| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Arab Bank Update. "Arab Bank accused of funding terrorists," by Josh Meyer for the Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON — A three-year investigation into the activities of one of the Middle East's largest and most influential banks is producing extensive evidence of how tens of millions of dollars have flowed from wealthy Saudi Arabians to Palestinian groups that allegedly used some of the money to pay off suicide bombers and their survivors.
The information being turned up by government inquiries and lawyers suing Arab Bank "will give people a better understanding of the way money moves in that part of the world to support Hamas" and other militant groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, said Stephen Kroll, a terrorism finance specialist and until recently counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
"It's important in focusing the public's attention on the issue of what is and what is not acceptable for banks to be involved in," Kroll said.
The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into the New York branch of Arab Bank, which is based in Jordan, and its financial links to organizations and individuals accused of terrorism, according to three former U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
In 2005, the bank agreed to pay the federal government $24 million in fines for violating U.S. laws aimed at preventing terrorist financing, including failing to report suspicious transactions.
The bank is also being sued in federal court in Brooklyn by Americans and Israelis injured in suicide bombings or other fighting in Israel and the occupied territories, and by the relatives of others who were killed. No trial date has been set, but assuming the cases go to trial, they could establish ground rules for what obligations banks have in handling money bound for militant groups. They could also provide an unusually detailed and public look at the flow of money from Saudi donors to Palestinian groups that the U.S. and Israel list as terrorist.
Lawyers suing Arab Bank accuse the firm of facilitating acts of terrorism by providing accounts and other financial services to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and similar groups. Arab Bank also acted as the administrator of a plan in which suicide bombers and others designated as "martyrs" by the Palestinian Authority and other organizations were compensated for their actions on a sliding scale, based on the extent of their injuries, according to documents filed in the cases. The lawsuits charge that the payments — and thus Arab Bank — provided an incentive for suicide bombings.
Arab Bank officials deny such charges and say they have never knowingly supported acts of terrorism. Bank officials say their agreement to pay the fine in 2005 was not an acknowledgment of any wrongdoing.
Bank officials say they provide an important financial service in the impoverished Palestinian territories and that they were merely acting as intermediaries between banks representing Saudi donors and Palestinian organizations and individuals who were being compensated for suffering at Israeli hands.
They also say that a "martyr" can mean almost any Palestinian killed or injured as part of the struggle with Israel, including innocent victims.
[...]
In one instance in which plaintiffs' lawyers allege that Arab Bank maintained an account for Hamas in Beirut, bank officials said that once they learned of the suspicious account, they froze it and reported it to authorities.
Arab Bank also said that it was primarily transferring funds sent to it from other banks on behalf of legitimate Saudi donors that have not been linked to terrorist activities. To win their case, the plaintiffs' lawyers would have to prove that Arab Bank knew that it was doing business with terrorist individuals or entities.
In 2005, the Treasury Department and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that Arab Bank's New York branch had transferred funds between 2001 and 2004 for organizations that were later designated by the U.S. as terrorist groups. The Treasury Department said the bank had "largely complied" with the requirement to stop the transfers after the groups were identified.
But the department said that after the government designated these groups as terrorist, the bank failed to go back and review its accounts to see what dealings it had had with them and report any suspicious activities.
And yet the New York branch of Arab Bank is still doing business.
Some of the initial allegations in the lawsuits, most of which were filed in 2004, were based on documents seized by the Israeli military during raids on charities, businesses and other locations in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. Among the documents were records indicating that Arab Bank provided financial services for Hamas and at least 41 organizations and individuals allegedly related to it or to Islamic Jihad.
Posted by Marisol at March 4, 2007 9:32 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
“Racketeering Activity” = Felonious acts or threats thereof (i.e. extortion 9:29 and murder in general).
“Pattern of Racketeering Activity” = Something that has been going on for, say, 1400 years.
From the link:
All property of every kind used or intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through a racketeering activity or pattern of racketeering activity is subject to forfeiture to the State. Forfeiture shall be had by a civil procedure known as a RICO forfeiture proceeding.
Money draws lawyers like a $500 million baby draws prospective biological fathers. From what I understand, injured parties can use the same legal tactic to recover damages.
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_75D/GS_75D-5.html
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 4, 2007 10:00 PM
Pray for the US and Israeli families' victory. It's like David going after Goliath.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 4, 2007 11:40 PM
And look who won -- David!
