute et al. (Parents of U.S. citizen killed by Hamas sue alleged Hamas front groups in the U.S.):

- First Amended Complaint (Added 1/12/08) The parents of David Boim, a 17-year-old American shot and killed by Hamas terrorists while waiting at a West Bank bus stop, sued a number of alleged Hamas front groups in the U.S., alleging that they "solicited, financed, and provided material support for the attack." Those groups include the Quranic Literacy Institute, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and the United Association for Studies and Research. Individuals named in the suit include Mohammed Salah and Mousa Abu Marzook.

- Holy Land Foundation's Answer to First Amended Complaint (Added 1/12/08) In this filing, HLF denies "that it is a front organization for Hamas" and denied that "has ever raised or laundered money for Hamas."

- Deposition of HLF's Shukri Abu Baker (Added 1/12/08) In this deposition, Abu Baker provides a wealth of inside information on HLF's operations.

- Deposition of HLF's Mohamed El-Mezain (Added 1/12/08) When asked "are you aware of donors specifying their preference to make donations to...children of martyrs?", Mohammed El-Mezain responds, "there is no legal thing wrong with satisfying the customers..."

- Judgment (Added 1/12/08) In December 2004, a federal magistrate judge found the defendants civilly liable for $156 million in the death of David Boim, a 17-year-old American shot and killed by Hamas terrorists while waiting at a West Bank bus stop.

- Retrial Order (Added 1/12/08) On December 28, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a retrial and stated, "the Boims will have to demonstrate an adequate causal link between the death of David Boim and the actions of HLF, Salah, and AMS. This will require evidence that the conduct of each defendant, be it direct involvement with or support of Hamas's terrorist activities or indirect support of Hamas or its affiliates, helped bring about the terrorist attack that ended David Boim's life...Absent such proof, those appellants will be entitled to judgment in their favor."

- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal Ruling (Added 12/4/08) In December 2004, a federal magistrate judge found several defendants civilly liable for $156 million in the death of David Boim, a 17-year-old American shot and killed by Hamas terrorists while waiting at a West Bank bus stop. On December 3, 2008, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that judgment, reversing an earlier ruling by the same court ordering a retrial. The ruling stated, "A knowing donor to Hamas—that is, a donor who knew the aims and activities of the organization—would know that Hamas was gunning for Israelis." Significantly, the court asserted that "if you give money to an organization that you know to be engaged in terrorism, the fact that you earmark it for the organization’s nonterrorist activities does not get you off the liability hook."

• Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. (Family of U.S. citizen killed by Hamas in a 1997 suicide bombing sues Iran):

- Complaint (Added 1/12/08) On September 4, 1997, U.S. citizen Yael Botvin was killed in a Hamas suicide bombing at Jerusalem’s Ben Yehudah Mall.  The complaint notes that "on September 10, 2003, this Court entered judgment against Defendants Iran, MOIS, IRG and the senior official Defendants for the material support and training they provided to Hamas. Campuzano et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. 281 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.D.C. 2003)." That ruling pertained to the same Hamas attack.

- Default Notice (Added 1/12/08) In July 2006, the defendants were declared in default.

• Boumediene et al. v. President Bush et al. (Guantanamo detainees seek to challenge their detention):

- Supreme Court Decision (Added 6/12/08) The Supreme Court ruled that those held at Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in the federal courts. The Court wrote, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law." In dissent, Justice Scalia countered, "America is at war with radical Islamists...The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion playsupon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

• Burnett et al. v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation et al. (Families of 9/11 victims sue alleged terrorist supporters):

- Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08) According to this complaint, "his civil action seeks to hold those responsible for a more subtle and insidious form of terrorism, that which attempts to hide behind the facade of legitimacy. These entities, cloaked in a thin veil of legitimacy, were and are the true enablers of terrorism. The financial resources and support network of these Defendants – charities, banks, organizations and financiers – are what allowed the attacks of September 11, 2001 to occur."

- Second Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08)

- Third Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08)

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 1/13/08) The judge points out that "plaintiffs have sued nearly two hundred entities or persons -- governments, government agencies, banks, charitable foundations, and individuals, including members of the Saudi royal family -- broadly alleging that each of them, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, provided material support, aided and abetted, or conspired with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks." This ruling responds to filings by defendants Al Rahji Banking & Investment Corporation, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Muslim World League, and Soliman J. Khudeira.

- Second Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling (Added 8/14/08) Ruling in a case filed by the victims and families of victims of 9/11, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act...('FSIA'), grants foreign sovereigns immunity from suit in the United States subject to enumerated exceptions. We conclude that the FSIA protects the appellees--most obviously, the Kingdom itself. First, we hold that the FSIA applies to individual officials of foreign governments in their official capacities, and therefore to the Four Princes. Second, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the SHC is an 'agency or instrumentality' of the Kingdom, to which the FSIA likewise applies." The Kingdom referenced is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while the Four Princes are: His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (“Prince Salman”), His Royal Highness Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (“Prince Sultan”), His Royal Highness Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (“Prince Naif”), and His Royal Highness Prince Turki al- Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (“Prince Turki”). The SHC is the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

- Supplemental Brief of Petitioners in Response to Brief of the United States (Added 6/26/09) This document is the Petitioner’s response to the United States Government’s brief which opposes certiorari in the case Federal Insurance Company et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia et al. The Petitioners assert the Government completely ignores the “harm suffered by the 9/11 victims, the public interest in permitting the victims their day in court, Congress’s intent to authorize state tort claims against foreign states and civil enforcement of counter-terrorism laws, or the consequences of closing courthouse doors to future victims of terrorist attacks in the United States.” Relying on prior court decisions, the Petitioners argue for certiorari supported by the FSIA and 18 USC §2333 which is intended to allow civil suits to aid in the counter terrorism effort. Overall, the Petitioner’s affirm the legal analysis “satisfies the usual standards justifying review, and therefore the Court should grant the petition.”

