Epstein Secrets

d military operations to regions as diverse *30 as the Philippines, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kashmir, Somalia, Palestine, Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia.! Plaintiffs’ pleadings and other record materials describe in detail the pervasive involvement of

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

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

of SAR2Obn last year. It is unclear to us if all of the regional military costs have been recognised on-balance sheet. A negotiated settlement to the Yemen conflict through the ongoing political negotiations in Kuwait could help contain security spending near-term. 22 GEMs Paper #26 | 30 June 2016 3S Me

e + weight in MSCI weight in MSCI ADTVactive buying active days buying passive days passive days passive days Saudi EM buying US$m buyi buying buying AL RAJHI BANK 9.5% 0.1% 37.2 546.5 14.7 477.7 12.8 1,024 27.5 ALINMA BANK 2.0% 0.0% 223.0 116.9 0.5 102.2 0.5 219 1.0 ALMARAI 44% 0.1% ip. 255.8 33.1 223.6 28.9 47

he 1993 bombing of the World Trade Cen- ter, the 1998 attack of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 at- tack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.” Bur- nett [, 274 F.Supp.2d at 105; see also Ashton Complaint 11 105-108 (1993 World Trade Center attack), 180-1386 (embassy bombings), 152-55 (Cole

, 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