Rot v. Bank of China

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JACOB ROT, individually, as personal representative of the

Estate of Roi Aharon Rot, and as the natural guardian of

plaintiffs Dvir Rot, a minor, and Daniel Rot, a minor; ORLY

ROT, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Roi

Aharon Rot, and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Dvir Rot, a

minor, and Daniel Rot, a minor; DVIR ROT, a minor, by his

natural guardians Jacob Rot and Orly Rot; DANIEL ROT, a

minor, by his natural guardians Jacob Rot and Orly Rot; ARIE

ROT; MAAYAN ROT; ELISHAV AVIHAIL, individually, as

personal representative of the Estate of Segav Pniel Avihail, and

as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Yfah Atara Avihail, a minor,

Shahak Eitam Avihail, a minor, and Liat Batia Avihail, a minor;

MORIA AVIHAIL, individually, as personal representative of

the Estate of Segav Pniel Avihail, and as the natural guardian of

plaintiffs Yfah Atara Avihail, a minor, Shahak Eitam Avihail, a

minor, and Liat Batia Avihail, a minor; YFAH ATARA

AVIHAIL, a minor, by her natural guardians Elishav Avihail

and Moria Avihail; SHAHAK EITAM AVIHAIL, a minor, by his

natural guardians Elishav Avihail and Moria Avihail; LIAT

BATIA AVIHAIL, a minor, by her natural guardians Elishav

Avihail and Moria Avihail; ITZHAK COHEN, individually, as

personal representative of the Estate of Nerya Cohen, and as the

natural guardian of plaintiffs Tamar Cohen, a minor, Efrat

Cohen, a minor, Nahama Cohen, a minor, Benaya Cohen, a

minor, and Moriya Cohen, a minor; AYALA COHEN,

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Nerya

Cohen and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Tamar Cohen, a

minor, Efrat Cohen, a minor, Nahama Cohen, a minor, Benaya

Cohen, a minor, and Moriya Cohen, a minor; TAMAR COHEN,

a minor, by her natural guardians Itzhak Cohen and Ayala

Cohen; EFRAT COHEN, a minor, by her natural guardians

Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen; NAHAMA COHEN, a minor,

by her natural guardians Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen;

BENAYA COHEN, a minor, by his natural guardians Itzhak

Cohen and Ayala Cohen; MORIYA COHEN, a minor, by her

natural guardians Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen; ACHITUV

COHEN; MERAV QUINT; YEHOYADA COHEN; ORIT LAIK;

EDUT COHEN; HADAS SHARHABY; DROR ELDAR,

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Yonatan

Yitzchak Eldar, and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Yishai

Eldar, a minor, and Gilad Eldar, a minor; AVITAL ELDAR,

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Yonatan

Index No: / 12

Date Purchased: 10 / 23 / 12

Plaintiffs designate NEW YORK

County as the place of trial. The basis

of venue is residence of all the

Defendants parties and location of

their property.

SUMMONS

Plaintiffs reside at:

c/o Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Adv.

10 Hata’as Street

Ramat Gan, 52512, Israel

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2012 INDEX NO. 157475/2012

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2012

-2-

Yitzchak Eldar, and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Yishai

Eldar, a minor, and Gilad Eldar, a minor; DAVID SHILO

ELDAR; YAIR ASHER ELDAR; DVORA GILADI; YEHUDA

ELDAR; DANIEL ELDAR; YISHAI ELDAR, a minor, by his

natural guardians Dror Eldar and Avital Eldar; GILAD ELDAR,

a minor, by his natural guardians Dror Eldar and Avital Eldar;

TUVIA LIFSHITS, individually, as personal representative of the

Estate of Yochay Lifshits, and as the natural guardian of

plaintiffs Amichay Lifshits, a minor, Avishay Lifshits, a minor,

and Amitay Lifshits, a minor; TSOFIA PNINA LIFSHITS,

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Yochay

Lifshits, and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Amichay

Lifshits, a minor, Avishay Lifshits, a minor, and Amitay Lifshits,

a minor; AMICHAY LIFSHITS, a minor, by his natural

guardians Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits; AVISHAY

LIFSHITS, a minor, by his natural guardians Tuvia Lifshits and

Tsofia Pnina Lifshits; AMITAY LIFSHITS, a minor, by his

natural guardians Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits;

ELYASAF LIFSHITS; and RIVKA LIFSHITS,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

BANK OF CHINA LIMITED; BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK;

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BANK OF CHINA LIMITED; BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS, BANK OF CHINA LIMITED; BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK; PRESIDENT,

BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK, in his professional capacity;

CHAIRMAN, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK, in his

professional capacity, BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF

CHINA, NEW YORK, in his professional capacity,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a

copy of your answer, on the plaintiff’s Attorneys within 20 days after the service of this summons,

exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after service is complete if this summons is not

personally delivered to you within the State of New York) and to file a copy of your answer with the

Clerk of the above-named Court; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken

against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

-3-

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

October 23, 2012

Yours,

THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC

Attorneys for the plaintiff

by:

Robert J. Tolchin

111 Livingston Street, Suite 1928

Brooklyn, New York 11201

(718) 855-3627

Defendants’ addresses:

SEE ATTACHED RIDER

-4-

RIDER

Defendants’ addresses:

BANK OF CHINA LIMITED

410 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10017

BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK

410 Madison Avenue


BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BANK OF CHINA LIMITED

410 Madison Avenue


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, BANK OF CHINA LIMITED

410 Madison Avenue


BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK

410 Madison Avenue


PRESIDENT, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK

410 Madison Avenue


CHAIRMAN, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK

410 Madison Avenue


BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK

410 Madison Avenue



COUNTY OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JACOB ROT, individually, as personal representative

of the Estate of Roi Aharon Rot, and as the natural

guardian of plaintiffs Dvir Rot, a minor, and Daniel

Rot, a minor; ORLY ROT, individually, as personal

representative of the Estate of Roi Aharon Rot, and as

the natural guardian of plaintiffs Dvir Rot, a minor,

and Daniel Rot, a minor; DVIR ROT, a minor, by his

natural guardians Jacob Rot and Orly Rot; DANIEL

ROT, a minor, by his natural guardians Jacob Rot and

Orly Rot; ARIE ROT; MAAYAN ROT; ELISHAV

AVIHAIL, individually, as personal representative of

the Estate of Segav Pniel Avihail, and as the natural

guardian of plaintiffs Yfah Atara Avihail, a minor,

Shahak Eitam Avihail, a minor, and Liat Batia Avihail,

a minor; MORIA AVIHAIL, individually, as personal

representative of the Estate of Segav Pniel Avihail, and

as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Yfah Atara

Avihail, a minor, Shahak Eitam Avihail, a minor, and

Liat Batia Avihail, a minor; YFAH ATARA AVIHAIL,

a minor, by her natural guardians Elishav Avihail and

Moria Avihail; SHAHAK EITAM AVIHAIL, a minor,

by his natural guardians Elishav Avihail and Moria

Avihail; LIAT BATIA AVIHAIL, a minor, by her

natural guardians Elishav Avihail and Moria Avihail;