• Coulter et al. v. Arab Bank (Families of victims of Palestinian terrorism sue bank for allegedly conducting business with terrorists):

- Complaint (Added 1/13/08) This complaint alleges that the Arab Bank - "a Jordanian bank headquartered in Amman, Jordan with a federally licensed and regulated branch office in the state of New York --...has and is continuing to knowingly provide, distribute, and administer the distribution of financial benefits, money and financial services to (a) terrorists who have killed, injured and maimed civilians, or attempted to do so, (b) the families and beneficiaries of such terrorists, and (c) Foreign Terrorist Organizations...as part of a scheme to encourage and facilitate acts of international terrorism..."

• Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz (Lawsuit addressing British libel judgment against author Rachel Ehrenfeld, who alleged Khalid Bin Mahfouz had ties to terrorism):

- Second Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling (Added 1/13/08) Providing background on the case, the ruling notes that "Ehrenfeld is the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed -- and How to Stop It, which was published by Bonus Books in 2003 in the United States. Mahfouz is a Saudi Arabian citizen who was formerly the president and chief executive officer of The National Commercial Bank of Saudia Arabia. In Funding Evil, Ehrenfeld alleges that Mahfouz, among others, financially supported terrorism. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld in England for libel on the basis of these allegations. Ehrenfeld alleges that Mahfouz chose that venue because of its more favorable libel laws. Ehrenfeld did not appear in the English case and the English court issued a default judgment against her..." The ruling asserts that U.S. courts lack proper jurisdiction to declare the U.K. verdict unenforceable.

• El-Ganayni v. Department of Energy et al. (Nuclear physicist whose DOE security clearance was revoked):

- Complaint (Added 7/6/08) Dr. Abdel Moniem Ali El-Ganayni, a native-born Egyptian who became a U.S. citizen in 1988 and who worked as a physicist at Bettis Laboratory (a Pittsburgh facility dedicated to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), sued the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE Secretary after his security clearance was suspended. According to the complaint, "to this day Dr. El-Ganayni does not know exactly why his clearance was suspended and eventually revoked. He can only deduce the reasons based on the questions he was asked during approximately seven hours of interviews, first in October 2007 by Bettis and D.O.E. officials and then two weeks later by F.B.I. agents. The questions focused on Dr. El-Ganayni's religious beliefs as a Muslim, his work as an Imam in the Pennsylvania prison system, his political views about America's war with Iraq, and speeches he gave at local Mosques criticizing the F.B.I.'s mistreatment of and disrespect for Muslims, particularly in Pittsburgh."

- DOE Letter Re: El-Ganayni's Clearance Suspension (Added 7/6/08) This letter informed El-Ganayni that his "access to classified information" was being terminated "in the interests of national security."

- DOE Letter Re: El-Ganayni's Clearance Suspension (Added 7/6/08) This letter advised El-Ganayni about his rights in the process.

- Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injuction and Permanent Injunction (Added 9/28/08) Dr. Abdel Moniem Ali El-Ganayni, a native-born Egyptian who became a U.S. citizen in 1988 and who worked as a physicist at Bettis Laboratory (a Pittsburgh facility dedicated to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), sued the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE Secretary after his security clearance was suspended. The U.S. government has filed a motion to dismiss, noting that "reliable information in the possession of the Department of Energy indicates that" El-Ganayni "knowingly established or continued sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, terrorist, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, espionage agent, or representative of a foreign nation whose interests are inimical to the interests of the United States..."

- Memorandum Order (Added 10/9/08) Dr. Abdel Moniem Ali El-Ganayni, a native-born Egyptian who became a U.S. citizen in 1988 and who worked as a physicist at Bettis Laboratory sued the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE Secretary after his security clearance was suspended. In assessing the case, federal judge Terrence F. McVerry pointed out that "this is a difficult and important case that implicates the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. On the one hand, Dr. El-Ganayni asserts violations of his fundamental constitutional rights and argues that there must be some judicial remedy. On the other hand, Defendants contend that the revocation of a security clearance by the executive branch on the basis of 'national security' is not reviewable by the courts." In dismissing two counts of the complaint, Judge wrote, "the relief sought by Plaintiff in Counts I and II would require the Court to second-guess the Executive branch." Additionally,according to this document, "Dr. El-Ganayni engaged in religious and political activity in the time period preceding the suspension of his security clearance. He spoke out against the government’s treatment of Muslims, including criticism of a raid on the Light of Age Mosque during the Juma’h prayer service, the presence of FBI recruiting brochures inside a Monroeville Mosque, and United States foreign policy in Iraq."

- Memorandum Order Dismissing Case (Added 11/26/08) A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed the sole remaining count in a lawsuit filed by Dr. Abdel Moniem Ali El-Ganayni -- a native-born Egyptian who became a U.S. citizen in 1988 and who worked as a physicist at Bettis Laboratory -- who sued the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE Secretary after his security clearance was suspended. The judge wrote, "On November 24, 2008, DOE filed the Bodnar Certification, which represents an agency head personal determination by the Secretary of Energy that the applicable procedures set forth in Executive Orders 10865 and 12968 and 10 C.F.R. § 710.26-710.30 'cannot be made available to Dr. El-Ganayni without damaging the interests of national security by revealing classified information.'"

• Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Families of U.S. citizens killed in a 1996 Hamas suicide bombing sue Iran):

- Order and Judgment (Added 1/13/08) The families received a judgment for over $327 million.

• Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Family of U.S. citizen killed in a 1995 Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide bombing sues Iran):

- Order and Judgment (Added 1/13/08) The Flatow family received a default judgment for over $225 million.

• Habib v. Chertoff (Challenging U.S. exclusion of Adam Habib):

- Complaint (Added 1/12/08) The State Department denied Habib a visa, asserting he has "engaged in terrorist activities."

• Heiser et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. (Families of Khobar Towers bombing victims sue Iran):

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 1/13/08)

- Order and Judgment (Added 1/13/08) Following the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the family members and estates of 17 of the 19 U.S. servicemen killed in the attack sued, among others, the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”), and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (“IRGC” or “the Pasdaran”). The families received a default judgment for over $254 million.

