Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Victims of Hamas attacks sued Arab Bank under the Anti-Terrorism Act. A jury found the bank liable for knowingly providing financial services to Hamas. The court largely upheld the verdict, affirming key ATA interpretations.
Legal Significance: Establishes that providing financial services can be an “act of international terrorism” under the ATA and clarifies causation and scienter standards for such claims against financial institutions.
Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, victims or relatives of victims of 24 terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas between 2000 and 2005, sued Arab Bank, PLC (“Bank”) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). They alleged the Bank knowingly provided material support to Hamas by offering financial services to its operatives, 11 Hamas-controlled charities, and the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Intifada Al-Quds, which made payments to families of Hamas members, including suicide bombers. Evidence included expert testimony identifying Hamas operatives and affiliated charities, SWIFT transfer records showing funds moving through the Bank to these entities, and internal bank communications. The Bank argued its compliance with OFAC lists was sufficient and denied specific knowledge of illicit use of its services. Prior to trial, discovery sanctions, including a permissive adverse inference instruction, were imposed on the Bank for failing to produce certain customer account records from Lebanon and Palestinian Territories, citing foreign bank secrecy laws. A jury found the Bank liable. The Bank moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) or a new trial (Rule 59).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the evidence sufficiently establish that the defendant bank committed an “act of international terrorism” by knowingly providing financial services that proximately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, as required for liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act?
Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law was granted in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non p
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the evidence sufficiently establish that the defendant bank committed an “act of international terrorism” by knowingly providing financial services that proximately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, as required for liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act?
Conclusion
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act to financial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Legal Rule
Under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), civil liability (18 U.S.C. § 2333(a)) attaches Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adip
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed that providing financial services in violation of 18 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Dui
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) requires proximate causation (substantial factor), not but-for