ITZHAK COHEN, individually, as personal

representative of the Estate of Nerya Cohen, and as the

natural guardian of plaintiffs Tamar Cohen, a minor,

Efrat Cohen, a minor, Nahama Cohen, a minor, Benaya

Cohen, a minor, and Moriya Cohen, a minor; AYALA

COHEN, individually, as personal representative of

the Estate of Nerya Cohen and as the natural guardian

of plaintiffs Tamar Cohen, a minor, Efrat Cohen, a

minor, Nahama Cohen, a minor, Benaya Cohen, a

Index No: ___________ / 12

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

-2-

minor, and Moriya Cohen, a minor; TAMAR COHEN,

a minor, by her natural guardians Itzhak Cohen and

Ayala Cohen; EFRAT COHEN, a minor, by her natural

guardians Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen; NAHAMA

COHEN, a minor, by her natural guardians Itzhak

Cohen and Ayala Cohen; BENAYA COHEN, a minor,

by his natural guardians Itzhak Cohen and Ayala

Cohen; MORIYA COHEN, a minor, by her natural

guardians Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen; ACHITUV

COHEN; MERAV QUINT; YEHOYADA COHEN;

ORIT LAIK; EDUT COHEN; HADAS SHARHABY;

DROR ELDAR, individually, as personal

representative of the Estate of Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar,

and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs Yishai Eldar, a

minor, and Gilad Eldar, a minor; AVITAL ELDAR,

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of

Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar, and as the natural guardian of

plaintiffs Yishai Eldar, a minor, and Gilad Eldar, a

minor; DAVID SHILO ELDAR; YAIR ASHER ELDAR;

DVORA GILADI; YEHUDA ELDAR; DANIEL

ELDAR; YISHAI ELDAR, a minor, by his natural

guardians Dror Eldar and Avital Eldar; GILAD

ELDAR, a minor, by his natural guardians Dror Eldar

and Avital Eldar; TUVIA LIFSHITS, individually, as

personal representative of the Estate of Yochay

Lifshits, and as the natural guardian of plaintiffs

Amichay Lifshits, a minor, Avishay Lifshits, a minor,

and Amitay Lifshits, a minor; TSOFIA PNINA

LIFSHITS, individually, as personal representative of

the Estate of Yochay Lifshits, and as the natural

guardian of plaintiffs Amichay Lifshits, a minor,

Avishay Lifshits, a minor, and Amitay Lifshits, a

minor; AMICHAY LIFSHITS, a minor, by his natural

guardians Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits;

AVISHAY LIFSHITS, a minor, by his natural

guardians Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits;

-3-

AMITAY LIFSHITS, a minor, by his natural guardians

Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits; ELYASAF

LIFSHITS; and RIVKA LIFSHITS,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

BANK OF CHINA LIMITED; BANK OF CHINA,

NEW YORK; BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BANK OF

CHINA LIMITED; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, BANK

OF CHINA LIMITED; BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK; PRESIDENT, BANK

OF CHINA, NEW YORK, in his professional capacity;

CHAIRMAN, BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK, in his

professional capacity, BRANCH MANAGER, BANK

OF CHINA, NEW YORK, in his professional capacity,

Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ X

Plaintiffs, complaining of the defendants, by and through their attorneys,

THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC, alleges for their complaint, upon information and

belief, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action for wrongful death and related damages

arising from a terrorist shooting carried out by the Hamas terrorist organization on

March 6, 2008, at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, Israel (“Terrorist Shooting”).

2. The Terrorist Shooting was carried out by Hamas.

3. The Terrorist Shooting was materially supported by Defendants

Bank of China Limited; Bank of China, New York; Board of Directors of Bank of China

-4-

Limited; Board of Supervisors of Bank of China Limited; Board of Directors, Bank of

China, New York; and the Individual Defendants (President, Bank of China, New York;

Chairman of the Bank Of China, New York; and Branch Manager, Bank Of China, New

York) (together, “Defendants”).

4. Defendants provided extensive banking services to the Hamas.

Those banking services caused, enabled and/or facilitated the terrorist attacks in which

the plaintiffs and the decedents were harmed and killed.

5. Decedents Roi Aharon Rot, 18 years-old, Segav Pniel Avihail, 15

years-old, Nerya Cohen, 15 years-old, Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar, 16 years-old and Yochay

Lifshits, 18 years-old, were all murdered in the Terrorist Shooting.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Defendants conduct business in New York.

7. The Defendants conducted numerous transactions in New York

that are the subject of this litigation.

8. The Defendants own and/or control real property in New York.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant

to CPLR § 301 and/or CPLR § 302(a)(1), (a)(4).

10. This Court, a court of general jurisdiction, has subject matter

jurisdiction over this action.

11. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to CPLR § 503(c).

12. This forum is an appropriate one for this action in light of the

Defendants’ significant New York presence, real estate, business activities and

-5-

transactions, and their purposeful availment of the laws and protections of the State of

New York.

PARTIES

13. All Plaintiffs are, and at all times mentioned herein were, citizens

and domiciliaries of the State of Israel.

14. Plaintiffs rely upon the laws and protections of the State of Israel.

Pursuant to the laws of the State of Israel, they are able to bring the Defendants to

justice and to gain recovery for the Defendants illegal and negligence actions and

inactions. They bring this action in New York because they do not believe that the

courts of Israel have personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.

