• 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 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."

• 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."

• 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 extraordinarytimes. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in oursystem they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right offirst 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 warharder 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.

• 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.

• 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."

• 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."

• 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..."

• 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."

• 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.

• 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."

• 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.'"

• 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."

- 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."

• 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."