• Heroth et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia et al. (Families of victims of 2003 Riyadh bombing sue Saudi Arabia):

- Complaint (Added 1/13/08) Following the May 2003 Al-Qaida bombing of a Saudi Arabian National Guard compound in Riyadh, Vinnell Corporation employees and their families sued Saudi Arabia for failing to provide adequate security at the compound. The complaint states, "the security provided and promised by the Saudi Arabian government or their agents in the United States effected nothing more than an illusion of safety."

• Higazy v. Millennium Hotel and Resorts et al. (Individual detained in 9/11 probe asserts the FBI coerced him to admit pilot's radio was his):

- Second Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling (Added 1/13/08) The court revived Higazy's suit in part, but affirmed other elements of the district court's dismissal.

• Holy Land Foundation v. Ashcroft (Challenging OFAC asset freeze for Hamas links):

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 1/12/08) In denying the Holy Land Foundation's (HLF) claim that the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) illegally froze its asset, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in June 2003: "The seven volume, 3130 page administrative record in this case provides substantial support for OFAC's determination that HLF acts for or on behalf of Hamas. Specifically, as the following analysis demonstrates, the administrative record contains ample evidence that (1) HLF has had financial connections to Hamas since its creation in 1989; (2) HLF leaders have been actively involved in various meetings with Hamas leaders; (3) HLF funds Hamas-controlled charitable organizations; (4) HLF provides financial support to the orphans and families of Hamas martyrs and prisoners; (5) HLF's Jerusalem office acted on behalf of Hamas; and (6) FBI informants reliably reported that HLF funds Hamas."

- Department of Justice Press Release (Added 1/12/08) Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft asserts that the ruling is "a victory for the government’s authority to act swiftly to stop the flow of money to terrorists or others who threaten our national security."

• Humanitarian Law Project v. Department of Justice:

- Opinion. Ruling in a case challenging the prohibition on providing "material support" to terrorist groups, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that certain terms -- such as providing "service," "training," and "expert advice" -- are "void" because of their "vagueness." However, the court confirmed the Secretary of State's right "to designate a group as a foreign terrorist organization."

• Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Family of U.S. citizen kidnapped by Hezbollah in 1985 sues Iran):

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 1/13/08) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a $314 million judgment.

• John Doe Anti-Terrorism Officer v. The City of New York, Bruce Tefft (Intelligence analyst in NYPD Intelligence Division's "Cyber Unit" sues over "anti-Muslim and anti-Arab harassment in his workplace":

- First Amended Complaint (Added 1/22/08) According to the complaint, Bruce Tefft, a former CIA officer "hired by the NYPD to act as a counterterrorism advisor," was responsible for subjecting the plaintiff "to almost daily, virulent anti-Muslim and anti-Arab harassment in his workplace." The document alleges that "Tefft's hate-filled and humiliating email briefings were distributed to virtually all City employees who worked in the NYPD's Intelligence Division, including the highest-ranking members of that division and Plaintiff's supervisor."

- Declaration of Bruce Tefft (Added 1/22/08) Tefft states that "as an American, I have a fundamental right to express my beliefs" and asserts that he promptly removed the plaintiff from his email list upon request. He also notes that he has "never been an employee, contract employee, or paid contractor of the NYPD nor the City of New York."

• Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Henry M. Paulson et al. (Challenging SDGT designation):

- Complaint (Added 1/22/09) Saudi citizen Yassin Abdullah Kadi has sued Henry Paulson, Adam Szubin, and the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control challenging his "wrongful and unconscionable designation" as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" in October 2001. Kadi describes his experience as a "Kafkaesque journey without due process", as he argues that "the designation is not supported by the administrative record, and that the designation and review process violated his First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (‘IEEPA’) and the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’)…”

- European Union Court of Justice Press Release on Overturning of Asset Freezes (Added 9/7/08) Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation, established in Sweden, were designated in 2001 by the U.N.'s Sanctions Committee for their alleged involvement with Al-Qaida. Kadi and Al Baraakat challenged that designation, claiming "that the Council was not competent to adopt the regulation at issue and that it infringed several of their fundamental rights." In September 2005, the Court of First Instance rejected appeals by Kadi and Al Barakaat. However, in September 2008, the European Union's Court of Justice overturned the judgments of the Court of First Instance, asserting that "the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, and the right to effective judicial review of those rights, were patently not respected." Moreover, the Court concluded that "the freezing of funds constitutes an unjustified restriction of Mr Kadi’s right to property" and annulled "the Council regulation in so far as it freezes Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat’s funds."

- European Union Court of Justice Judgment (Added 9/7/08)

- European Union Court of Justice Opinion (Added 9/7/08)

• Kaplan et al. v. North Korea et al. (Victims of Hezbollah rocket attacks sue N. Korea):

- Complaint (Added 4/14/09) 30 American citizens injured in Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel in summer 2006 have sued Hezbollah and North Korea. The complaint asserts that North Korea provided material support to Hezbollah by building an “Extensive tunnel system…so that Hezbollah could safely store the rockets”, as well as by providing arms and training to Hezbollah.

• Khaliq et al. v. Republic of Sudan et al. (Victims of Africa Embassy bombings sue Sudan and Iran):

- First Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08) According to the complaint, "the Republic of Sudan, acting through the Defendant, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of the Sudan, entered into an arrangement with al Qaeda and Hezbollah under which those organizations received shelter and protection from interference while carrying out planning and training of various persons for the attacks of August 7, 1998. These included an organizational and planning meeting within the Republic of the Sudan of Usama Bin Laden, chief of al Qaeda, and Imad Mughaniyah, chief of Hezbollah, with the purpose of carrying out the attacks upon the embassies of the United States in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, on August 7, 1998." The complaint further alleges that "Hezbollah was under the complete operational control of" the Iranian government, "through Iranian Revolutionary Guards units."

• KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development v. Henry M. Paulson et al. (Challenging asset freeze):

- Complaint (Added 2/8/09) As this document states, "This lawsuit challenges OFAC’s freeze pending investigation and the threatened designation as violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, it seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring OFAC from designating KindHearts until it has been provided due process in connection with any future designation."

- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Added 2/8/09) This document argues that "Since freezing KindHearts’ assets, OFAC has taken a number of actions that make it impossible for KindHearts to defend itself, including: failing to notify KindHearts of the specific charges or factual allegations that might warrant its designation; relying almost exclusively on classified evidence without affording KindHearts a meaningful opportunity to respond; and seizing all of KindHearts’ records and assets and then placing untenable restrictions on its ability to access its records, pay for its own defense, or conduct its own investigation."

- Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and its Memorandum on Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment on all Counts (Added 2/8/09) According to this filing, "The only document that OFAC actually provided to KindHearts at the time of the FPI was the Blocking Notice, which stated in boilerplate terms that KindHearts was being frozen pending investigation into whether its designation was appropriate 'for being controlled by, acting for or on behalf of, assisting in or providing financial or material support to, and/or otherwise being associated with Hamas.' AR2. The 'notice' offers no explanation of the factual or legal basis for the FPI, and KindHearts cannot possibly 'present [its] side of the story' in response to such bare and unsupported allegations."

- Judge's Order (Added 2/8/09) Judge James Carr ruled that "the government has shown no adequate grounds for refusing to provide copies to KindHearts and its counsel of the materials seized by its agents. Its 'ongoing investigation' cannot
be impaired, as it will have the originals; it has not supported its concerns about influencing of testimony or intimidation of witnesses with any reason – aside from its own conclusory assumptions – that such would occur. The government’s unsupported, generalized – indeed, boilerplate – assumptions are not an adequate basis to tolerate, as the current protective order does, substantial interference with and impairment of the ability of client and counsel to communicate and consult meaningfully about the government’s past, present and future actions against KindHearts." Therefore, "The government shall forthwith commence producing copies at its expense of all seized materials to counsel of record for KindHearts, and as well, as provided herein, to such representatives of KindHearts as counsel shall designate."

- Amicus Brief (Added 2/28/09) In an amicus brief filed in the case of KindHearts v. Paulson, Grantmakers Without Borders, OMB Watch, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Kinder USA, MPAC and several organizations argued that U.S. government "policies have violated the Constitutional rights of targeted NPOs [non-profit organizations] by, among other things, allowing the government unfettered discretion to freeze the assets of NPOs or to designate NPOs as terrorist organizations without providing them adequate notice or meaningful opportunities to challenge the government’s actions, and without providing for robust judicial review of those actions. In short, as shown by the KindHearts case, the government is acting arbitrarily to enforce vague standards, while failing to provide critical due process protections."

- U.S. Treasury Department Press Release - Asset Freeze (Added 2/8/09) KindHearts is a Toledo, Ohio-based charity that the Treasury Department shut down in February 2006 for funneling money to Hamas. According to Treasury, "Following the December 2001 asset freeze and law enforcement actions against the Hamas-affiliated Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and the al Qaida-affiliated Global Relief Foundation (GRF), former GRF official Khaled Smaili established KindHearts from his residence in January 2002. Smaili founded KindHearts with the intent to succeed fundraising efforts of both HLF and GRF, aiming for the new NGO to fill a void caused by the closures. KindHearts leaders and fundraisers once held leadership or other positions with HLF and GRF." KindHearts fundraising efforts were coordinated by HLF official Mohammed El-Mezain.

• Licci et al. v. American Express Bank Ltd. & Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL (Families of Hezbollah victims sue banks):

- Complaint (Added 7/15/08) The victims of Hezbollah attacks sued the American Express Bank Ltd. and Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, alleging that the two banks "intentionally and/or negligently provided extensive banking services to Hizbollah, which caused, enabled and facilitated the terrorist rocket attacks in which the plaintiffs and their decedents were harmed and killed.".

• Linde et al. v. Arab Bank (Families of victims of Palestinian terrorism sue bank for allegedly conducting business with terrorists):

- First Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08) This complaint asserts that "Arab Bank has substantially assisted HAMAS and the PIJ in the furtherance of a murderous conspiracy to commit multiple acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 and 2332 and has committed numerous overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy."

• Litle et al. v. Arab Bank (Families of victims of Palestinian terrorism sue bank for allegedly conducting business with terrorists):

- Complaint (Added 1/13/08) This complaint alleges that "Arab Bank has aided and abetted and conspired to commit...acts of international terrorism, resulting in the killing, attempted killing and maiming of scores of American citizens in Israel since September 2000..."

• Lopez et al. v. Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network et al. (CAIR Sued for Racketeering, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duties):

- Complaint (Added 6/24/09) In November 2008 an official complaint was filed by four plaintiffs against the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network (CAIR) and related co-conspirators in D.C. federal court. Former clients of Morris Days, a “resident attorney” serving the CAIR Virginia branch, claimed their cause of action concerned CAIR’s alleged violations of RICO, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” upon those seeking legal representation. The lawsuit asserts that Days, allegedly responsible for the “Days Fraud Scheme,” charged more than 30 clients incongruous legal fees for fabricated legal services, fictitious lawsuits, and mock litigation. Aware of Days’ fraudulent acts upon hire and throughout his employment, CAIR purportedly concealed this information from clients and made conscious efforts to hide material fact from the general public or from any law enforcement and government agency. Furthermore, the document alleges that partial restitution of legal fees was provided to only the most adamant clients—appeasement to prevent a damaged reputation or ceased funding from “charitable” donors in the Muslim community.

• MacWade v. New York Police Department (Challenging searches of subway passengers' bags):

- Second Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling (Added 1/12/08) The court affirmed the constitutionality of the NYPD's searches, noting that the "search program serves a special need and, on balance, is reasonable."

• Mallouk et al. v. George Bush et al. (Challenging U.A.E. detention of U.S. citizen):

- Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Added 12/8/08) A lawsuit filed in Washington D.C. seeks to address the case of U.S. citizen Naji Hamdan, who is currently detained in the U.A.E. As the lawsuit explains, "The FBI intensively surveilled and interrogated Naji Hamdan, an American citizen, over a two year period, during most of which he lived in the United Arab Emirates. The culmination of this surveillance occurred in August 2008, when two FBI agents flew from Los Angeles to the United Arab Emirates to interrogate him at the U.S. Embassy there. Approximately three weeks later, the Emirati State Security forces arrested him at his house. He has been detained ever since – for eighty days – largely incommunicado and without access to any legal process at an undisclosed location in that nation." The lawsuit explains that "starting in 1999, the FBI began to target Mr. Hamdan. They approached him for interrogation at his house on the morning of December 30, 1999, at which time they asked him, among other things, if he knew Osama bin Laden."