Posted by: champ at March 4, 2007 11:43 PM
going after the Arab Bank, or other banks, is not the main thing, for money can be shifted around outside of the banking system altogher, through the hawala system, and it is.
The main thing is to diminish the total revenues of the Camp of Islam. By all means, everyone who can sue them in the Western world, for supporting acts of terrorism, or those mosques and madrasas that produce terrorists, should do so. They should be charged fortunes for whatever goods and services they are allowed to buy in the Western world. They should at every step be relieved of more of their allowances. But the main thing is to reduce revenues from the sale of oil and gas, and that requires, required thirty years ago, that oil-consuming nations tax themselves. Every dollar in tax on gasoline helps to depress demand, and to limit the increases that OPEC itself can chaarge. Think of the tax imposed by Infidel governments as no different, in their effect on demand and on supply (of total energy), from the price rises imposed by OPEc itself. If we impose on gasoline, and on oil, a tax equivalent to $5 on a barrel of Saudi crude, that will depress demand just as much as would an OPEC rise of $5, and of course it is only the calculation of total value of their own reserves, over time, that the Al-Saud and others in OPEC use in calculating their ideal price for oil. We can control that price, within certain obvious limits, by taxing oursewlves. And we always had that ability, but the Saudi lobby, all over the capitals of the Western world, have prevented that obvious truth from being recognized, and acted on. It is not the greatest folly in the history of the West, but is certainly among the greatest. And if what scientists overwhelmingly tell us is true, about global warming, about the melting of the icecaps, about the threat of flooding of coastal areas, about the sudden and catastrophic diminution of fish stocks, is all true, and the evidence keeps moutning up that it is, those hirelings of the Saudis and other Arab Muslim oil states turn out to have not only been traitors to the Camp of Infidels, but also largely responsible for the failure of the American government to institute a sound eneregy policy three decades ago.
That's a lot to be guilty of. But they are, those hirelings of the Arabs. They are.
Posted by: Hugh at March 5, 2007 12:11 AM
In 2005, the bank agreed to pay the federal government $24 million in fines for violating U.S. laws aimed at preventing terrorist financing, including failing to report suspicious transactions.
It would be poetic justice to see allocation of some of this Saudi 'fine' payment used to offset costs incurred by brave folks like Rachel Ehrenfeld who continues her legal struggle against this behemoth.
Rachel Ehrenfeld's "Funding Evil"
Ehrenfeld: Saudi Accountability?
If RICO applies, it would also be fabulous news to see ALL Saudi funding of our educational institutions dry up.. .PERMANENTLY.
Four years after September 11, the Saudi prince whose poisoned gift was turned down by Rudy Giuliani handed over $40M to Harvard and Georgetown Universities.Posted by: justamomof4
Harvard and Georgetown officials said they will use the gifts to add faculty and scholarships and expand their Islamic studies curricula.
“Bridging the understanding between East and West is important for peace and tolerance,” Prince Alwaleed said in a statement issued by both schools.It appears that Harvard eagerly sold out -
Harvard in biggest curriculum overhaul in 30 years...
at March 5, 2007 12:16 AM
This kind of story shouldn't surprise anyone who has been studying Islamic writings as of late.
The Islamic texts support the idea of the Pali violence and terror attacks as being legitimate responses to the presence of Israel.
The banks were following those religious teachings when administering the martyr reward program and filtering the blood money.
As these news reports continue to proliferate, I'm hoping more people will begin to directly challenge the tenets of Islam, and realize how truly incompatible with civilization the ideology is.
As USA infidels, we need to fully understand why thousands of Americans are dead at the hands of self-proclaimed jihadists.
Then we need to act on that knowledge in any way we can.
at March 5, 2007 12:20 AM
Apologies for being off topic, but anybody saw this evening's '1/2 hour newshour' segment of an interview with a terror expert? It was a hoot. Just waiting for CAIR to go pounce on FNC for this one.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 5, 2007 2:03 AM
I was intrigued by Eteraz's invokation of several bloggers' endorsements for his views. Seems he is hungry for validation. The list he produces as authoritative speaks for itself. I'll throw in my two bits regarding this nice blogging Catholic lady "the Anchoress", who is, as I say, very nice and also clearly very intelligent. She treats Eteraz very politely and acknowledges that he is (or tries to be, or at least presents himself as) a true reformer in Islam. But she is careful to point out that there is a clear distinction between being a reformer and being a moderate.