15. All decedents were, at the time of their deaths, citizens and

domiciliaries of the State of Israel.

16. Plaintiffs Jacob Rot and Orly Rot are the parents of decedent Roi

Aharon Rot. They bring this action and all relevant claims individually, on behalf of the

estate of Roi Aharon Rot, and as natural guardians of their minor children, plaintiffs

Dvir Rot and Daniel Rot.

17. Plaintiffs Jacob Rot and Orly Rot are authorized by the provisions

of Part 5 of the State of Israel’s Inheritance Law, 5725-1965, (“Inheritance Law”) to bring

this action on behalf of the Estate of Roi Aharon Rot.

18. Plaintiffs Dvir Rot, Daniel Rot, and Arie Rot are the brothers of

decedent Roi Aharon Rot.

19. Plaintiff Maayan Rot is the sister of decedent Roi Aharon Rot.

-6-

20. Plaintiffs Elishav Avihail and Moria Avihail are the parents of

decedent Segav Pniel Avihail. They bring this action and all relevant claims

individually, on behalf of the estate of Segav Pniel Avihail, and as natural guardians of

their minor children, plaintiffs Yfah Atara Avihail, Shahak Eitam Avihail and Liat Batia

Avihail.

21. Plaintiffs Elishav Avihail and Moria Avihail are authorized by the

provisions of Part 5 of the Inheritance Law to bring this action on behalf of the Estate of

Segav Pniel Avihail.

22. Plaintiffs Yfah Atara Avihail and Liat Batia Avihail are the sisters of

decedent Segav Pniel Avihail.

23. Plaintiff Shahak Eitam Avihail is the brother of decedent Segav

Pniel Avihail.

24. Plaintiffs Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen are the parents of

decedent Nerya Cohen. They bring this action and all relevant claims individually, on

behalf of the estate of Nerya Cohen, and as natural guardians of their minor children,

plaintiffs Tamar Cohen, Efrat Cohen, Nahama Cohen, Benaya Cohen, and Moriya

Cohen.

25. Plaintiffs Itzhak Cohen and Ayala Cohen are authorized by the


Nerya Cohen.

26. Plaintiffs Achituv Cohen, Yehoyada Cohen and Benaya Cohen are

the brothers of decedent Nerya Cohen.

-7-

27. Plaintiffs Merav Quint, Orit Laik, Edut Cohen, Hadas Sharhaby,

Tamar Cohen, Efrat Cohen, Nahama Cohen, and Moriya Cohen are the sisters of

decedent Nerya Cohen.

28. Plaintiffs Dror Eldar and Avital Eldar are the parents of decedent

Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar. They bring this action and all relevant claims individually, on

behalf of the estate of Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar, and as natural guardians of their minor

children, plaintiffs Yishai Eldar and Gilad Eldar.

29. Plaintiffs Dror Eldar and Avital Eldar are authorized by the


Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar.

30. Plaintiffs David Shilo Eldar, Yair Asher Eldar, Yehuda Eldar,

Daniel Eldar, Yishai Eldar, and Gilad Eldar are the brothers of decedent Yonatan

Yitzchak Eldar.

31. Plaintiff Dvora Giladi is the sister of decedent Yonatan Yitzchak

Eldar.

32. Plaintiffs Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits are the parents of

decedent Yochay Lifshits. They bring this action and all relevant claims individually, on

behalf of the estate of Yochay Lifshits, and as natural guardians of their minor children,

plaintiffs Amichay Lifshits, Avishay Lifshits, and Amitay Lifshits.

33. Plaintiffs Tuvia Lifshits and Tsofia Pnina Lifshits are authorized by

the provisions of Part 5 of the Inheritance Law to bring this action on behalf of the Estate

of Yochay Lifshits.

-8-

34. Plaintiff Elyasaf Lifshits, Amichay Lifshits, Avishay Lifshits, and

Amitay Lifshits are the brothers of decedent Yochay Lifshits.

35. Plaintiff Rivka Lifshits is the sister of decedent Yochay Lifshits.

36. Defendant Bank of China Limited, is a China-based international

commercial bank with physical presence in more than 30 countries, including the

United States. It maintains a website designed to attract English speaking customers:

http://www.boc.cn/en/index.html. Through that website, individuals and

organizations can bank with the Defendant Bank of China Limited from anywhere in

the world.

37. During the year ending December 31, 2011, Defendant Bank of

China Limited held dollar-denominated deposits totaling approximately

$244,000,000,000.

38. Defendant Bank of China, New York is a wholly owned subsidiary

of Bank of China Limited. It operates three branches in the United States: two in

Manhattan, the other in Los Angeles.

39. Upon information and belief, Bank of China, New York is a legal

fiction that Bank of China Limited uses to facilitate its American operations. It has no

existence independent of Bank of China Limited.

40. Defendant Board of Directors of Bank of China Limited operates

and controls the Defendant Bank of China Limited.

41. Defendant Board of Supervisors of Bank of China Limited has

supervisory responsibility over the Defendant Bank of China Limited.

http://www.boc.cn/en/index.html

-9-

42. Defendant Board of Directors, Bank of China, New York, operates

and controls the Bank of China, New York.

43. Defendant President, Bank of China, New York, is the chief

executive of the Defendant Bank of China, New York.

44. Defendant Chairman, Bank of China, New York, is the Chairman of

the Board of Directors of Bank of China, New York or is otherwise the principal director

of Bank of China, New York.

45. Defendant Branch Manager, Bank of China, New York, is the

manager of the New York branch or branches through which the dollar denominated

wire transfers described by paragraphs 70-75 were routed.

46. Following due diligence, Plaintiffs were not able to indentify the

names of Defendant President, Bank of China, New York; Defendant Chairman, Bank of

China, New York; or Defendant Branch Manager, Bank of China, New York.

47. Upon information and belief, Defendant Board of Directors, Bank

of China, New York; Defendant President, Bank of China, New York; and Defendant

Chairman, Bank of China, New York are under the direct responsibility and/or control

of senior management of Defendant Bank of China Limited.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Hamas

48. Hamas was formed in the Gaza Strip during the early 1980s.

49. Hamas is a radical terrorist organization. Hamas’ openly-declared

goal is the creation of an Islamic state in the territory of Israel, the West Bank and the

-10-

Gaza Strip, and the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder or expulsion of its

Jewish residents. Hamas seeks to achieve this goal by carrying out terrorist attacks

against Jewish civilians in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas proudly and

openly acknowledges that it uses terrorism to achieve its political goals. Hamas uses

terrorism in an effort to coerce, intimidate and influence government decision-makers

and the public in Israel to accept Hamas’ demands.