- ACLU Press Release (Added 12/8/08) This document includes a picture of Hamdan with his daughter.

• Al-Owhali v. Alberto Gonzales (Convicted Embassy bomber sues over prison conditions):

- Complaint Convicted Africa Embassy bomber Mohamed Rashed Daud Al-Owhali sued then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in October 2007, arguing that the Special Administrative Measures (SAM) governing his incarceration were unconstitutional.

• Owens et al. v. Republic of Sudan (Families of individuals killed in Africa Embassy bombings sue Sudan and Iran):

- Third Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08) The plaintiffs sought damages from Sudan and Iran for aiding, abetting, and conspiring with the Africa Embassy bombers.

- Declaration of Former FBI Special Agent John Cloonan (Added 1/13/08) Former FBI Special Agent John Cloonan denied that Sudan had any involvement in the Embassy bombings.

- Declaration of Former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Timothy Carney (Added 1/13/08) Former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Timothy Carney denied that Sudan had any involvement in the Embassy bombings.

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 1/13/08) A judge denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.

• Peres et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Families of Israeli diplomat killed by Hezbollah in 1992 Israeli embassy bombing in Argentina sue Iran):

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 2/27/08) Ruling in a lawsuit filed by family members of David Ben-Rafael, a one-time U.S. citizen who became an Israeli diplomat and was one of 29 victims in the 1992 Hezbollah bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina, a judge determined that Iran "provided material support to Hezbollah in its attack on March 17, 1992, for...this bombing could not have occurred without defendants’ 'material, financial and technical support.' While it is unclear whether defendants actually provided the bomb that was used in the attack, they had knowledge of the plot and they provided the support that allowed Hezbollah to carry out the embassy bombing." The judge further ruled that Iran must pay approximately $63 million in damages. 

• Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Families of U.S. citizens killed by Hezbollah in the 1983 USMC Beirut bombing sue Iran):

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 1/13/08) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a $2.65 billion dollar judgment.

• Pugh et al. v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya et al. (Families of victims of 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing over Niger sue Libya and six top officials):

- Amended Complaint (Added 1/22/08) According to this document, "the bombing of UTA Flight 772 was ordered and carried out by those in the highest levels of the Libyan government, including Defendants Qadahfi, Senoussi, Elazragh, Naeli, Musbah, Shibani, and Hammouda, in revenge for French support of the Chadian government in opposition to Libyan insurgents."

- Memorandum (Added 1/22/08) On May 11, 2006, the court granted summary judgment as to liability in favor of the plaintiffs. On January 15, 2008, the court awarded the victims nearly $6 billion.

• Rajah et al. v. Mukasey et al. (Court upholds Special Call-In Registration Program):

- 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (Added 10/4/08) The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case filed by "aliens who responded to the Special Call-In Registration Program instituted after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and were subsequently placed in deportation..." The court upheld the U.S. government program as constitutional and held "that the petitioners are deportable" (with one exception). The court wrote, "To be sure, the Program did select countries that were, with the exception of North Korea, predominantly Muslim. Petitioners argue, without evidence other than that fact, that the Program was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims. However, one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups. The September 11 attacks were facilitated by violations of immigration laws by aliens from predominantly Muslim nations. The Program was clearly tailored to those facts."

• Rahman et al. v. Chertoff (Claimed 4th and 5th Ammendment violations):

- Complaint (Added 4/24/08) M. Akifur Rahman, a U.S. citizen, sued Michael Chertoff in June 2005 because "on four occasions in the last 15 months, upon his reentry to the United States, agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security...unjustifiably detained Mr. Rahman and sometimes members of his family for inordinate and unnecessary period of time of two to six hours, and subjected him and his family to unreasonable and humiliating conditions of restraint, confinement, and treatment."

- Declaration of Thomas Harrington (Added 4/24/08) Thomas J. Harrington -- Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division -- submitted a declaration "to assert and support a claim of law enforcement investigatory privilege over law enforcement sensitive information that has been redacted from documents already produced by defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)." According to Harrington, "the Court should not order the FBI to confirm that someone is not in the TSDB [Terrorist Screening Database], because a denial as to one person would imply that silence as to others should be taken as confirmation of watch listed status." He added, "if an individual desires to commit a terrorist act, notifying him that he is not on any watch list...would allow the individual to move about without detection and could serve to encourage the individual to commit the terrorist act. Terrorist groups could manipulate the system to discover which of their members are not included on any watch list..."

- Declaration of J. Michael McConnell (Added 4/24/08) McConnell -- Director of National Intelligence -- submitted a declaration asserting that discovery of national intelligence information of the National Counterterrorism Center "would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States, and therefore, should be excluded from use in this case."

- ICE Letter to Rahman (Added 4/24/08) In an April 2005 letter to Rahman, Gloria Marshall -- Chief of ICE's Information Disclosure Unit -- notified Rahman that "the troubles you are experiencing are the result of...[a] near match with information in the NCIC and TECS on another person who has the same or similar name and date-of-birth as yours. The records on this invidual must remain in the system for valid enforcement reasons. However, we have been able to make certain adjustments and modifications to some of these records--but not all of them."

- CBP Letters to Senators Obama and Durbin (Added 4/24/08) A Customs and Border Patrol official thanked Senators Obama and Durbin for the letters they wrote on behalf of their constituent, Rahman, and informed them that Rahman "is not on record as a criminal suspect."

- Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order (Redacted) (Added 4/24/08) In April 2008, a federal Magistrate Judge explained that Rahman had been joined by seven other plaintiffs in a class action claim for violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The individuals "allege...they were improperly detained and mistreated for one of two reasons: (1) either because they were incorrectly identified in the TSDB as posing a serious threat to law enforcement officials or national security (the 'overclassification' claim); or (2) because they were mistaken for someone listed in the TDSB [Terrorist Screening Database] with a name that is the same or similar to theirs (the 'misidentification' claim)." The judge ruled that "the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion for a protective order barring discovery of matters subject to the state secrets privilege. We deny the motion with respect to the production of redacted information from the CBP records that would tend to confirm or deny whether plaintiffs are now or ever have been in the TSDB; we find that the state secrets privilege is inapplicable to that information, and that defendants must produce that information to plaintiffs in this case." In a separate section, the judge agreed that certain disclosures about certain plaintiffs "would jeapardize national security."

- TECS Records: Oussama Jamal (Added 4/24/08) The government released TECS records pertaining to another plaintiff, Oussama Jamal of Bridgeview, Illinois.

• Ramadan v. Chertoff (Challenging U.S. exclusion of Tariq Ramadan):

- Complaint (Added 1/12/08) On September 19, 2006, the U.S. government informed Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar who had been offered a job as a tenured professor at Notre Dame University, that it was denying his visa application because he had engaged "in terrorist activity by providing material support to a terrorist organization." Ramadan and a number of organizations, including the American Academy of Religion and the American Association of University Professors, challenged the U.S. government's actions. According to this filing, "the government's unlawful actions stifle intellectual exchange about Islam and the Muslim world at a time when robust and unfettered intellectual exchange about these subjects is of extraordinary importance to American citizens and others living in the United States."

- Declaration of Tariq Ramadan (Added 1/12/08) Ramadan states, "I was astonished by the government's decision to revoke my visa. While I have sometimes criticized specific United States policies, I am not anti-American, and I have certainly never endorsed or espoused terrorism."

- Second Declaration of Tariq Ramadan (Added 1/12/08) Between 1998 and 2002, Ramadan donated approximately $1,446 to the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), which the U.S. Treasury Department has named a Specially Designated Global Terrorist for funding Hamas. Ramadan explains, "I gave money to ASP because I believed that it was a legitimate humanitarian organization engaged in legitimate humanitarian projects."

- Opinion and Order (Added 12/21/07) A federal judge upheld the government's decision, noting that the contributions to the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP) were a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for exclusion.

• Rux et al. v. Republic of Sudan (Families of victims of U.S.S. Cole bombing sue Sudan):

- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (Added 1/12/08) This ruling upheld a court's decision denying Sudan's motion to dismiss.

- Opinion and Order (Added 1/12/08) The plaintiffs won a judgment for nearly $8 million.

• Saperstein et al. v. Palestinian Authority et al. (Victims of attacks by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorists sue Palestinian Authority, others):

- Complaint (Added 1/12/08) According to this complaint, "defendants PA, PLO and [Yasser] Arafat, advocated, encouraged, solicited, facilitated, incited for, sponsored, organized, planned and executed acts of violence and terrorism against Jewish civilians in Israel, Gaza and the Judea and Samaria regions of the West Bank."

- Amended Complaint (Added 1/12/08)

- Defendant Answers (Added 1/12/08) The defendants argue that they "are immune from suit in the United States under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity."

- Judgment (Added 1/12/08) The plaintiffs were awarded $48 million.

• Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations (Nationally syndicated radio host sues over alleged copyright infringement):

- First Amended Complaint (Added 1/12/08) Lawyers for nationally syndicated talk show host Michael Savage explain that "this lawsuit concerns the infringement of the copyright to the October 29, 2007 show wherein a dramatic, meaningful and powerful segment of the Savage Nation was and continues to be expropriated by defendant, CAIR (as identified herein)...the misappropriated segment was used by CAIR for fundraising purposes..." Further, "CAIR is a radical voice that deliberately attempts to be seen as centrist so that media time goes to CAIR and once on the air, CAIR directs its rhetoric to the benefit of its extremist clients." According to the complaint, "CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed."

• Scherfen v. Department of Homeland Security et al. (Pilot sues over placement on watch list):

- Complaint (Added 8/29/08) Erich Scherfen, a Gulf War combat veteran who converted to Islam and now works as a pilot for a small regional airline, has sued the federal government for placing him and his wife on the terrorist watch list. According to a press release issued by the ACLU, "Scherfen first learned he was on 'a list' from a gate agent prior to a September 2006 flight. Since then he has repeatedly been delayed for extra screenings before boarding a flight. In April of this year, his employer, a small regional airline that subcontracts with larger airlines like United Express and U.S. Airways Express, informed Scherfen that he was a positive match on a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) list and placed him on administrative leave. During an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the issue with TSA, the airline was told they were not allowed to let Scherfen fly a plane. Suspended without pay, he is scheduled for termination on September 1, 2008 if he is not taken off the list. Scherfen will lose his career as well as his job."

• Tabaa v. Chertoff (Challenging CBP searches of Muslims following 2004 Islamic conference):

- Opinion A federal appeals court affirmed that the Customs and Border Patrol did not violate the rights of individuals who attended the December 2004 Reviving the Islamic Spirit (RIS) Conference in Toronto and were then subjected to searches and detentions at the U.S.-Canada border. The ruling notes that CBP had "reason to believe that the 2004 RIS Conference 'would serve as a possible meeting point for terrorists' to 'coordinate operations, and raise funds intended for terrorist activities,' as well as 'exchange ideas and documents,' including 'travel or identification documents such as passports or driver's licenses.'"

• Tamam et al. v. Fransabank Sal et al. (Israeli victims of Hezbollah attacks sue Lebanese banks):

- Complaint (Added 7/9/08) In a lawsuit filed in New York, Israeli victims of Hezbollah attacks sued a number of Lebanese banks, including Fransabank Sal, Banque Libanese Pour Le Commerce, and the Middle East Africa Bank, asserting that "each defendant...intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with willful blindness provided services to one of Hizbullah's most infamous and lethal fundraising organizations, the Islamic Resistance Support Organization ('IRSO), an entity specifically tasked by Hizbullah's leadership with raising funds explicitly dedicated to terror activities."