Also, she does not "endorse" Eteraz' analysis of scholarship, or his views that Robert Spencer's analysis is faulty. She is, as I said, very nice. She lets people speak, and she grants them many points, but last I read her on these points she only acknowledged (as has Spencer) that it was possible to speak reasonably with Eteraz, not that she had bought into his brand of islamic scholarship.
TA does not present herself as and Islamic scholar, only as a thoughtful Catholic blogger (and I'll gladly say that she is just that). She does not profess formal training or advanced individual learning in matters of Islamic jurisprudence, and simply allows source people like Eteraz to speak for themselves.
Spencer is not so polite; as a debater he must be confrontational on points of contention, or he might as well go home. As debaters go, he is a consummate gentleman, but his writing is hard-edged and he does not yield points simply because someone claims more authority or knowledge of a matter than him; he asks for, and deserves, a reasoned engagement of his points, and his opponents often go home when they realise that he is no lightweight.
TA does not do this because she is not a debater. But graciously she yields the podium to polite folks like Mr. Eteraz, but she is intelligent enough to not yield on points of analysis that lie outside her realm of expertise. If she has done so (yielded) recently on matters such as Eteraz seems to invoke her on here, then shame on him for cowing a nice lady without the specialized knowledge needed to evaluate his arguments. As you can see, this does not work with someone like Spencer, who has spent sufficient time to become well informed.
Mr. Eteraz, it has been entertaining thus far, but I'm afraid you are coming off as somewhat ignorant yourself. It is pretty clear that you haven't even read far enough in Mr. Spencer's books to "cherry pick" them for good passages to criticize. I advise you to do so before you continue the debate further. Then come back and address his points directly. You are a much better spokesman for an islamic reformist view than we have seen for some time, and, once you are more familiar with his presentation of the islamic sources you should be much more prepared (if possible) to dislodge his claims to accurately present the positions of the classical scholars of islam and how they are used by extremists (and in mainstream islam) today.
I'm afraid, reading your "points", they all seem to focus on Mr. Spencer. I think every one so far is more about him than about any actual points he has made. Apparently you are fascinated by this person. Perhaps he is a fascinating figure, but we really are more interested in your evaluation of the actual texts of the scholars and his take on them. Although you are more polite than others, and occasionaly actually mention the issues at stake, it is a little tiring watching you dance around these points instead of diving in and giving us some idea of how you reformists actually counter the jihadists arguments.
Regard Spencer as a mirror (perhaps not perfect) of how the jihadists interpret islamid imperatives toward unbelievers. There is no point shouting at a mirror because what it reveals is ugly. The mirror is not ugly, it's that zit that the mirror makes obvious. Don't smash the mirror, pop the zit for heavens sake (and then clean it with antiseptic. Yuck!). Let's get off the whole business of calling Spencer a bad mirror. Nobody seems to be successful in making this charge. Let's see something more substantial that addresses the zit of jihadism.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 5, 2007 2:09 AM
OOPS, I'm not sure how that comment ended up here. It was for
The Eteraz debate item
at March 5, 2007 2:14 AM
Just waiting for CAIR to go pounce on FNC for this one.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 5, 2007 02:03 AM
CAIR is a perfect symbol of Islamic ideology. Under the cloak of "civil rights", CAIR aids and abets Islamic terror, by terrorist's own admission: http://www.republicanandproud.com/warning.htm
Posted by: Alert at March 5, 2007 4:20 AM
Maybe the Arab bank can rebrand themselves as the Jihad bank, nothing like honesty in advertising.
Posted by: darrinh at March 5, 2007 5:45 AM
Do you get free checking for killing Infidels?
Posted by: jewdog at March 5, 2007 6:09 AM
Well hell, it only took three years, and then only after the west bank ordeal, they were lucky to find evidence. Looks like too many holes in legislation.
Posted by: Jeff at March 5, 2007 6:47 AM
U.S. laws are deficient. Yank jurisprudence contains a unchangeable elementary principle of English common law that the King can do no wrong and that the King is immune from law suit unless he consents to be sued. Unfortunately our ignorant judges have extended this rule to the Sultan. This immunity extends not just to the King's European royal cousins, but mistakenly to all "royalty" worldwide. When these laws apply therefore, they apply only to private banks and not the bank of for example, of the Saudi Kingdom, where a despotic family of criminal conspirators who are plotting to take over the world, benefit from a situation where the banks are owned by this ruling cabal and hence are immune from suit. Banks become untouchable when their is no separation between bank and state. It is also the same with the bank of Iran where there is no separation between mosque and state.