50. The Hamas Covenant of 1988, its founding document, available

publicly on the internet at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp, states

the following:

a. On the purpose of Hamas:

i. “The Islamic Resistance Movement [(“Hamas”)]

emerged to carry out its role through striving for the

sake of its Creator, its arms intertwined with those of

all the fighters for the liberation of Palestine. The

spirits of its fighters meet with the spirits of all the

fighters who have sacrificed their lives on the soil of

Palestine, ever since it was conquered by the

companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant

him salvation, and until this day.”

ii. “[Hamas] is a distinguished Palestinian movement,

whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

-11-

Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every

inch of Palestine ….”

iii. “[Hamas] is one of the links in the chain of the

struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to

1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al

Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of

Moslem Brotherhood.”

b. On Israel and the Jews:

i. “Israel [(i.e. the Jewish People)] will exist and will

continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it

obliterated others before it.”

ii. “[Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an

Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem

generations until Judgement [sic] Day.”

iii. “This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the

Islamic Sharia (law) …. Any procedure in

contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is

concerned, is null and void.”

iv. “[The Jews] strived to amass great and substantive

material wealth which they devoted to the realisation

of their dream. With their money, they took control of

the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing

-12-

houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their

money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the

world with the purpose of achieving their interests

and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the

French Revolution, the Communist revolution and

most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here

and there.… With their money they were able to

control imperialistic countries and instigate them to

colonize many countries in order to enable them to

exploit their resources and spread corruption there….

They were behind World War I, when they were able

to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial

gains and controlling resources. They obtained the

Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations

through which they could rule the world. They were

behind World War II, through which they made huge

financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved

the way for the establishment of their state. It was

they who instigated the replacement of the League of

Nations with the United Nations and the Security

Council to enable them to rule the world through

-13-

them. There is no war going on anywhere, without

having their finger in it.”

v. “The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion.”

vi. “The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the

Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the

Euphrates. When they will have digested the region

they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion,

and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of

the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the

best proof of what we are saying.”

c. On Islamic doctrine regarding peace with Israel:

i. “Allah is [Islam’s] target, the Prophet is its model, the

Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for

the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

ii. “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and

international conferences, are in contradiction to the

principles of [Hamas]. Abusing any part of Palestine

is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism

of [Hamas] is part of its religion.”

iii. “It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers,

information and media people, as well as the

educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of

-14-

the Islamic movements, should take part in the

operation of awakening (the masses). It is important

that basic changes be made in the school curriculum,

to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that

affected it ….”

iv. “The Moslem woman has a role no less important

than that of the moslem [sic] man in the battle of

liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in

guiding and educating the new generations is great….

She has to teach them to perform the religious duties

in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them.

That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to

schools and the curriculum followed in educating

Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good

mothers, aware of their role in the battle of

liberation.”

d. On Jihad:

i. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very

serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that

inevitably should be followed by other steps. The

Movement is but one squadron that should be

supported by more and more squadrons from this

-15-

vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is

vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.”

ii. “The Day of Judgement [sic] will not come about until

Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the

Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and

trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew

behind me, come and kill him.”

iii. “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land,

Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem.

In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is

compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do

this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness

among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and

Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of

Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would

confront the enemies and join the ranks of the

fighters.”

iv. “[Hamas] … urges the Arab and Islamic peoples, their

governments, popular and official groupings … [to]

back and support [Hamas,] extending to it more and

more funds till Allah's purpose is achieved when

ranks will close up, fighters join other fighters and

-16-

masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come

forward in response to the call of duty while loudly

proclaiming: Hail to Jihad. Their cry will reach the

heavens and will go on being resounded until

liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and

Allah’s victory comes about.”

v. “There is no solution for the Palestinian question

except through Jihad.”

51. Hamas is listed by the U.S. Department of State (“State

Department”) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (“FTO”).

52. Hamas has been listed as an FTO since 1997 and was so listed at all

times relevant to this litigation.

53. The State Department’s list of FTOs is available publicly on the

internet at http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.

54. Hamas is listed by the State Department as a Specially Designated

Global Terrorist (“SDGT”) pursuant to E.O. 13224.

55. Hamas has been listed as an SDGT since October 31, 2001 and was

so listed at all times relevant to this litigation.

56. The State Department’s list of SDGTs is available publicly on the

internet at http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm.

57. Between the time of its founding and March 6, 2008 (and until the

present day), Hamas has carried out thousands of terrorist attacks in Israel, the West

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm

-17-

Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which scores of Israeli and U.S. citizens were murdered and

hundreds more wounded.

58. Between the time of its founding and March 6, 2008, Hamas’ policy

and practice of carrying out terrorist attacks was and is notorious and well known to

the public at large, including Defendants.

59. Between 2003 and March 6, 2008, the courts of the United States

published numerous decisions finding that Hamas was responsible for terrorist attacks

in which American citizens were killed or injured.

60. Between 1999 and March 6, 2008, the annual Patterns of Global

Terrorism Report published by the United States Department of State consistently

reported that Hamas was responsible for terrorist attacks in which American citizens

were killed or injured.

61. Defendants had and continue to have, at all times relevant to this

litigation, actual knowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

62. Defendants had and continue to have, at all times relevant to this

litigation, actual knowledge that Hamas uses its resources to deliberate target, with

intent to kill, Jews in Israel.

B. Bank of China’s Provision of Material Support and Resources to Hamas

63. Hamas is subject to strict economic sanctions programs imposed by

the United States as the result of its designation as an FTO and SDGT (collectively

hereinafter: “U.S. Sanctions Regime”).

-18-

64. The U.S. Sanctions Regime is intended to prevent Hamas from

conducting banking activities, and thereby limit its ability to plan, to prepare and to

carry out terrorist attacks.

65. The U.S. Sanctions Regime is effective when it is observed and

enforced. Hamas is unable to conduct banking activities via banks and other financial

institutions which observe and enforce the U.S. Sanctions Regime.

