HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865.jpg

800
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

Dismiss, Ex. 16 (Prince Turki, "Allied
Against Terrorism," September 17, 2002,
Washington Post, editorial in which Prince
Turki explains the Saudis' practice of shar-
ing information regarding Osama bin Lad-
en and al Qaeda with the CIA and states
that al Qaeda also targeted the Kingdom);
Exs. 3, 5, 6 (fatwas issued by Osama bin
Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman
targeting Americans and expressing ex-
treme bitterness toward the Saudi Royal
family). Prince Sultan argues that Plain-
tiffs blur the distinction between charities
he is on record of supporting, IIRO and
WAMY, and those he is not, Al Haramain
and MWL. See supra note 20. Both
Princes also distinguish the instant case
from Boim and other cases cited by the
Plaintiffs on the basis that groups that
they are alleged to have supported were
not designated as terrorist organizations
by the United States government. See
Boim II, 291 F.3d at 1002 (noting Hamas
was designated a terrorist organization by
President Clinton in 1995 and by the Sec-
retary of State in 1997); see also Consoli-
dated Plaintiffs' Opp. to Prince Sultan's
Motion to Dismiss at 16–17 (citing Flatow,
999 F.Supp. at 18 (holding Iran, a state
sponsor of terrorism, liable as provider of
material support to terrorist organization
Palestine Islamic Jihad pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)); Smith v. Islamic
Emirate of Afghanistan, 262 F.Supp.2d
217, 232 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (granting default
judgment against Iraq, a designated state
sponsor of terror, after plaintiffs demon-
strated it provided material support to
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda)); Consoli-
dated Plaintiffs' Opp. to Prince Turki's
Motion to Dismiss at 8 (same).

Although they did not involve New York
law, the Court agrees that Halberstam
and Boim are instructive. In Halberstam,
the defendant enjoyed an extravagant life-
style made entirely possible by her long-
term live-in boyfriend's regular burglaries.

The court concluded that she had to know
of his criminal activities because she acted
as a money launderer for her boyfriend's
stolen metals business. Halberstam, 705
F.2d at 486–88. The court found the de-
fendant was so close to the illegal activity
that she had to be aware of her role in it.
Id. at 486. In Boim, the court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss because the
complaint contained specific factual allega-
tions tying the defendants to Hamas. For
example, one defendant entity allegedly
employed an individual designated as a
terrorist affiliated with Hamas, another
entity admitted providing funds to Hamas,
two individual defendants had documented
and admitted ties to Hamas, and numer-
ous links existed between the individual
terrorist defendants and the entity defen-
dants. Boim I, 127 F.Supp.2d at 1006–
1008. Unlike Hamas in Boim, none of the
organizations the Princes are alleged to
have supported in an official capacity were
designated a sponsor of terrorism at the
time of the alleged contributions. In fact,
only BIF and certain branches of Al Hara-
main have since been designated. See
Exec. Order No. 13224 (designating BIF
(November 19, 2002) and branches of Al
Haramain (Bosnia, Somalia on March 11,
2002; Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Tanza-
nia on January 22, 2004; Afghanistan, Al-
bania, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, the Nether-
lands on June 2, 2004)). Thus, pursuant
to Boim, the Plaintiffs would have to al-
lege specific facts showing that the
Princes knew or should have known that
the charities they supported were actually
fronts for al Qaeda. See Burnett I, 274
F.Supp.2d at 106.

[25–27] Plaintiffs have pleaded al Qae-
da's repeated, public targeting of the Unit-
ed States. They have not, however, plead-
ed facts to support an inference that the
Princes were sufficiently close to the ter-
rorists' illegal activities to satisfy Halber-

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865