HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017879.jpg

814 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

tions that he knew they were funneling
money to terrorists, do not suffice. See
Burnett II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 23 (citing
Burger King and Keeton v. Hustler Maga-
zine, Inc., 465 U.S. at 774–75, 104 S.Ct.
1473); see also Exec. Order 13244 (desig-
nating certain branches of Al Haramain
and BIF in 2002). Accordingly, Prince
Turki’s motion to dismiss the Federal com-
plaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is
granted. Jurisdictional discovery is not
appropriate with respect to Prince Turki
because Plaintiffs have not identified any
genuine issue of jurisdictional fact. Da-
ventree, 349 F.Supp.2d 736, at 761, 2004
WL 2997881, at *20.

3. Prince Mohamed
The Ashton and Federal Plaintiffs allege
that Prince Mohamed is or was the chair-
man or chief executive officer of three
financial institutions in Saudi Arabia: Dar
al Maal al Islami (“DMI”), Islamic Invest-
ment Company of the Gulf–Bahrain EC
(“IICG”), and Faisal Islamic Bank–Sudan
(“FIBS”), which are all shareholders of
Defendant Al Shamal Islamic Bank.35 Ash-
ton Complaint ¶¶ 51, 54; Federal Com-
plaint ¶¶ 307, 309, 473. They claim that
Prince Mohamed knew or should have
known that each of these financial institu-
tions “acted as an aider and abettor and
material sponsor of al Qaeda, Bin Laden,
and international terrorism.” Ashton Com-
plaint ¶ 276; Federal Complaint ¶ 472 (al-
leging Prince Mohamed “has long provided
material support and resources to al Qae-
da”). The Ashton Plaintiffs claim that
Prince Mohamed is “heavily involved in
the sponsorship of terror through Faisal
Islamic Bank–Sudan,” since at some point
al Qaeda allegedly had an account there.
Ashton Complaint ¶¶ 65, 66, 255, 274; see
also Ashton Opp. to Prince Mohamed’s

Motion to Dismiss at 25 (arguing that al
Qaeda operative Jamal Ahmed Al Fadl
used an account at Al Shamal Islamic
Bank to transfer $250,000 for Osama bin
Laden). These Plaintiffs also claim that
Prince Mohamed has financial ties with
alleged al Qaeda financier Muhammed
Zouaydi. Ashton Complaint ¶ 258. The
Federal Plaintiffs claim that Prince Mo-
hamed made personal contributions to Sa-
udi-based charities that he knew or should
have known sponsored the terrorist activi-
ties of al Qaeda. These charities include
IIRO, MWL, WAMY, BIF, the Saudi High
Commission, SJRC, and Al Haramain.
Federal Complaint ¶¶ 475–76

The Ashton complaint contains an un-
specific allegation regarding the Saudi
Royal family’s ownership of property in
the United States. Ashton Complaint
¶ 296. The Ashton Plaintiffs argue that
general jurisdiction is appropriate because
Prince Mohamed attended college and
business school in the United States, gave
two interviews in a New York apartment
in 1978, gave a speech at Harvard in 1999,
and made investments in American busi-
nesses through the banks he chairs in
2001. Ashton Opp. to Prince Mohamed
Motion to Dismiss at 22–23. Plaintiffs as-
sert jurisdictional discovery is likely to
expose further contacts between Prince
Mohamed and the United States.

If general jurisdiction is not established
through Prince Mohamed’s contacts with
the United States, the Ashton and Federal
Plaintiffs claim that jurisdiction exists un-
der either the New York long-arm conspir-
acy theory or the purposefully directed
activities theory. Ashton Opp. to Prince
Mohamed Motion to Dismiss at 17–22;
Federal Opp. to Prince Mohamed Motion
to Dismiss at 6–12. Specifically, the Ash-

35. Osama bin Laden allegedly capitalized Al
Shamal Islamic Bank with $50 million. Bur-
nett Complaint ¶ 70. Several al Qaeda opera-
tives, including Osama bin Laden, held ac-
counts there. Id. ¶ 79.

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017879