Terrorism; finance


This Note specifically addresses the jurisdictional split on the mental state requirement necessary to hold a defendant liable under the ATA. This Note explores the current judicial interpretations of the statute and concludes that, as the statute stands, the Second Circuit best interprets the mental state requirement for § 2333(a) claims predicated on a violation of material support laws. This Note proposes, however, that Congress should amend the ATA to clarify the state-of-mind requirement and should only allow for a cause of action where a bank manifests heightened culpability through intentional wrongdoing in the provision of financial services to foreign terrorist organizations.