Wildman v. Deutsche Bank AktienGesellschaft

AUGUST WILDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-CV-04400 (HG) (RML)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

December 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HECTOR GONZALEZ, United States District Judge:

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 3

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4

BACKGROUND 5

LEGAL STANDARD 11

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim .................................................................. 11

B. JASTA/ATA ....................................................................................................................... 12

1. “Act of International Terrorism” Element ....................................................................... 12

2. “General Awareness” Element ........................................................................................ 13

3. “Substantial Assistance” Element ................................................................................... 16

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 19

I. The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges FTOs Committed, Planned, or Authorized the Attacks Which Injured Plaintiffs ........................................................................................ 19

II. The Complaint Fails to Allege Sufficiently that Deutsche Bank Either Had “General Awareness” or Provided “Substantial Assistance” ............................................................ 21

A. General Awareness .......................................................................................................... 21

i. Deutsche Bank's “Laundromats” ................................................................................ 21

ii. Al Zarooni and Mazaka .............................................................................................. 24

iii. Imran Yakub Ahmed................................................................................................... 29

iv. Mamoun Darkazanli and Mamdoubh Mahmud Salim................................................ 30

v. Samir Azizi ................................................................................................................. 30

vi. National Iranian Oil Company (“NIOC”) and the National Iranian Tanker Company (“NITC”) .................................................................................................... 33

B. Substantial Assistance ..................................................................................................... 34

III. The Complaint Fails to Allege Sufficiently that Standard Chartered Either Had “General Awareness” or Provided “Substantial Assistance” ............................................. 37

A. General Awareness .......................................................................................................... 37

i. Standard Chartered's “Laundromats” ......................................................................... 37

ii. Al Zarooni and Mazaka .............................................................................................. 38

iii. Samir Azizi ................................................................................................................. 40

iv. Hikmatullah Shadman ................................................................................................. 40

v. NIOC and NITC .......................................................................................................... 41

vi. Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, Abdul Baqi Bari, and Viktor Bout .................................. 41

vii. Fatima Fertilizer Company Limited and Pakarab Fertilizers Limited ........................ 42

B. Substantial Assistance ..................................................................................................... 45

IV. The Complaint Fails to Allege Sufficiently that Danske Bank Either Had “General Awareness” or Provided “Substantial Assistance” ............................................................ 47

A. General Awareness .......................................................................................................... 47

i. Danske Bank's “Estonian Laundromat” ..................................................................... 47

ii. Swefin ......................................................................................................................... 49

B. Substantial Assistance ..................................................................................................... 50

V. The Complaint Fails to Allege Sufficiently that Placid Express Either Had “General Awareness” or Provided “Substantial Assistance” ............................................................ 52

A. General Awareness .......................................................................................................... 52

B. Substantial Assistance ..................................................................................................... 53

VI. The Complaint Fails to Allege Sufficiently that Wall Street Exchange Either Had “General Awareness” or Provided “Substantial Assistance” ............................................. 56

A. General Awareness .......................................................................................................... 56

B. Substantial Assistance ..................................................................................................... 58

VII. Plaintiffs' RICO Claim ....................................................................................................... 60 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 61 INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is an action brought by or on behalf of Americans who were killed or injured by terrorist attacks in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2016 (“Relevant Period”), and their close family members (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs bring a claim under the civil liability provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, Pub. L. No. 114-222, 130 Stat. 852 (2016), against Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (together, “Deutsche Bank”); Standard Chartered Bank, Standard Chartered PLC, and Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited (together, “Standard Chartered”); Danske Bank A/S (“Danske Bank”);^[1] Placid NK Corporation (“Placid Express”); and Wall Street Exchange LLC (“Wall Street Exchange”) (collectively “Defendants”), for allegedly aiding and abetting the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attacks.

Presently before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court consolidates for the purposes of this Order.^[2] ECF Nos. 43, 47, 51, 53, 78. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2021, Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants pursuant to the Anti Terrorism Act (“ATA”), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), alleging that Defendants aided and abetted terrorist attacks by providing financial services to individuals and organizations who, in turn, helped finance terrorist attacks against American military members and civilians in Afghanistan during the Relevant Period. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges two counts, both for violations of the ATA. ECF No. 38 ¶¶ 2025-43.

On October 29, 2021, all Defendants, except Wall Street Exchange, filed letters requesting a pre-motion conference before filing motions to dismiss the complaint for violating Rule 8(a), failing to state a claim, and for various jurisdictional deficiencies. ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29. On December 7, 2021, the Court held a pre-motion conference and it directed Plaintiffs to file a more succinct amended complaint that would address the deficiencies raised by Defendants in their pre-motion letters and provide the “best iteration of the factual allegations that support [Plaintiffs'] claims.” See ECF No. 70 (transcript of December 7, 2021, conference). The Court also set a briefing schedule for those Defendants' motions to dismiss. Id., ECF Text Order (Dec. 7, 2021). On February 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which failed to comply with the Court's earlier directive to file a shorter, more focused pleading. ECF No. 35. After requesting leave to file a second amended complaint “to address formatting errors, fix typos, and harmonize headers,” ECF No. 36, which was consented to by Defendants, ECF No. 37, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on February 26, 2022. ECF No. 38 (“Am. Compl.” or “Complaint”).

On June 1, 2022, all Defendants, except Wall Street Exchange, filed their motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 43, 47, 51, 53. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their briefs in opposition, ECF Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61. Defendants then filed their reply briefs. ECF Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66.^[3]

BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, which is assumed to be true for purposes of these motions, Defendants “knowingly facilitate[ed] transfers of hundreds of millions in USD to terrorists.” Am. Compl. ¶ 6. In their 596-page...