Epstein Secrets

e Muslim world and its Board of Directors in- cluded Haydar Mohamed bin Laden, a half-brother of Osama bin Laden. Id. 1274. • Faisal Islamic Bank Sudan was one of the five main founders of Al Shamal 815 Islamic Bank .. . . Al Shamal Islamic Bank is an instrumental bank in bin Laden's financial s

28 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Beata' Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191(JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ("A defendant does not 'di- rect' an enterprise's affairs under § 1962(c) merely by e

Qaeda organization” because of its support of an al Qaeda guest house in Egypt, its office’s close proximity to Osama bin Laden’s personal office in Sudan, and its relationship with bin Laden’s brother-in-law Defendant Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. (Ashton Compl. F§ 310, 315, 317; Burnett Compl. Ff 234, 239,

the enterprise itself,’ which requires that these Defendants must have had some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs.” Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, No. 95 Civ. 51910FK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N-Y. Sept.30, 1997). 25] 26] The TVPA provides a cause of action against individuals who under act

amdi participated in the operation or management of any enterprise. The RICO claims against Mr. Hamdi must be dismissed. See Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 1997 WL 603496 at *5. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hamdi knew about bin Laden’s terrorist activities at the time he procured a phone for him because t

to work with SBG in Jeddah. Ashton Complaint 1 548; Burnett Complaint 1317. SBG allegedly continued to support Osama bin Laden after he relocated to Sudan in 1991. Ash- ton Complaint 1548; Burnett Complaint 1317. For example, SBG, through two subsidiaries allegedly supported Osama bin Laden’s participat

RSIGHT_017892 --- PAGE BREAK --- 828 Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (“A defendant does not ‘di- rect? an enterprise’s affairs under § 1962(c) merely by engaging