## Facts

- Coordinated suicide bombings struck hotels in Amman, Jordan, on November 9, 2005, causing deaths and injuries, including to U.S. nationals.
- Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), a designated foreign terrorist organization, carried out the attacks.
- Victims and representatives sued HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., alleging aiding-and-abetting liability under the Antiterrorism Act as amended by JASTA.
- Plaintiffs alleged HSBC provided banking and correspondent services to Al Rajhi Bank (ARB), a large Saudi bank alleged to have customers or connections linked to terrorist financing.
- The complaint alleged HSBC processed substantial U.S.-dollar transactions for ARB and provided services despite public reporting and regulatory concerns about ARB-related terrorist financing risks.
- Plaintiffs did not allege HSBC had direct dealings with AQI or the attackers, or that particular HSBC-facilitated funds were used in the Amman bombings.
- HSBC ended its relationship with ARB about ten months before the Amman attacks.
- The district court dismissed the JASTA aiding-and-abetting claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that HSBC was generally aware, when providing services to ARB, that it was playing a role in AQI’s wrongful terrorist activity, as required by the Halberstam framework incorporated into JASTA.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that HSBC knowingly and substantially assisted AQI in committing the November 9, 2005 Amman attacks.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the complaint did not plausibly allege HSBC’s general awareness that it was playing a role in AQI’s terrorist activities when it provided services to ARB.
- The court held the complaint did not plausibly allege that HSBC knowingly and substantially assisted AQI in the Amman bombings.
- The court emphasized the lack of alleged direct dealings with AQI, the absence of a pleaded flow of funds to the attack, and the termination of the ARB relationship months before the bombings.

## Legal Principles

- JASTA authorizes civil liability for aiding and abetting an act of international terrorism by “knowingly providing substantial assistance,” and it incorporates the aiding-and-abetting framework from Halberstam v. Welch.
- Under Halberstam, aiding-and-abetting liability requires: (1) a principal wrongful act causing injury; (2) the defendant’s general awareness of its role in an overall illegal or tortious activity at the time assistance is provided; and (3) the defendant’s knowing and substantial assistance to the principal violation.
- A defendant’s knowledge that a customer or counterparty has alleged links to terrorism, without more, is insufficient to plead general awareness of a role in a terrorist organization’s violent activities.
- “Substantial assistance” is assessed through contextual factors, including the nature of the act, the amount and kind of assistance, the defendant’s relationship to the principal, the defendant’s state of mind, and the duration of assistance.
- Allegations of routine banking services to a commercial bank, without plausible allegations tying the services to the terrorist organization’s act or showing intent to further terrorist activity, do not satisfy JASTA’s knowing-and-substantial-assistance requirement.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that JASTA aiding-and-abetting claims against a bank require plausible allegations that the bank was generally aware it was playing a role in the terrorist enterprise and that it knowingly provided substantial assistance to the terrorist act; generalized allegations of risky customers, routine services, and an attenuated temporal and causal connection to the attack were insufficient.


Siegel v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings, Inc., 933 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2019)