经济学人下载:阿拉伯银行 恐怖分子的共犯

Arab Bank
阿拉伯银行

Consorting with terrorists
恐怖分子的共犯

A venerable Jordanian bank is found complicit in terrorist attacks
约旦一家历史悠久的大型银行被发现是恐怖袭击参与者

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.
在一连6周的审理后，陪审团只用了两天就认定阿拉伯银行有罪，因其主动向加沙地带的巴勒斯坦激进组织马斯集团提供援助，因此认定阿拉布银行也参与了在2001年至2004年间哈马斯发动的24起恐怖袭击，数名美国人在这些袭击中受伤或死亡。

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.
这一案件起初在10年前就立案了，尽管本周宣判了，但它还远未结束。其造成的损失将在另一个判决中被评估。总部位于约旦的阿拉布银行，发誓要上诉，并自负的把这次上诉称为“审判秀”，而在审理过程中，因他国银行保密法案，一些能使其脱罪的证据被禁止作为提堂证供。

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过后的第一个测试案例，1990年通过的反恐法案是为了回应1985年一名美籍游客被巴勒斯坦激进分子杀害的案件。阿拉伯银行还面临着在同时期遭受损失的其他阿拉伯组织所要求的数以百计的额外索赔。还有许多类似的针对外国银行的案件已经提交到在美国法院，涉及包括中国银行，里昂信贷银行以及苏格兰皇家银行旗下单位。

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.
这些案件的关键点在一个问题：银行了解其客户的活动深入到什么程度才算合理？阿拉伯银行辩称，其从未打算为恐怖行动提供任何帮助，且为此使用官方提供的恐怖分子名单筛选客户。其没能成功查出客户中恐怖分子是因为客户名单中恐怖分子名字的拼写与官方名单不一致。

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.
原告认为阿拉伯银行必须，或至少应该对其客户有更详细的了解。例如，银行文件应显示与“自杀式袭击”相联系的支付记录；最著名的姓名拼写错误是哈马斯创始人的名字：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.
此案最重要的遗产将会是用于判定共犯的标准。阿拉伯银行认为银行提供的服务和恐怖行动间定有直接的因果关系，但是银行提供了服务，并不意味着恐怖行动就将因此发动。但法庭裁定的标准是：援助只需是实质上的，且其结果是可预见的。对此也有存在冲突的先例。但在9月22日，上诉法庭听闻苏格兰皇家银行也牵涉其中后，又裁定有罪的标准只需为“对恐怖组织有物质上的援助”，而不是“其是否援助了恐怖活动”。这一认定有罪标准可就宽泛多了。