Honickman v. Blom Bank SAL, 6 F.4th 487

Background

Plaintiffs (U.S. nationals and estates) were injured or killed in Hamas attacks between 2001–2003 and sued BLOM Bank under the Anti‑Terrorism Act as amended by JASTA for aiding and abetting Hamas by providing financial services to three customers: Sanabil, Subul al‑Khair, and Union of Good.
The complaint alleges these three entities were part of Hamas’s da’wa/social‑welfare network, that some board members were Hamas leaders, and that BLOM processed transfers from charities (e.g., HLF, KindHearts, Al‑Aqsa) into accounts held by those customers.
Some of the Three Customers were later designated as SDGTs (Sanabil 2003; Union of Good 2008); most relevant transfers and alleged injuries occurred before those designations, and the complaint alleges only one transfer processed the day after an SDGT designation.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead the Halberstam elements—particularly general awareness and knowing substantial assistance.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held Halberstam is the proper JASTA aiding‑and‑abetting framework (including foreseeability), agreed the district misapplied parts of the standard, but affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege BLOM knew of the customers’ ties to Hamas before the attacks.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper legal standard for JASTA aiding‑and‑abetting	JASTA should permit liability based on providing material support; plaintiffs contended the district applied too stringent a standard and urged fungibility reasoning (Holder)	Aiding‑and‑abetting requires Halberstam’s three elements: (1) a wrongful act by the principal, (2) general awareness of the defendant’s role in an overall illegal activity, and (3) knowing, substantial assistance	Halberstam framework (including foreseeability as to general awareness) governs JASTA aiding‑and‑abetting; Holder’s fungibility analysis does not replace it
Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged BLOM’s general awareness of customers’ Hamas ties before the attacks	Public reports, the charities’ transfers through BLOM, board memberships, and later government designations suffice to infer bank knew or was generally aware	The cited public sources were mostly dated after the attacks or not plausibly known to BLOM at the time; transfers from non‑customers don’t establish the bank’s knowledge of its customers’ illicit ties	Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege BLOM knew the Three Customers’ links to Hamas prior to the attacks; this fatal to the claim
Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged BLOM knowingly and substantially assisted Hamas	Processing large transfers and maintaining accounts for the Three Customers is substantial assistance	Plaintiffs did not allege funds actually went to Hamas or that BLOM knew transfers would reach Hamas; allegations are conclusory	Court did not need to resolve fully; because general awareness was not plausibly alleged, the aiding‑and‑abetting claim fails; substantial assistance was not established on pleaded facts

Key Cases Cited

Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (establishes three‑part aiding‑and‑abetting framework and foreseeability principle)
Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018) (aiding‑and‑abetting requires more than material‑support allegations; defendant must be generally aware it is playing a role in violent activities)
Kaplan v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 999 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2021) (applies Halberstam to JASTA; intermediary assistance can suffice if general awareness shown)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (criminal material‑support mens rea and fungibility rationale distinguished from aiding‑and‑abetting standards)
Siegel v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings, Inc., 933 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2019) (illustrates limits where alleged ties are too attenuated to support inference of a bank’s awareness)