Surviving family members of servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq between 2004 and 2011 have filed a complaint against Deutsche Bank AG, alleging that they financed the production of IED explosives.

The lawsuit, filed in late December of 2018, was brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), claiming that the international banking institution “knowingly conspired” with the government of Iran and a number of other banks in that country between 1999 and 2011.

In the course of the alleged conspiracy, Iran was able to circumvent U.S. economic sanctions through money laundering, providing the financial resources needed for the manufacture of different roadside explosives, including IEDs (“Improvised Explosive Devices”), EFPs (“Explosively Formed Penetrators”) and IRAMS (“Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions”).

About IED Explosives

IEDs are the most common weapon that has been employed by terrorist groups. Most often deployed as “roadside bombs,” the origin of these devices dates back almost 500 years and were used during the American Civil War by both sides, according to the Brookings Institution. However, it has only been in recent years that their use has been common among terrorist and guerrilla groups. Despite being “improvised,” they have proven quite deadly, accounting for two-thirds of military casualties in Afghanistan since 2001.

EFPs were described in a 2013 New York Times article as “…the most lethal weapon American forces faced in Iraq.” The most recent version of these devices were first used during the Second World War; they are able to penetrate heavy armor and are easily hidden, as EFPs can have a range of over 100 yards.

IRAMS are essentially small missiles, using explosive-filled propane tanks as warheads. Often mounted on the back of a truck or other vehicle, these could be launched with the use of a remote control.

Although traditionally IEDs have been made in the field using available materials, the U.K. media has reported that many used in Iraq were produced in factories located in neighboring Iran.

Dodging Sanctions

Despite the fact that Iran was under economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress, a number of international banking interests were reportedly willing to ignore them when the Iranian government offered the opportunity for substantial profits by financing the production of IED explosives. Banks in the U.K., France, and Germany have all plead guilty to money laundering and have reached settlements with the U.S. government, including HSBC, BNP Paribas, and Commerzbank.

The Current Lawsuit

Under the ATA, any U.S. national who has been injured or lost family members or property as the result of a terrorist attack can bring legal action in any district court against those alleged to be responsible. Defendants who are found to have engaged in, or aided and abetted acts of terrorism can be liable for three times the plaintiff’s damages in addition to court costs and legal expenses.

Plaintiffs allege “mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering” and loss of consortium due to the loss of family members.

Other Cases Filed Against Banks

Government regulators and investigators in the U.S. also claim that much of the money funneled through Iran at the time of the war on terror was laundered for the purposes of creating bombs and supporting terrorist efforts. This additional support helped some of the families and military members to bring their own legal action over the financing of these weapons.

While there were at least six different insurgency groups involved in the bombing efforts, many people in the U.S. believe that they have a common thread of being supported by funds that went through certain banking institutions. This enabled the terrorist groups to get funds quickly and to develop weapons that ended up leaving servicemembers with severe injuries or worse.

Multiple cases over the financing of IEDs have been filed since the information was revealed, according to the Phoenix New Times, including those against Barclays, Lloyd’s TSB Bank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered, and Royal Bank of Scotland, among others.

For those European banks, the plaintiffs in the cases argue that the companies essentially supported terrorist efforts by partnering with banking officials to transfer Iranian money illegally to U.S. banks. The lawsuits argue that U.S. financial regulators would not have been easily able to trace the money because the banks went out of their way to falsify records, meaning that automatic filters that would typically be triggered in these situations never set off the alarm bells.

The legal action against those banks say that the European financial institutions knew they were skirting U.S. laws in doing so, and therefore enable an open flow of money that meant U.S. servicemembers were hurt or killed with weapons built or bought using those funds.

The IED Explosives Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-00254-MW-GRJ, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division.

If you or a loved one was injured or killed by an IED or EFP while fighting in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, legal recourse is available. Get help now by filling out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation.

The attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual lawsuit or anti-terrorist class action lawsuit is best for you. (In general, anti-terrorist lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.) After you fill out the form, the attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual lawsuit or class action lawsuit is best for you. Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.

Learn More