66. If all banks and financial institutions around the world observed

and enforced the U.S. Sanctions Regime, the ability of Hamas to conduct banking

activities would be severely restricted, and Hamas’ ability to plan, to prepare and to

carry out terrorist attacks would be significantly reduced.

67. Hamas requires access to cash, and thus to the banking services of

banks that do not observe and enforce the U.S. Sanctions Regime, in order to conduct

their operations and commit acts of terrorism.

68. Nearly all banks and financial institutions around the world

observe and enforce the U.S. Sanctions Regime. Hamas is therefore forced to conduct its

banking activities using those very few banks and financial institutions which do not

observe and enforce the U.S. Sanctions Regime.

69. The Defendants do not observe or enforce the U.S. Sanctions

Regime.

70. Beginning in or about July 2003, Defendant Bank of China Limited

began to provide extensive banking services to Hamas. Specifically, between 2003 and

-19-

the date of the Terrorist Shooting (described infra), Bank of China Limited executed

dozens of dollar-denominated wire transfers for Hamas, totaling several million dollars.

71. Upon information and belief, the money that Defendants’

transferred originated from Hamas’ illegal activities around the world, including,

without limitation illicit drug smuggling in South American and illicit diamond trade in

Africa.

72. Upon information and belief, Hamas engages in the illegal

activities described in the prior paragraph in order to finance their terrorism.

73. The dollar-denominated wire transfers referenced in paragraph 70

were initiated by the Hamas leadership in Iran, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East,

and were executed by and through Defendant Bank of China, New York and/or Bank

of China’s branches in the United States (most probably through Manhattan, given that

two-thirds of the Defendants’ U.S. branches are in Manhattan).

74. Most of these wire transfers referenced in paragraph 70 were made

to account number 4750401-0188-150882-6 at a Bank of China branch in Guanzhou,

China, in the name of “S.Z.R Alshurafa.” The owner of the account, Said al-Shurafa

(“Shurafa”) is a senior officer and agent both of Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad

terrorist organization.

75. Some of the other wire transfers referenced in paragraph 70 were

made by Hamas via Defendant Bank of China, New York and/or Bank of China’s

branches in the United States to another account belonging to Shurafa at the same Bank

of China branch in Guanzhou, account number 7432674-7800-767733-3.

-20-

76. The wire transfers referred to in paragraphs 70-75 are referred to

collectively hereinafter as “Transfers.”

77. Defendants knew at all times relevant to this litigation that Shurafa

was a Hamas operative.

78. Upon receiving the Transfers in his Bank of China accounts,

Shurafa, acting in accord with the instructions he received from Hamas, transferred the

money to Hamas terrorist leadership in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for the

purpose of planning, preparing for and executing terrorist attacks.

79. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas need wire transfer and other

banking services in order to plan, to prepare for and to carry out terrorist attacks.

80. Provision of wire transfer or other banking services to Hamas

enables Hamas to plan, to prepare for and to carry out terrorist attacks, and enhances

Hamas’ ability to plan, to prepare for and to carry out such attacks.

81. Defendants’ provision of banking services to Hamas, via Shurafa,

enables Hamas to plan, to prepare for and to carry out terrorist attacks, and enhances

Hamas’ ability to plan, to prepare for and to carry out such attacks.

82. Hamas carried out the Transfers in order to transfer and receive

funds necessary for planning, preparing and carrying out the Hamas’ terrorist activity,

including bombing attacks against civilians generally and the Terrorist Shooting

specifically.

-21-

83. The Transfers substantially increased and facilitated Hamas’ ability

to plan, to prepare for and to carry out bombing attacks on civilians, including the

Terrorist Shooting.

84. The Transfers were enabled, facilitated and proximately caused by

the conduct of Defendants described herein.

85. As the result of the Defendants’ conduct, Hamas was able to

transfer several million dollars in funds to its terrorist leadership in Israel, the West

Bank and the Gaza Strip, which substantially increased and facilitated Hamas’ ability to

plan and carry out terrorist attacks, including the Terrorist Shooting. The Terrorist

Shooting was thereby enabled, facilitated and proximately caused by the conduct of

Defendants described herein.

86. The decedents’ and Plaintiffs’ injuries are the direct and proximate

result of Defendants’ conduct.

87. The decedents’ and Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by Defendants’

conduct.

88. The decedents’ and Plaintiffs’ injuries arose out of and/or were

facilitated by Defendants’ conduct.

89. Upon information and belief, the decedents’ and Plaintiffs’ injuries

would not have happened but for Defendants’ conduct.

90. In April 2005, officials of the counterterrorism division of the Office

of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel (collectively hereinafter: “Israeli officials”)

met with officials of the People’s Republic of China’s (“China”) Ministry of Public

-22-

Security and the China’s central bank (collectively hereinafter: “Chinese officials”)

regarding the Transfers. At that meeting in April 2005, the Israeli officials emphasized

to the Chinese officials that the Transfers were being made by Hamas for the purpose of

carrying out terrorist attacks, and that the Transfers enhanced Hamas’ ability to plan,

prepare for and carry out such attacks. At that April 2005 meeting, the Israeli officials

demanded that the Chinese officials take action to prevent Defendants from making

further such transfers.

91. Later, still in April 2005, the Chinese officials notified the

Defendants (or, at least, Defendant Bank of China Limited) of the Israeli officials’

statements that the Transfers were being made by the Hamas for the purpose of

carrying out terrorist attacks and that the Transfers enhanced Hamas’ ability to plan,

prepare for and carry out such attacks.

92. Also in April 2005, the Chinese officials also notified the

Defendants (or, at least, Defendant Bank of China Limited) of the Israeli officials’

demand the Defendants halt the Transfers.

93. Defendants, with the approval of the Chinese government, ignored

Israel’s demand and continued to carry out further Transfers between April 2005 and

some date (as of yet, unknown to the Plaintiffs) after the date of the Terrorist Shooting

(March 6, 2008).

94. At all relevant times, including, without limitation, the period prior

to April 2005, Defendants had actual knowledge that the Transfers were being made by

the Hamas for the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks.

