Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank

Background

The plaintiffs include U.S. nationals injured in terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2004, along with estates, heirs, and families of U.S. nationals killed or injured in those attacks. They allege that Cairo Amman Bank, a financial institution incorporated and headquartered in Amman, Jordan, facilitated money transfers and financial services connected to Hamas and helped facilitate reward payments to families of Hamas suicide bombers, other “martyrs,” and Hamas prisoners.

The plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Anti-Terrorism Act as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The claims include aiding-and-abetting liability, which requires proof that the defendant knowingly and substantially assisted an underlying terrorist act and was generally aware of its role in broader illegal or tortious activity.

Discovery Dispute

The plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents and information concerning 66 accounts identified by the bank after searching two lists supplied by the plaintiffs. Fifty-seven accounts came from a list of individuals and entities named in the plaintiffs’ complaint, and nine came from a list of alleged Hamas operatives connected to the attacks. The bank stated that it lacked transaction records from before 2009, apart from a limited number already produced, but possessed account-opening documents for accounts that remained open after 2009. Thirty-four of the 66 accounts remained open in 2009.

The bank opposed production, arguing that the requested disclosure would violate bank-secrecy laws in Jordan and the Palestinian territories. The court found that the bank established that production would violate those laws. The court therefore applied an international-comity analysis, which weighs the interests of the United States and the foreign jurisdictions along with factors such as the importance and specificity of the request, alternative ways to obtain the information, hardship, and the resisting party’s good faith.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the U.S. interest in combating terrorism and compensating victims was especially strong. It found that the fact that the plaintiffs’ claims involved secondary liability—helping or conspiring with a person who committed terrorism—did not reduce that interest. Records showing whether the bank maintained accounts for people or entities involved in terrorism could further the purposes of the terrorism statute and help the plaintiffs prove the bank’s general awareness.

The court found the request important because account-opening documents and other retained records could show what the bank knew about its customers and their possible connections to terrorism. It also found the request specific because it concerned only 66 accounts that the bank had already acknowledged holding, rather than a broad request for records concerning hundreds of people or entities.

The fact that the records originated outside the United States weighed against production. The court nevertheless found that the lack of effective alternative means favored production, noting its skepticism that letters requesting authorization from foreign authorities would result in production without a U.S. court order. The court also found that the bank had not shown that the possible civil or criminal penalties under foreign law were more than speculative. Finally, it found insufficient evidence to conclude that the bank acted in bad faith, making that factor neutral.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and overruled Cairo Amman Bank’s bank-secrecy objections. The court allowed the bank until August 15, 2025, to obtain permission from Jordanian and Palestinian authorities and/or produce the records related to the 66 accounts. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 289.