Epstein Secrets

gelbert Schreiber, Jr., Al Shamal Islamic Bank (Shamal), Abdul Rahman al Swailem (Swailem), Tadamon Islamic Bank (Tadamon), Abdullah Muhsen al Turki (Turki), Martin Wachter, Erwin Wachter, Sercor Treuhand Anstalt, and Asat Trust (Asat). Generally, the district court predicated the dismissals of those Ap

, Suleiman al Rajhi, Schreiber & Zindel Treuhand Anstalt, Frank Zindel, Engelbert Schreiber, Sr., Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., Shamal, Swailem, Tadamon, Turki, Martin *24 Wachter, Erwin Wachter, Sercor Treuhand Anstalt, Asat, Naseef, Ali, Basha, Khalifa, Aqeel, al Kadi, and al-Buthe. Disposition Below As n

detail below.” (Together with NCB and Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, Khaled bin Mahfouz and Yassin al Kadi are referred to here is ahe “NCB Defendants.”) Al Rajhi Bank played an analogous and equally important role in al-Qaeda’s financial infrastructure, by also providing financial services to al-Qaeda charity front

the allegations concerning acts tak- en in his personal, as opposed to official, capacity. Id. Judge Robertson dismissed the complaint against Prince Turki for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well. Id. Prince Sultan and Prince Turki both move to dismiss the complaints against them in Ashton v. Al

, check clear- ing services, or any other routine banking service.” Jd. In light of the liberal plead- ing standards, however, Judge Robertson denied Al Rajhi Bank’s motion to dismiss and permitted it to request a more defini- tive statement under Rule 12(e). Jd. at 110. The Burnett Plaintiffs provided an 89-parag

906 F.Supp. 204, 210 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (internal quotations omitted); see also Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 788-89 (finding Princes Sultan and Turki were foreign states for FSIA purposes to the extent Plaintiffs alleged liability for actions taken in their official capacities). 1. SHC (51 SHC co

es assured of its subject matter and personal jurisdiction over NCB, Plaintiffs’ claims are doomed because the Court dismissed similar claims against Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, and Arab Bank. NCB contends that Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183, 194-95 (2d Cir.2002), supports its