Any real lawsuits against the real culprits will be summarily dismissed as it was in a September 11 case against the bank of Saud which handled money for all 19 of the hijackers, their handlers and had suspicious connections to actual Saudi family members.
In a case filed in New York against the bank of saud, the plaintiffs were summarily thrown out of court and prevented from letting a jury hear that the bank knew it was directly helping jihadists even if it might not have known specifically about the plot to once again destroy the World Trade Center.
Posted by: David England at March 5, 2007 7:07 AM
A bit older but relevant:
The Golden Chain list (or list of wealthy Saudi sponsors) was presented by the US government as Exhibit 5 in the Department of Justice "Government's Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Coconspirator Statements" in the case of USA v. Arnaout (USDC, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) filed on January 29, 2003. The list was also mentioned in the Indictment of Enaam Arnaout on October 9, 2002 (02 CR 892). According to the US government, the document is "a list of people referred to within Al Qaida as the "Golden Chain", wealthy donors to mujahideen efforts".
Originally, the document was seized by the Bosnian police during searches in the offices of Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo on March 2002. The list was part of a computer file labeled "Tareekh Osama", or "Osama History", containing scanned images of several documents. The computer files seized in Bosnia were delivered to the US Embassy soon after the raids. Our team was granted access to these documents following an order of the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina issued on March 6, 2003.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Al-Qaida list of top 20 Saudi financial sponsors include 6 bankers and 12 businessmen, among which 2 former ministers. Only two on the list have not been yet identified with certainty.
According to our estimates, their cumulative corporate net worth totals more than $85 billion US, or 42% of the Saudi annual GNP and equivalent to the annual GNP of Venezuela.
These prominent businessmen and bankers own or control 16 companies ranking among the top 100 Saudi companies.
The complete list of Saudi donors and Al-Qaida recipients (25 names) include 8 individuals already named in the complaint. We should note that the most virulent Saudi statements against the lawsuit were issued by those listed in the "Golden Chain", especially Saleh Abdullah Kamel.
Also interesting: Meet the bin Ladens
Posted by: PapaBear
The Bin Laden family disowned black sheep Osama in 1994. But have they really broken with the mega-terrorist? Recently revealed classified documents seem to suggest otherwise. Osama's violent career has been made possible in part by the generosity of his family -- and by his contacts with the Saudi royals.
at March 5, 2007 8:33 AM
there is that famous saying "follow the money" and in this respect, we can tie terrorism support from these banks. l wonder if the newly elected democrats will ask for a commision to look into this. there is allways blal blah about the bush family support for the sowdi royal family, lets see how this goes up the chain in government.. waiting....
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 5, 2007 8:42 AM
If any business has has anything to do with being run or owned by muslims or arab muslims, you can be sure that this entity is engaging in some illegal behavior. Number one is support for terrorist and terrorisim in one form or another. Number two is tax and law evasion. number three could be any activity that is considered illegal by our laws, but legal for them on account of them being muslims in the house of war.
Posted by: desidude at March 5, 2007 8:56 AM
merely acting as intermediaries between banks representing Saudi donors and Palestinian organizations
That should be a crime in any civilized nation of the earth, acting as anything for a Saudi anything
at March 5, 2007 8:56 AM
l wonder if the newly elected democrats will ask for a commision to look into this. there is allways blal blah about the bush family support for the sowdi royal family, lets see how this goes up the chain in government.. waiting....
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 5, 2007 08:42 AM
As long as Jihadi Somali-trash votes come in to Jihadi democratic candidates to the likes of Keith Ellison, democratic party will celebrate thoughtless political correctness and suicidal cultural diversity hammering another nail into American spirit, then again, that is what stuck-up Teddy has been doing for years. Nothing new. Square that against daddy and dubya selling-out to Wahhabis in Riyadh and a hard-working, tax-paying and honest American just can't win, can he?
Posted by: Alert at March 5, 2007 2:13 PM
That should be a crime in any civilized nation of the earth, acting as anything for a Saudi anything
Posted by: thomas ato at March 5, 2007 08:56 AM
Making Bush family the "Gambino family" of American politics.
Posted by: Alert at March 5, 2007 2:17 PM
Is the Bank of America, which seems to specialise in bank accounts for illegals, connected to Saudi money in any way?
Posted by: meekee at March 5, 2007 10:31 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)