Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
Wildman v. Deutsche Bank
Date: July 21, 2025
Issue: Whether Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, and Danske Bank violated the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) by knowingly aiding and abetting terrorism through financial services provided to entities linked to terrorist networks.
Case Summary: A unanimous Second Circuit panel upheld the dismissal of JASTA claims brought by U.S. servicemembers and civilians against three banks accused of indirectly funding terrorist attacks in Afghanistan.
The plaintiffs — U.S. soldiers, civilians and family members injured or killed in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2016 — sued the banks, alleging that commercial banking services, money-laundering activity, and trade-finance transactions helped a terrorist “Syndicate” (Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network) procure funds and materials for improvised explosive devices. The plaintiffs filed suit under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which provides U.S. nationals injured by acts of international terrorism with a civil cause of action, allowing them to sue for up to three times the damages they sustained. The ATA allows legal action against those who “aid and abet” terrorism under JASTA.
The Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint, ruling the plaintiffs failed to prove the banks had a general awareness of their roles in illegal activity, or that they substantially assisted that illegal activity. Afterward, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Twitter v. Taamneh. In Twitter, plaintiffs brought JASTA claims against several social media companies for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack committed by ISIS. The Court ruled JASTA requires plausible allegations the defendant “consciously, voluntarily and culpably” participated in the terrorist attack that injured the plaintiff.
On appeal, ABA filed a coalition amicus brief urging the Second Circuit to affirm. ABA argued Twitter adopted a more demanding pleading standard for JASTA’s “knowingly providing substantial assistance” element than the test previously applied by the Second Circuit; plaintiffs bear a particularly heavy burden when asserting JASTA aiding-and-abetting claims against legitimate businesses; and reversal would inflict serious harm on legitimate businesses and US foreign policy interests.
The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Relying on Twitter, the panel explained that JASTA’s aiding-and-abetting liability applies only to “truly culpable conduct.” To meet this standard, the plaintiffs must show a causal relationship to the injury, that the defendants were generally aware of their role in the broader illegal activity when they assisted, and that they gave knowing and substantial help.
As to SCB, the court assumed the bank became generally aware that its services to two Pakistani fertilizer companies were indirectly linked to IED attacks once U.S. military officials warned the bank. Still, applying Twitter, the panel concluded the complaint does not allege that SCB consciously or culpably sought to make the Syndicate’s bombings succeed, and thus SCB’s services were not substantial given the tenuous connection between the services and terrorist attacks.
The panel also ruled the district court properly dismissed the money laundering claims. Plaintiffs alleged the banks assisted with terrorist money laundering that allowed the Syndicate to access funds in Afghanistan, which was critical to the Syndicate’s ability to attack Americans. The panel rejected this theory of aiding-and-abetting liability, explaining a “central tenet” of JASTA aiding-and-abetting liability is the foreseeability principle: a defendant is not liable without understanding the foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions. “In other words, it is not enough to say that facilitating the money laundering operations, which are not themselves Syndicate entities, results in substantial support to the Syndicate,” the panel noted.
Bottom Line: Wildman is the first federal appellate decision applying Twitter to JASTA aiding-and-abetting claims. The Second Circuit’s ruling will hinder plaintiffs’ ability to plead Anti-Terrorism Act aiding-and-abetting claims against banks.
Documents: Opinion