-23-

95. If Defendants did not have actual knowledge prior to April 2005

that the Transfers were being made by the Hamas for the purpose of carrying out

terrorist attacks, the lack of knowledge was the result of willful and intentional

blindness.


to April 2005, Defendants had actual knowledge that the Transfers enhanced Hamas’

ability to plan, prepare for and carry out terrorist attacks.

97. If the Defendants did not have actual knowledge prior to April

2005 that the Transfers enhanced Hamas’ ability to plan, prepare for and carry out

terrorist attacks, the lack of knowledge was the result of willful and intentional

blindness.


to April 2005, the Defendants knew and/or should have known that the Transfers were

being made for illegal purposes in light of the following facts (among others):

a. Most of the Transfers were made in cash;

b. Most of the Transfers were withdrawn by Shurafa on the

day they were received or on the following day;

c. The sums involved were large, mostly in excess $100,000

(cash) or more;

d. The intervals between transfers were often short (weeks or

days) and the sums transferred were often identical or

-24-

similar. For example, many of the transfers were for $99,960,

$99,970 or $99,990;

e. The dollar amounts transferred were often round figures;

f. Many of the Transfers were structured to be slightly less

than round figures. For example, many of the transfers were

for $99,960, $99,970, $99,990 or $199,965;

g. This patterns described above continued for a period of

years;

h. These unusual Transfers had no obvious or apparent lawful

purpose and the parties to them provided Defendants with

no reasonable explanation for them.

99. The facts enumerated in paragraph 98 are recognized by materially

all professional bankers, including Defendants and their employees, as typical indicia of

transactions made for illegal purposes.

100. Upon information and belief, the Defendants either investigated the

transfers due to their suspicious nature or declined to investigate given that they were

entirely aware of the Transfers’ illegal origins and purpose.

101. Even prior to the Israeli officials’ demand to halt the Transfers in

April 2005, Defendants knew and/or should have known that the Transfers were being

made for illegal purposes because Defendants had and has statutory duties, inter alia

under United States law, specifically, without limitation, under the USA PATRIOT Act

and rules promulgated by United States Treasury and the Financial Action Task Force

-25-

(“FATF”), to perform due diligence on their suspect accounts and account holders, and

monitor, report and refuse to execute suspicious and/or irregular banking transactions.

102. The Transfers were facially suspicious and irregular. The facts

enumerated in paragraph 98 demonstrate that the Transfers were suspicious and

irregular. Accordingly, the Transfers triggered legal duties on the part of Defendants to

perform due diligence on the Transfers and the suspect accounts and to monitor, report

and refuse to execute suspicious and/or irregular banking transactions.

103. By maintaining accounts with terrorists without adequately

attempting to ascertain the identity of its account holders, Defendants breached

obligatory statutory and regulatory duties.

104. By maintaining accounts with suspicious activity without

adequately attempting to determine the cause or justification of that suspicious activity,

Defendants breached obligatory statutory and regulatory duties.

105. By executing the Transfers without performing due diligence,

Defendants breached obligatory statutory and regulatory duties.

106. By executing the Transfers without adequately monitoring them

and without reporting them, Defendants breached obligatory statutory and regulatory

duties to monitor, report and refuse to execute suspicious and/or irregular banking

transactions.

107. Upon information and belief, if Defendants were in compliance

with their obligatory statutory and regulatory duties, they would have discovered that

-26-

the Transfers were being used for illegal purposes and would have informed the same

to U.S. government authorities.

C. The Terrorist Shooting

108. On March 6, 2008, at approximately 8:30 pm, an agent and

operative of Hamas, Alaa Abu Dhein, arrived at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in

Jerusalem, Israel, and acting on behalf of Hamas, opened fire with an AK-47 (a

Kalashnikov assault rifle), on hundreds of yeshiva students.

109. Eight students were murdered in the attack, including decedents

Roi Aharon Rot, Segav Pniel Avihail, Nerya Cohen, Yonatan Yitzchak Eldar and Yochay

Lifshits. Many other students were wounded in the attack.

110. Hamas planned, made the preparations necessary for, and carried

out the Terrorist Shooting utilizing the Transfers or portions of the Transfers.


out the Terrorist Shooting utilizing funds received by Hamas in exchange or

consideration for the Transfers.


out the Terrorist Shooting utilizing funds that were freed up and/or otherwise made

available to Hamas as a result of the Transfers.


out the Terrorist Shooting utilizing funds drawn from a pool of funds created in part by

the Transfers.

-27-

114. At all times relevant in this litigation, Defendants had actual

knowledge that its banking services would be used by Hamas to inflict mortal injury

against Jews in Israel.

115. Through their provision of support to a Hamas operative,

Defendants enabled and/or facilitated the Terrorist Shooting.

D. Hamas’ Deliberate Obfuscation

116. Hamas generally has the practice of taking responsibility for

terrorist activity and the murder of innocent civilians when it is responsible for that

activity.

117. Some suspected that Hamas was responsible for the Terrorist

Shooting after it occurred. But there was no evidence to support that suspicion.

118. Notwithstanding its general practice of taking responsibility for its

terrorist activities, Hamas initially made no official comment regarding its involvement

in the Terrorist Shooting.

119. Hamas praised the perpetrators of the Terrorist Shooting and the

murder of innocent civilians, but made contradicting and ambiguous claims as to the

extent of its involvement.

120. On the same day as the Terrorist Shooting, the Hezbollah television

network, Al-Manar, reported that a group known as the Galilee Liberators Brigades—the

Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh claimed responsibility for the Terrorist Shooting. This false

report created considerable doubt as to Hamas’s involvement in the Terrorist Shooting.

-28-

121. After Reuters news agency reported that an anonymous source

placed responsibility for the Terrorist Shooting on Hamas, Abu Obeida, the spokesman

for the Izz ad-Din Al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, said that no such

claim was official unless made in a written statement signed by the military wing of

Hamas.

122. Notwithstanding its general practice of doing so, the military wing

of Hamas signed no written statement claiming responsibility for the Terrorist

Shooting.

123. In his statement in response to Reuters’ report referenced in

paragraph 121, Abu Obeida referenced, by way of illustration, a signed statement from

the military wing of Hamas claiming responsibility for a terrorist attack in Dimona,

Israel, which occurred the same year as the Terrorist Shooting.

