A US federal court on Monday upheld the dismissal of claims brought by US service members and civilians against three major global banks accused of indirectly funding terrorist attacks in Afghanistan.

The US Court of Appeals Second Circuit dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to “plausibly allege that Defendants are liable under the [Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)] for aiding and abetting.” The court emphasized that under the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, liability under JASTA requires “conscious and culpable participation” in terrorist activities, not merely the provision of “routine” banking services.

The court wrote that the “banks’ conduct may have been indifferent or even negligent, but indifference is not enough.”

Plaintiffs, victims, and families of those killed or injured in attacks between 2011 and 2016, sued Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, and Danske Bank for aiding and abetting terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network, collectively referred to in the lawsuit as “the Syndicate.” The lawsuit was filed under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), codified in 18 U.S. Code § 2333. The ATA provides US nationals injured by acts of international terrorism with a civil cause of action, allowing them to sue for up to three times the damages they sustained. The ATA allows legal action against those who “aid and abet” terrorism under JASTA.

Litigants claimed that the three global banks provided financial services that were ultimately used to fund attacks. Specific allegations included facilitation of money laundering, tax evasion, and providing services to fertilizer companies whose products were used to make improvised explosive devices.

Monday’s ruling underscores a growing judicial reluctance to extend secondary liability to financial institutions without clear evidence of an intent to support terrorist-affiliated clients. In recent years, the Second Circuit has made similar rulings in claims against the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). In 2023, the Second Circuit dismissed a claim that alleged the bank had conspired with Iranian groups to bypass sanctions and funnel money to terrorist organizations.

In 2019, the court dismissed a claim that HSBC had provided services to Al Rajhi Bank, which allegedly has ties to terrorism. In both cases, the Second Circuit determined that HSBC lacked the requisite awareness or intent to substantially assist terrorist activity.