In response, the FBI released an alert titled “ISIL Antiquities Trafficking” on August 25, 2015. Perhaps most strikingly, this alert warns that engaging in the purchase of these looted artifacts may constitute a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2339A[1] for providing financial support to terrorist organizations.ISIL has done much to publicize its demolition of artifacts and archaeological sites in Syria and Iraq that it has condemned as un-Islamic.

1406 (codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 5201-5203 (1987)).6 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a).7See Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82, 97-98 (2d Cir. 2013); Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685, 93 (7th Cir. 2008).8 The violations of criminal law creating civil liability under 18 U.S.C. §2333 can include both direct acts of violence as well as the related material support and terrorist financing statutes: 18 U.S.C. §2339A (which prohibits providing material support to for the commission of terrorist acts); 18 U.S.C. §2339B (which prohibits providing material support to designated terrorist organizations); and 18 U.S.C. §2339C (which prohibits the financing of terrorism).9 A Foreign Terrorist Organization (“FTO”) is a foreign organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1189). See U.S. Department of State website at https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.10 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1).11SeeWultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1, 44 (D.D.C. 2010) (the provision of basic banking services can constitute material support “so long as other elements of §2339A(a), such as knowledge, are met”).

ainst medical-supply and manufacturing companies to proceed in Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 22 F.4th 204, 220 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant companies entered into contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which the plaintiffs alleged was controlled by an organization that was intertwined with Hezbollah. According to the Atchley court, the "allegations support[ed] an inference that [the] defendants were generally aware they were engaged in illegal activity." Id.Together, Kaplan and Atchley show the risks of dealing with customers or contractual counterparties who may be alleged to be terrorists or intermediaries of terrorists. It remains to be seen whether Taamneh—in which the Court narrowed the scope of liability under the ATA—will prompt lower courts to more readily dismiss terrorism-based claims against companies accused of supporting acts of terrorism.Criminal Liability. The ATA also criminalizes the provision of any "material support" to terrorists, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(a), and FTOs, id. § 2339B(a) as well as "willfully provid[ing] or collect[ing] funds" to be used to carry out terrorism, id. § 2339C(a). It is, in turn, unlawful to launder funds in connection with any of those offenses. Id. § 1956(a). In addition, foreign governments may seek to investigate and police the use of crypto assets by terrorists.The DOJ's recent prosecution of Lafarge S.A. signals the U.S. government's growing interest in enforcing the ATA against corporations. Lafarge, a French cement maker, and its Syrian subsidiary pleaded guilty to providing material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and the Al-Nusra Front. Following its plea, Lafarge, which reportedly reaped $70 million in total sales revenue from the scheme, was ordered to pay fines totaling $777.78 million in addition to being placed on probation. Following the guilty plea, in March 2023, the DOJ an increase in the number of prosecutors focused on counterintelligence and exports controls.

Footnotes1Rothstein v. UBS AG, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 535770 (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2013).2 In 2004, the bank paid a $100 million civil money penalty to the Federal Reserve for entering into cash exchanges with counterparties in jurisdictions subject to OFAC sanctions.3Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008).4See, e.g., Linde v. Arab Bank, 353 F. Supp. 2d 327 (E.D.N.Y. 2004); Weiss v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, 453 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Goldberg v. UBS AG, 660 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010).5Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 673 F.3d 50, 68 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)(A)).6 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (knowing or intentional provision of material support, including “financial services,” for terrorist activities), § 2339B (knowing provision of material support to foreign terrorist organizations), and § 2339C (unlawfully and willfully providing or collecting funds with the knowledge or intention that such funds be used for terrorist activities).7See, e.g., Weiss, 453 F. Supp. 2d at 615 ; Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, 242 F.R.D. 199, 205 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Almog v. Arab Bank, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 266-68 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Goldberg, 660 F. Supp. at 414; see also Boim, 549 F.3d at 720 (7th Cir. 2008).