124. Finally, on December 25, 2010, Hamas officially claimed

responsibility for the Terrorist Shooting in a publication entitled The Path of Glory (Darb

al-ezza). The Path of Glory was an attempt to mark Hamas’ 23rd anniversary. It includes

statements by Hamas military leaders along with statistical data on terror actions

carried out against Israel.

125. Among the statements printed in the The Path of Glory was Hamas’

formal acceptance of responsibility for the Terrorist Shooting on March 6, 2008.

126. Prior to the December 25, 2010 publication of The Path of Glory,

Plaintiffs had no means of suing Hamas or anyone else because their accusations would

-29-

have been nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture in the face of considerable

uncertainty as to who was responsible for the Terrorist Shooting.

127. Prior to December 25, 2010, the identity of the Defendants as proper

defendants in this litigation was neither known nor knowable to the Plaintiffs.

E. Israeli Law

128. Pursuant to CPLR § 4511(b) plaintiffs hereby request that the Court

take judicial notice of the law of the State of Israel as set forth below.

129. Causes of action in tort in Israeli law are codified in the Civil

Wrongs Ordinance (New Version)–1968 (“CWO”).1 The CWO provides that any person

injured or harmed by the civil wrongs enumerated in the CWO is entitled to relief from

the person liable or responsible for the wrong.

130. CWO § 35 creates a “civil wrong” of Negligence.

131. CWO § 35 provides that a person is liable for the civil wrong of

Negligence when he commits an act which a reasonable and prudent person would not

have committed under the same circumstances; or refrains from committing an act

which a reasonable and prudent person would have committed under the same

circumstances; or, in the performance of his occupation, does not use the skill or

exercise the degree of caution which a reasonable person qualified to act in that

1 For the convenience of the Court, a translation of the CWO is available

here: http://www.israelinsurancelaw.com/tort-laws/tort-ordinance-new-version.html. The Plaintiffs are not responsible for the translation and cannot attest to its accuracy. An authoritative Hebrew language version is available here: http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/306_001.htm.

http://www.israelinsurancelaw.com/tort-laws/tort-ordinance-new-version.html

http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/306_001.htm

-30-

occupation would have used or exercised under the same circumstances, and thereby

causes damage to another person toward whom, under those circumstances he is

obligated not to act as he did.

132. CWO § 36 provides that the obligation toward “another person”

stated in the last sentence of § 35 is toward all persons (without regard to any particular

“duty,” as is common in American law), to the extent that a reasonable person could

have foreseen, under the same circumstances, that in the ordinary course of events such

persons were liable to be injured by the act.

133. CWO § 63 creates a “civil wrong” of Breach of Statutory Duty.

134. CWO § 63 provides that a person is liable for the civil wrong of

Breach of Statutory Duty when he fails to comply with an obligation imposed under

any “enactment,” if the enactment is intended for the benefit or protection of another

person, and if the breach of the enactment caused that person damage of the kind or

nature intended to be prevent by the enactment.

135. Under Israel’s Interpretation Ordinance (New Version),2 an

“enactment,” within the meaning of the CWO, means “every law and every regulation,”

while the terms “law” and “regulation” are defined, in turn, as acts of the Knesset

(Israel’s parliament) and of “any authority in Eretz Israel or in Israel,” respectively.

2 Plaintiffs do not currently have a good English translation of the

Interpretation Ordinance. A treatment of the relevant portions is available at Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 755 F.Supp.2d 1, 67 (D.D.C. 2010). An authoritative Hebrew language version is available here: http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/p197_001.htm.

http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/p197_001.htm

-31-

136. CWO § 63(b) provides that for the purpose of CWO § 63, a law or

regulation is deemed to have been enacted for the benefit or protection of a specific

person if it is intended for the benefit or protection of that person, or for the benefit or

protection of persons in general, or of persons of a category or definition to which that

specific person belongs.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE

Performance of Negligent Acts

Under the Law of the State of Israel

137. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth

fully herein.

138. By carrying out the Transfers, after and despite having been

expressly warned of the illegal and dangerous purpose and intent, Defendants

performed acts which a reasonable and prudent person would not have committed

under the same circumstances, within the meaning of the CWO.

139. By carrying out the Transfers, after and despite having actual

knowledge of the illegal and harmful purposes of the Transfers, Defendants performed

acts which a reasonable and prudent person would not have committed under the same

circumstances, within the meaning of the CWO.

140. By carrying out the Transfers, after and despite having constructive

knowledge of the illegal and harmful purposes of the Transfers, Defendants performed

-32-

acts which a reasonable and prudent person would not have committed under the same


141. Defendants executed the Transfers despite that a reasonable person

would have foreseen under the same circumstances that, in the ordinary course of

events, persons such as the decedents and the Plaintiffs were likely to be harmed as a

direct result of the Defendants’ actions. Such a reasonable person would not have

executed the Transfers in light of the injuries that such Transfers were likely to cause.

142. Defendants’ negligence caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and the

descendants’ deaths.

143. Defendants’ negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and

the descendants’ deaths.

144. Defendants are liable for the full amount of the Plaintiffs’ and the

decedents’ damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE

Negligent Failure to Act



fully herein.

146. Defendants did not, in the performance of their occupation and the

duties thereof, use the skill or exercise the degree of caution which a reasonable person

-33-

qualified to act in that occupation would have used or exercised under the same


147. Defendants failed to prevent the Transfers from occurring and

failed to subsequently block them despite that a reasonable person operating in their

profession would have identified that the Transfers were highly suspect and would

have reported them, refused to execute them, and done whatever it could to seek their

refund.

148. Defendants failed to prevent the Transfers from occurring despite

being informed in April 2005 that the Transfers were illegal and were being used to

finance terrorism. A reasonable person operating in their profession would have

refused to execute any future Transfers upon learning of their purpose.

149. Defendants failed to prevent the Transfers from occurring despite

that a reasonable person would have foreseen under the same circumstances that, in the

ordinary course of events, persons such as the decedents and the Plaintiffs were likely

to be harmed as a direct result of the Defendants’ failure to prevent the Transfers. Such

a reasonable person would have prevented the Transfers in light of the injuries that

such Transfers were likely to cause.

