Epstein Secrets

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

an Khaled bin Mahfouz and Al Rajhi Bank Managing Director Suleiman al Rajhi,*' both of *52 whom have direct ties to bin Laden.** Both bin Mahfouz and al Rajhi are identified as primary al-Qaeda sponsors on the “Golden Chain,” a document discovered during a 2002 raid of the Bosnian offices of Benevolence Int

rtising these accounts, Al Rajhi Bank “provid[ed] a mechanism to allow al Qaida’s supporters to deposit funds directly into those accounts.” JA3828. Al Rajhi Bank’s operations are consistent with their support of al-Qaeda front charities. In 1999, Al Rajhi Bank was warned. by United States government officials “t

¥ 333.) It was incorporated in Virginia in 1983 and dissolved in December 2000. (Burnett Compl. § 261; Ashton Compl. J 333.) Its largest donor is the al Rajhi family of Saudi Arabia. (Burnett Compl. § 261; Ashton Compl. § 333.) The complaints claim that over one hundred “affiliated organizations” are regis

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

f charities that serve as al Qaeda front groups,” including Al Haramain, MWL, WAMY, SJRC, and IIRO. Burnett Complaint 185; Rule 12(e) Statement 131. “Al Rajhi continues to maintain Al Haramain’s accounts despite Al Haramain’s designation on March 11, 2002 as terrorist organizations by both the United States

, 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