Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 10

4 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of the Court 

dollars  from  one  foreign  bank  account  to  another.  Arab 
Bank and certain amici point out that CHIPS transactions 
are enormous both in volume and in dollar amounts.  The 
transactions occur predominantly in the United States but 
are  used  by  major  banks  both  in  the  United  States  and 
abroad.  The CHIPS system is used for dollar-denominated
transactions and for transactions where the dollar is used 
as  an  intermediate  currency  to  facilitate  a  currency  ex-
change.  Brief  for  Institute  of  International  Bankers  as 
Amicus Curiae 12–13, and n. 8.  In New York each day, on
average,  about  440,000  of  these  transfers  occur,  in  dollar 
amounts  totaling  about  $1.5  trillion.    Id.,  at  14.  The 
“clearance  activity  is  an  entirely  mechanical  function;  it 
occurs without human intervention in the proverbial ‘blink 
of  an  eye.’ ”    Ibid.    There  seems  to  be  no  dispute  that  the 
speed  and  volume  of  these  transactions  are  such  that 
individual supervision is simply not a systemic reality.  As 
noted below, substantial regulations govern these transac-
tions, both in the United States and in Jordan. 

In  addition  to  the  dollar-clearing  transactions,  petition-
ers allege that Arab Bank’s New York branch was used to 
launder  money  for  the  Holy  Land  Foundation  for  Relief
and  Development  (HLF),  a  Texas-based  charity  that  peti-
tioners  say  is  affiliated  with  Hamas.    According  to  peti-
tioners, Arab Bank used its New York branch to facilitate 
the  transfer  of  funds  from  HLF  to  the  bank  accounts  of 
terrorist-affiliated charities in the Middle East. 

During  the  pendency  of  this  litigation,  there  was  an
unrelated case that also implicated the issue whether the 
ATS  is  applicable  to  suits  in  this  country  against  foreign 
corporations.  See  Kiobel  v.  Royal  Dutch  Petroleum  Co., 
621  F. 3d  111  (CA2  2010).    That  suit  worked  its  way 
through  the  trial  court  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the
Second Circuit.  The Kiobel litigation did not involve bank-
ing transactions.  Its allegations were that holding compa-
nies  incorporated  in  the  Netherlands  and  the  United