Veterans who were injured by IED, EFP, or roadside bomb attacks while deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan may be eligible to file an Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit seeking compensation for wrongful death, permanent disability, medical expenses, and more.

An IED is an “improvised explosive device” that is commonly used as a roadside bomb. Although IEDs include “basement” bombs used in domestic terrorism, IEDs were also widely used in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The bombs use a detonating mechanism and are thought to be responsible for a large majority of military deaths.

From the beginning of the Iraq war through 2007, IEDs are thought to have caused 63 percent of military deaths. From the beginning of the Afghanistan War in 2001 through the present, IEDs are thought to have caused 66 percent of military deaths.

Other Improvised Weapons

An EFP is an “explosively formed penetrator” capable of traveling large distances and piercing armor. In 2013, the New York Times named EFPs “the most lethal weapon” Americans faced in Iraq.

Unlike pressure-activated bombs, EFPs do not create an explosion around them. Instead, the bombs emit a force that deforms a metal plate which is launched a large distance with the capability to penetrate steel armor. Insurgent forces could hide these devices far from the road and detonate them from distances over 100 yards while maintaining their effectiveness.

The devices are easily camouflaged, and American soldiers have found EFPs disguised as rocks and garbage. Both IEDs and EFPs have the capability of seriously injuring or killing soldiers deployed in the area.

Countless soldiers have horror stories about unexpected strikes against vehicles or roadside bombs which injured or killed unexpected servicemembers.

The British Media Breaks the Story

In 2006, British newspaper The Telegraph reported that the IEDs and EFPs used in Iraq were being produced in Iran. In 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, confirmed that these weapons were sent to Iraq from Iran with the knowledge of the Iranian government.

After the knowledge of Iran’s involvement became public, Congress placed sanctions on the country that restricted Iran’s ability to obtain the funding necessary to mass-produce the lethal weapons. Despite these sanctions, Iran was able to find banks willing to work with them in exchange for large profits.

In 2015, the U.S. government released a grim estimate that over 500 U.S. military members had been killed by Iran’s involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. These Americans were reportedly injured by IEDs and EFPs from Iran.

Usually, it can be difficult to link an IED to a specific source due to a lack of forensic evidence. However, a retired Army Special Forces officer who deployed to Iraq twice with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization told Military Times that this was not the case with EFPs from Iran.

These explosives are reportedly characterized by their metallurgy and copper plate formation – hallmarks of Iran manufacturers. These components can allegedly be found in IEDs, although the retired officer noted that these explosives are anything but improvised.

“Improvised is a little bit misleading because it makes it sound like a basement bomb-maker, and that was not the case. The shaped charges, the copper plates, the components were anything but unsophisticated,” the officer told Military Times.

“They were designed and at the level of anything that any other non-Western government would have.”

Anti Terrorism Legislation: a Brief History

The roots of anti-terrorism laws go back to the mid-19th century when European countries, as well as the U.S., were confronted with new, radical movements with members who were not above using violent and unlawful means in order to achieve their objectives. One of the first such movements arose in Russia in the 1870s; the “Land and Liberty” extremist group in that country eventually succeeded in the assassination of that country’s ruler, Czar Alexander II, in 1881.

Similar revolutionary groups and activities gradually spread throughout the rest of Europe, eventually arriving in the U.S. Finally, in 1934, the League of Nations (predecessor of the United Nations) began to create a system of international law for preventing terrorism and punishing perpetrators. Eventually, an anti-terrorism convention was adopted three years later, but did not allow for an individual to bring legal action like today’s anti-terrorism lawsuit – and enforcement of the convention was set aside with the outbreak of the Second World War.

Today, there are a total of 15 anti-terrorism conventions in force under the authority of the U.N. One of the oldest in the Western Hemisphere is the Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism, which was adopted by Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and countries of Central and South America in 1971.

The Anti-Terrorism Act Lawsuit Under U.S. Statutes

An Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit is typically filed against Iran and the banks that handled the Iranian-sourced financing for the attacks. Many banks have pled guilty and reached settlements with the United States because they were willing to engage in activities that funded terrorism. Banks that have pled guilty include HSBC of the United Kingdom, BNP Paribas of France, and Commerzbank of Germany.

A recent anti-terrorism lawsuit recently filed in Washington D.C. is currently addressing the question of whether or not a U.S.-based company can be held liable for such acts based on seemingly unrelated business transactions; the defendant, in this case, is a drug company that allegedly sold medicines to a terrorist organization.

The Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2333, states the following: “Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees”.

Under federal law, an Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit could help recover three times the damages sustained by an act of international terrorism. Damages sustained by IED and EFP attacks include medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, permanent disability, wrongful death and more.

U.S. veterans injured by IEDs or EFPs may be eligible to file a suit against the banks which funded international terrorism. Time to file an Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit is limited, and interested persons should not delay in speaking to an attorney.

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