Legal analysis of FSIA immunity for Saudi officials and PIF bank in 9/11 ATA lawsuits

768 ber 11, 2001 attacks for his official acts, notwithstanding that he was also Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to United Kingdom, unless exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applied. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2881 et seq; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1608. 11. International Law 10.33 Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense and Aviation, as third-highest ranking member of Saudi government, was im- mune from Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks for his official acts, unless exception to Foreign Sovereign Immuni- ties Act (FSIA) applied. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1608. 12. International Law ¢-10.34 Saudi Arabia’s ownership of bank was required to be direct for bank to enjoy immunity, pursuant to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), from Antiterror- ism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks; that is, bank would not be immune as instrumen- tality of Saudi Arabia if its majority owner, known as Public Investment Fund (PIF), was agency, instrumentality, or organ of Saudi Arabia. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1608(b)(2). 13. Federal Civil Procedure <>1264 Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian bank’s mo- tion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit filed by survivors of victims of Sep- tember 11, 2001 attacks, on issue whether bank was immune under Foreign Sover- eion Immunities Act (FSIA), where resolu- tion of status of bank’s majority owner was not determinable on current record, major- ity owner might qualify either as organ or political subdivision of Saudi Arabia, and parties’ affidavits had not been subjected to cross examination and were self-serving. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES § 1603(b)@); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 14. International Law <-10.33 In deciding whether to apply the com- mercial activities exception to the Foreign Sovereion Immunities Act (FSIA), courts must inquire whether the foreign state’s actions are the type of actions by which a private party engages in trade and traffic or commerce. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 15. International Law ¢10.33 To extent that Antiterrorism Act (ATA) claims against Saudi Arabia and two of its government officials by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks were based on defendants’ alleged contri- butions to charities, those alleged acts were not commercial and thus were not subject to commercial activities exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), even if alleged acts constituted money laundering. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1956, 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 16. International Law <=10.33 For purposes of the commercial activi- ty exception to the Foreign Sovereign Im- munities Act (FSIA), a commercial activity must be one in which a private person can engage lawfully. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 17. International Law <10.33 Since money laundering is an illegal activity, it cannot be the basis for applica- bility of the commercial activities exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 18. International Law <10.33 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exception for state sponsors of ter- rorism did not apply to Antiterrorism Act (ATA) claims against Saudi Arabia and two of its government officials by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017833