• U.S. v. Arab Bank (Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act; Anti-Money Laundering compliance):

- Treasury Department: Assessment of Civil Money Penalty (Added 1/13/08) According to this document, "during the period from 2001 through 2004, Arab Bank -- New York cleared funds transfers for originators or beneficiaries that the Office of Foreign Assets Control or the Department of State later designated as 'specially designated terrorists,' 'specially designated global terrorists,' or 'foreign terrorist organizations.'"

- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Consent Order for Civil Money Penalty (Added 1/13/08) This document states that "the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States of America ('Comptroller'), through his national bank examiners and other staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ('OCC'), has conducted an examination and investigation of the New York branch of Arab Bank PLC (the 'New York Branch' or 'Branch'), a Federal branch of Arab Bank PLC, Amman, Jordan ('Arab Bank'), and has identified deficiencies in the Branch’s internal controls, particularly in the area of Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering compliance."

- Office Treasury Department Press Release on $24 Million Penalty (Added 1/13/08) The press release notes that "the agencies determined that the New York Branch of Arab Bank failed to implement an adequate anti-money laundering program to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing in connection with United States dollar clearing transactions. The New York Branch also violated the suspicious activity reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act."

• U.S. v. Assa Corporation (Ties to Bank Melli):

- Complaint (Added 12/21/08) In December 2008, the U.S. announced "the filing of a civil Complaint seeking forfeiture of the 40% interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company (the owner of the 36-story office tower at 650 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, New York) which is held by Assa Corporation...The office tower at 650 Fifth Avenue (the 'Building') was constructed in the 1970's by the Pahlavi Foundation, a non-profit organization operated by the Shah of Iran to pursue Iran's charitable interests in the United States. The Building's construction was financed by a substantial loan from Bank Melli Iran ('Bank Melli'), a state-owned bank in Iran. The Pahlavi Foundation was later renamed the Mostazafan Foundation of New York, and later renamed the Alavi Foundation. In 1989 the Alavi Foundation formed 650 Fifth Avenue Company in partnership with Bank Melli. Bank Melli's ownership interest was, however, disguised. Specifically, the Alavi Foundation transferred 35% of 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Assa Corporation, an entity wholly owned by Assa Company Limited; Assa Company Limited is a Jersey, Channel Islands, United Kingdom, entity, which was and has since been wholly owned by Iranian citizens who represent the interests of Bank Melli. In conjunction with the transfer of the 35% interest in 650 Fifth Avenue to Assa Corp., Bank Melli cancelled its loan on the Building. Today, the Alavi Foundation owns 60% of 650 Fifth Avenue Company, and Bank Melli owns 40% of 650 Fifth Avenue Company, through Assa Corporation and Assa Company Limited."

- U.S. Attorney's Office Press Release on Civil Complaint (Added 12/21/08) DOJ notes that "without an OFAC license to do so, Assa Corporation and Assa Company Limited continued to provide services to Bank Melli by maintaining Bank Melli's interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company and transferring income from 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Bank Melli. In 1999, OFAC identified Bank Melli, and all of its offices worldwide, as entities owned or controlled by the Government of Iran."

- FBI Press Release on Civil Complaint (Added 12/21/08)

- Treasury Department Designation (Added 12/21/08) Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey commented, "This scheme to use a front company set up by Bank Melli -- a known proliferator -- to funnel money from the United States to Iran is yet another example of Iran's duplicity." Further, "Bank Melli provides financial services, including opening letters of credit and maintaining accounts, for Iranian front companies and entities engaged in proliferation activities. Further, Bank Melli has facilitated the purchase of sensitive materials utilized by Iran's nuclear and missile industries, and has handled transactions for other designated Iranian entities, including Bank Sepah, Defense Industries Organization, and the Shahid Hammat Industrial Group." And, "Bank Melli provides banking services to Iran's military vanguard, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Qods Force..."

- Alavi Foundation IRS Form 990: 2000 (Added 12/21/08)

- Alavi Foundation IRS Form 990: 2001 (Added 12/21/08)

- Alavi Foundation IRS Form 990: 2002 (Added 12/21/08)

- Alavi Foundation IRS Form 990: 2003 (Added 12/21/08)

- Alavi Foundation IRS Form 990: 2004 (Added 12/21/08)

- Alavi Foundation IRS Form 990: 2005 (Added 12/21/08)

- U.K. Treasury Financial Sanctions Supplement - Bank Melli (Added 12/21/08)

- Treasury Department Designation: Future Bank B.S.C. (Added 12/21/08) In designating Future Bank B.S.C. for being controlled by Iran's Bank Melli, Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI), said, "Bank Melli goes to extraordinary lengths to assist Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability and ballistic missiles, while also helping other designated entities to dodge sanctions."

• U.S. DOJ and New York County District Attorney’s Office v. Lloyds TSB Bank Plc (International Emergency Economic Powers Act Violations):

- New York County District Attorney’s Office Press Release (Added 1/11/09) A 2006 investigation by the N.Y. County District Attorney's Office "into the relationship between the Government of Iran and two New York entities, the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corporation,...uncovered evidence" that Lloyds TSB Bank plc "was engaged in the illegal transfer of funds into Manhattan on behalf of sanctioned Iranian banks." In January 2009, Lloyds "agreed to forfeit $350 million to the United States and to the New York County District Attorney’s Office in connection with violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)...The violations relate to transactions Lloyds illegally conducted on behalf of customers from Iran, Sudan and other countries sanctioned in programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls." As the N.Y. County DA's Office press release notes, "LLOYDS admits that from 2001 – 2004, LLOYDS falsified the business records of banks in Manhattan by engaging in a systematic process of altering wire transfer information to hide the identity of its clients. This process allowed the illegal transfer of more than $300 million on behalf of Iranian banks and their customers; the Iranian banks involved included Bank Melli, Bank Saderat, Sepah Bank and others. While LLOYDS voluntarily exited the Iranian business by 2004, the Sudanese business, which resulted in the illegal transfer of over $20 million, continued into 2007, after the beginning of the investigation. The transfers were made to buy goods and services from U.S. companies and to finance the purchase of goods and services from foreign vendors that sought payment in dollars."

