Terrorism (Financial Support Of)

• Author: International Law Group, PLLC
• Pages: 182-184

Page 182

In the following case, the Seventh Circuit revisits the long-pending case of the killing of U.S.- Israeli teenager David Boim, whom alleged Hamas members shot in 1996 near Jerusalem. Four years later, his parents sued Muhammad Salah, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the American Muslim Society, the Quranic Literacy Institute, and others.

The Boims allege that the Defendants provided financial support to Hamas, and thereby contributed to David's murder. 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) provides that "any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property or business by an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney's fees."

In 2001, the Illinois district court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Eventually, a jury awarded $52 million in damages against the Defendants. The court trebled the damages and added attorney's fees. The Defendants appealed, and the Seventh Circuit directed the district court to redetermine liability.

.. See 2007 International Law Update 233. The Plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing en banc, which Page 183 the Court granted to determine the elements under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 as applied to financial supporters of terrorism.

The en banc Court affirms several rulings below 7 to 3 except that (1) it reverses the judgment against Salah with instructions to enter judgment in his favor, (2) it reverses the judgment against Holy Land and remands for further proceedings, and (3) it orders the re-examination of the award of attorney's fees.

The Court first addresses whether the Statute applies to this case. Section 2333 does not mention "secondary" liability. Thus, it could be presumed that there is no such secondary liability for aiders and abettors. While Congress does have the power to impose liability for acts that occur outside the U.S. but have effects within the U.S., it did not do so in this case. Thus, to read secondary liability into § 2333 would unduly enlarge the extraterritorial jurisdiction of federal courts. In this case, however, it is possible to create secondary liability through a chain of incorporations into other laws, as the Panel determined in its first opinion.

What must a Plaintiff plead and prove to recover from a donor under §...