150. Defendants’ negligence caused the Plaintiffs’ injuries and the


151. Defendants’ negligence proximately caused the Plaintiffs’ injuries

and the descendants’ deaths.

-34-



THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE PER SE



fully herein.

154. Defendants refrained from committing acts which a reasonable and

prudent person would have committed under the same circumstances, within the

meaning of the CWO, in that, inter alia, by carrying out the Transfers, Defendants failed

to comply with their statutory and regulatory obligations under United States law

specifically, without limitation, under the USA PATRIOT Act and rules promulgated by

United States Treasury and the FATF.

155. Defendants’ obligatory statutory and regulatory duties compelled

them to perform due diligence on their suspect accounts and account holders, and

monitor, report and refuse to execute suspicious and/or irregular banking transactions.

156. If Defendants’ had complied with their obligatory statutory and

regulatory duties, as a reasonable and prudent person would have, within the meaning

of the CWO, the illegal Transfers would not have happened or would have been

stopped sooner.

-35-

157. Defendants’ negligence caused the Plaintiffs’ injuries and the


158. Defendants’ negligence proximately caused the Plaintiffs’ injuries

and the descendants’ deaths.



FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY



fully herein.

161. Defendants breached and failed to comply with obligations

imposed upon them by numerous enactments, which were intended for the benefit and

protection of persons in general, and for the benefit and protection of persons of the

type, category and definition to which plaintiffs and the decedents belong, within the

meaning of the CWO.

162. The enactments breached by Defendants include, without

limitation:

-36-

a. Section 4 of Israel’s Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 5708-

1948,3 which, for the benefit of victims and potential victims

of terrorism, criminally prohibits the provision of material

support to terrorist organizations such as Hamas;

b. Sections 145 and 148 of Israel’s Penal Law, 5737-1977,4 which,

for the benefit of victims and potential victims of terrorism,

criminally prohibits the provision of material support to

terrorist organizations such as Hamas; and

c. Section 85 of Israel’s Defense Regulations (Emergency Period)–

1945,5 which, for the benefit of victims and potential victims

of terrorism, criminally prohibits the provision of services

and other material support to terrorist organizations such as

Hamas.

3 For the convenience of the Court, a translation of the relevant provisions

of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance is available here: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1900_1949/Prevention+of+Terrorism+Ordinance+No+33+of+5708-19.htm. The Plaintiffs are not responsible for the translation and cannot attest to its accuracy. An authoritative Hebrew language version is available here: http://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law01/250_001.doc.

4 For the convenience of the Court, a translation of the Penal Law is available here: http://www.oecd.org/investment/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-briberyconvention/43289694.pdf. The Plaintiffs are not responsible for the translation and cannot attest to its accuracy. An authoritative Hebrew language version is available here: http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/073_002.htm.

5 For the convenience of the Court, a translation of the Defense Regulations (Emergency Period) is available here: http://nolegalfrontiers.org/en/military-orders/mil02. The Plaintiffs are not responsible for the translation and cannot attest to its accuracy. An authoritative Hebrew language version is available here: www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law01/999_194.doc.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1900_1949/Prevention+of+Terrorism+Ordinance+No+33+of+5708-19.htm

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1900_1949/Prevention+of+Terrorism+Ordinance+No+33+of+5708-19.htm

http://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law01/250_001.doc

http://www.oecd.org/investment/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-briberyconvention/43289694.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/investment/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-briberyconvention/43289694.pdf

http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/073_002.htm

http://nolegalfrontiers.org/en/military-orders/mil02

http://nolegalfrontiers.org/en/military-orders/mil02

http://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law01/999_194.doc

-37-

163. Israeli law, § 13 of Israel’s Penal Law, 5737-1977,6 provides that the

courts of Israel have extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction over crimes against the

security of the State of Israel and over crimes against the lives and persons of Israeli

citizens as such. Accordingly, the conduct of Defendants described herein breached the

enactments listed above, among others, despite the fact that Defendants conduct did not

take place in Israel.

164. The last event necessary to give rise to the Defendants’ civil

liability, the injuries to the decedents and the Plaintiffs, occurred in Israel.

165. All of the enactments listed above are intended for the benefit and

protection of persons in general, for the specific benefit and protection of innocent

civilians such as the plaintiffs and the decedents, in that all of the statutory enactments

listed above are intended to protect all such persons from terrorist attacks and from all

the damages which terrorist attacks are liable to inflict.

166. Defendants’ breach of their statutory obligations caused the harms

that they were intended to prevent and the injuries to the Plaintiffs and the decedents.

167. Defendants’ breach of their statutory obligations proximately

caused the harms that they were intended to prevent and the injuries to the Plaintiffs

and the decedents.

6 See supra note 4.

-38-

168. The harm and injuries inflicted against the Plaintiffs and the

decedents are among the kind and nature of damages intended to be prevented by the

statutory enactments which were breached by the Defendants.



REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the

following relief:

(a) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not

less than $750 million;

(b) A declaration that the Defendants’ actions violate Israeli law;

(c) Costs and attorneys fees to the extent permitted by law; and

(d) Such other and further relief this Court may deem appropriate

-39-


October 23, 2012

Yours,

THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC

Attorneys for the plaintiff

by:

Robert J. Tolchin

111 Livingston Street, Suite 1928


(718) 855-3627

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner & Co.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Adv.

Israeli Counsel for Plaintiffs

10 Hata’as Street

Ramat Gan, 52512, Israel

VERIFICATION

Robert J. Tolchin, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the within action, duly

admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following

statements to be true under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to CPLR 2016:

He has read the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof to be

true to his own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on

information and belief, and as to those matters she believes it to be true.

He further states that the source of this information and the grounds for

his belief are derived from the file maintained in the normal course of business of the

attorneys for the plaintiff herein.

He further states that the reason this affirmation is not made by the

plaintiffs is that at the time the complaint was being prepared, the plaintiffs were not

found to be within the County of Kings, which is the county where the attorney for the

plaintiff herein maintains his office.


October 23, 2012

Robert J. Tolchin

THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC 111 Livingston Street, Suite 1928


718-855-3627


COUNTY OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JACOB ROT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

BANK OF CHINA LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

Index No: ___________ / 12

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous. Dated: October 23, 2012 Signature: ______________________________

Documents

Rot v. Bank of China