- Department of Justice Press Release (Added 1/11/09)

• Weiss et al. v. National Westminster Bank (Families of victims of Hamas attacks sue bank for allegedly conducting business with Hamas entities):

- First Amended Complaint (Added 1/13/08) Victims of Hamas terror attacks sued National Westminster Bank (NatWest) which is headquartered in the U.K., alleging that the bank "knowingly collected, provided, and transmitted money and financial services to HAMAS..." The complaint asserts that NatWest "provided and continues to provide financial services to HAMAS via various HAMAS-controlled institutions including, but not limited to: the Orphan Care Society of Bethlehem, Al-Islah Charitable Society in Ramallah-Al-Bireh, the Ramallah-Al-Bireh Charitable Society, the Jenin Charity Committee, the Hebron Islamic Association, Tulkarem Charity Committee, Al-Muhama al-Islami, the Islamic Charitable Society in the Gaza Strip, and the Muslim Youth Association of Hebron."

• World Trade Center Properties LLC v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation et al. (Owners of World Trade Center sue alleged terrorist supporters):

- Complaint (Added 1/13/08) The complaint alleges that an array of "charities, banks, front organizations and financiers -- are what allowed the attacks of September 11, 2001 to occur. Terrorists like Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network do not exist in a vacuum. They cannot plan, train and act on a massive scale without significant financial power, coordination and backing. Defendants herein, some of whom act in the shadows, are ultimately responsible for the damages caused by the actions of their terrorist agents and clients."

• Bilal Abdul Yasin v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. (Store owner claimed Alcohol and Beverage Control Board undercover operation was ruse to allow FBI counterterrorism agents to search his house):

- Complaint (Added 10/4/08) Bilal Abdul Yasin, who owns Chinca's Market in Chico, California, has sued the FBI and the California Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) Board for allegedly conspiring to "entrap" him "into committing a crime" -- purchasing cigarettes that were represented as stolen -- so that his house could be searched as part of a FBI counterterrorism investigation. Open sources reported that "last year, Butte County Superior Court Judge Steven Howell dismissed the cigarette sales charges against Yasin and two store employees, over the FBI's refusal to testify in the case or provide the defendants' attorneys with investigative documents." Notably, the complaint adds, "on July 17, 2007, California Superior Court Judge Steven J. Howell stated that 'a  reasonable person could draw the conclusion that this ABC undercover operation was a subterfuge for an FBI antiterrorism investigation." 

• Robert G. Wright Jr.  v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. (FBI agent sues FBI to allow publication of book critical of Bureau's handling of Hamas-linked probe):

- Complaint (Added 5/25/09) Chicago FBI agent Robert G. Wright Jr. sued the FBI to challenge the Bureau's refusal to allow him to publish a 500 page book, "Fatal Betrayals," which outlines what he asserts were the FBI's efforts to thwart his investigation of terrorists in the Chicago area in the 1990s. Wright played a key role in probing not-for-profit organizations in the U.S. that served as Hamas front groups, spearheading the investigation of Yassin Kadi that led to the seizure of $1.4 "destined for terrorist activities".

- Second Amended Complaint (Added 5/25/09)

- Exhibits (Added 5/25/09)

- Memorandum Opinion (Added 5/25/09) Ruling in a lawsuit filed by Chicago FBI agent Robert G. Wright Jr., federal judge Gladys Kessler wrote, "This is a sad and discouraging tale about the determined efforts of the FBI to censor various portions of a 500-page manuscript, written by a former long-time FBI agent, severely criticizing the FBI's conduct of the investigation of a money laundering scheme in which United States-based members of the Hamas terrorist organization were using non-profit organizations in this country to recruit and train terrorists and fund terrorist activities both here and abroad. The FBI also sought to censor answers given by both Plaintiffs to a series of written questions presented to them by a New York Times reporter concerning Wright's allegations about the FBI's alleged mishandling of the investigation. In its efforts to suppress this information, the FBI repeatedly changed its position, presented formalistic objections to release of various portions of the documents in question, admitted finally that much of the material it sought to suppress was in fact in the public domain and had been all along, and now concedes that several of the reasons it originally offered for censorship no longer have any validity. Unfortunately, the issues of terrorism and of alleged FBI incompetence remain as timely as ever."

• Zahavi et al. v. Bank of China Limited (Victims of PIJ and Hamas attacks sue bank for doing business with terrorists):

- Complaint (Added 8/24/08) Victims of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorist attacks sued the Bank of China (BOC) in California Superior Court, alleging that "beginning in July 2003, BOC began to provide extensive banking services to PIJ and Hamas. Specifically, between 2003 and the date of the Terrorist Bombing, BOC executed dozens of wire transfers for the PIJ and Hamas, totaling several million dollars. These dollar transfers were initiated by the PIJ and Hamas leadership in Iran, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, and were executed by and through BOC’s branches in the United States. Most of these transfers were made to account number 4750401-0188-150882-6 at a BOC branch in Guanzhou, China, in the name of 'S.Z.R Alshurafa.' The owner of the account, Said al-Shurafa ('Shurafa') is a senior operative and agent of the PIJ and of Hamas. Other dollar transfers were made by PIJ via BOC’s branches in the United States to another account belonging to Shurafa at the same BOC branch in Guanzhou." Further, "In April 2005, officials of the counterterrorism division of the Office of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel (collectively hereinafter: 'Israeli officials') met with officials of the PRC’s Ministry of Public Security and the PRC’s central bank (collectively hereinafter: 'PRC officials') regarding the Wire Transfers. At that meeting in April 2005, the Israeli officials emphasized to the PRC officials that the Wire Transfers were being made by the PIJ and Hamas for the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks, and that the Wire Transfers enhanced the PIJ’s and Hamas’ ability to plan, prepare for and carry out such attacks. At that April 2005 meeting, the Israeli officials demanded that the PRC officials take action to prevent BOC from making further such transfers. The PRC officials notified the BOC of both the facts presented by the Israeli officials and their demand the BOC halt the Wire Transfers, but the BOC (with the approval of the PRC) ignored this demand and continued to carry out further Wire Transfers between April 2005 and January 29, 2007 (and subsequently)."