Lawsuits allege Saudi Prince Mohamed chaired banks that funded al Qaeda and held US ties

814 tions that he knew they were funneling money to terrorists, do not suffice. See Burnett IT, 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.® Ash- ton Complaint 19151, 54; Federal Com- plaint 11307, 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 1276; 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 1165, 66, 255, 274; see also Ashton Opp. to Prince Mohamed’s 35. Osama bin Laden allegedly capitalized Al Shamal Islamic Bank with $50 million. Bur- nett Complaint 170. Several al Qaeda opera- 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 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 1258. 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 19 475-76 The Ashton complaint contains an un- specific allegation regarding the Saudi Royal family’s ownership of property in the United States. Ashton Complaint 1296. 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- tives, including Osama bin Laden, held ac- counts there. Id. 179. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017879