832 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES from Al Rajhi accounts. Jd. In “December Al Rajhi Bank argues that Plaintiffs of- 1999, Al Rajhi directly funded Tulkarm fer no factual allegations in support of Charity Committee, a known front for Ha- their conclusion that Al Rajhi Bank had to mas.” Jd. 171. know that the charities it supported Members of the Al Rajhi family, which through Zakat and Hararm * payments owns and controls Al Rajhi Bank, are al- were really fronts for al Qaeda. Al Rajhi leged to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s Bank contends it had a legal and religious personal secretary. Jd. 179. The Al Ra- duty to make its charitable donations and jhi family is purportedly a major donor to any terrorist activity by the recipient char- the SAAR Network, a Defendant here, ities was unknown to Al Rajhi Bank. See being investigated by federal authorities in Rule 12(e) Statement 1126, 29. Contrary Virginia. Id. 1180-84. Finally, Al Rajhi to Plaintiffs’ arguments, Al Rajhi Bank family members are allegedly closely asso- submits it did not have a duty, or a right, ciated with wealthy donors to Osama bin to inspect the Defendant charities’ finan- Laden. /d. 185 (alleging ties with the cial transactions to ascertain the ultimate Golden Chain). destination of its donations. But see Rule Judge Robertson found that the only 12(@) Statement 132 (“Al Rajhi is required allegation in the Third Amended Burnett to determine that the ultimate recipients of Complaint that stated a claim upon which these contributions fall within one of the relief could be granted was that Al Rajhi categories prescribed in the Quran for re- Bank acted as an instrument “of terror, in cipients of Zakat.”). Al Rajhi Bank sub- raising, facilitating and transferring money mits that SAMA did not implement any to terrorist organizations.” Burnett I, 274 duty to investigate Zakat payments after F.Supp.2d at 109 (quoting Burnett Com- its meeting with representatives of the Na- plaint 146). Judge Robertson note