評論
打印
Arab Bank
阿拉伯銀行
Consorting with terrorists
恐怖分子的共犯
A venerable Jordanian bank is found complicit in terrorist attacks
約旦一家歷史悠久的大型銀行被發(fā)現(xiàn)是恐怖襲擊參與者
AFTER a six-week trial it took only two days for a jury to find Arab Bank guilty of knowingly providing assistance to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs Gaza, and consequently of complicity in two dozen terrorist attacks Hamas launched between 2001 and 2004 in which Americans were hurt or killed.
在一連6周的審理后，陪審團(tuán)只用了兩天就認(rèn)定阿拉伯銀行有罪，因其主動向加沙地帶的巴勒斯坦激進(jìn)組織馬斯集團(tuán)提供援助，因此認(rèn)定阿拉布銀行也參與了在2001年至2004年間哈馬斯發(fā)動的24起恐怖襲擊，數(shù)名美國人在這些襲擊中受傷或死亡。
The case was originally filed a decade ago and this week's verdict notwithstanding, it is far from over. Damages will be assessed in another trial. Arab Bank, which is based inJordan, has vowed to appeal, labelling the proceeding “a show trial”, in which it was prevented from providing exonerating evidence by other countries' laws on bank secrecy.
這一案件起初在10年前就立案了，盡管本周宣判了，但它還遠(yuǎn)未結(jié)束。其造成的損失將在另一個判決中被評估。總部位于約旦的阿拉布銀行，發(fā)誓要上訴，并自負(fù)的把這次上訴稱為“審判秀”，而在審理過程中，因他國銀行保密法案，一些能使其脫罪的證據(jù)被禁止作為提堂證供。
The case was the first test of an anti-terrorism law passed in 1990 in response to the murder of an American tourist by Palestinian militants in 1985. Arab Bank faces additional claims from hundreds of others harmed during the same period but by other Palestinian groups. Similar cases have been filed in American courts against various foreign banks, including Bank of China, CréditLyonnaisand a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).
此案曾是反恐法案通過后的第一個測試案例，1990年通過的反恐法案是為了回應(yīng)1985年一名美籍游客被巴勒斯坦激進(jìn)分子殺害的案件。阿拉伯銀行還面臨著在同時期遭受損失的其他阿拉伯組織所要求的數(shù)以百計的額外索賠。還有許多類似的針對外國銀行的案件已經(jīng)提交到在美國法院，涉及包括中國銀行，里昂信貸銀行以及蘇格蘭皇家銀行旗下單位。
At the nub of these cases is the question of how far a bank can reasonably be expected to go to understand its clients' activities. Arab Bank argued that it had never intended to provide any service that contributed to terrorism, and to that end had screened its clients using official lists of known terrorists. It failed only by mistake, when the spelling of names on the lists did not match its own.
這些案件的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)在一個問題：銀行了解其客戶的活動深入到什么程度才算合理？阿拉伯銀行辯稱，其從未打算為恐怖行動提供任何幫助，且為此使用官方提供的恐怖分子名單篩選客戶。其沒能成功查出客戶中恐怖分子是因?yàn)榭蛻裘麊沃锌植婪肿用值钠磳懪c官方名單不一致。
The plaintiffs argued that it must, or at least should have, known better. Bank documents, for example, showed payments tied to “martyrdom operations”; the most notable misspelt name was Ahmad Yassin, the founder of Hamas.
原告認(rèn)為阿拉伯銀行必須，或至少應(yīng)該對其客戶有更詳細(xì)的了解。例如，銀行文件應(yīng)顯示與“自殺式襲擊”相聯(lián)系的支付記錄；最著名的姓名拼寫錯誤是哈馬斯創(chuàng)始人的名字：Ahmad Yassin。
Among the most important legacies of the case will be the standard used to determine complicity. Arab Bank argued that there must be a direct causal relationship between a service and a terrorist act—that but for the service, the act would not have occurred. But the court ruled that the assistance need only be substantial and its consequences foreseeable. There are conflicting precedents, but on September 22nd the appeals court hearing the case involving RBS ruled that the standard for culpability need only be “material support to a terrorist organisation”, not whether it “aided terrorist activities.” That is a much lower bar.
此案最重要的遺產(chǎn)將會是用于判定共犯的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。阿拉伯銀行認(rèn)為銀行提供的服務(wù)和恐怖行動間定有直接的因果關(guān)系，但是銀行提供了服務(wù)，并不意味著恐怖行動就將因此發(fā)動。但法庭裁定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是：援助只需是實(shí)質(zhì)上的，且其結(jié)果是可預(yù)見的。對此也有存在沖突的先例。但在9月22日，上訴法庭聽聞蘇格蘭皇家銀行也牽涉其中后，又裁定有罪的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)只需為“對恐怖組織有物質(zhì)上的援助”，而不是“其是否援助了恐怖活動”。這一認(rèn)定有罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可就寬泛多了。
