Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim

828 Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (“A defendant does not ‘di- rect? an enterprise’s affairs under § 1962(c) merely by engaging in wrongful conduct that assists the enterprise.”); Dep’t of Econ. Dev. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 924 F.Supp. 449, 466-67 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (providing services to racketeering enterprise is not directing the enterprise); LaSalle Natl Bank v. Duff & Phelps Cred- it Rating Co, 951 F.Supp. 1071, 1090 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (same). Plaintiffs’ RICO claim under § 1962(d) fails for the same reason. Plaintiffs have not alleged that the moving Defendants were central fig- ures in the underlying schemes or for con- spiracy liability under § 1962(d). The RICO claims against the moving Defen- dants are dismissed. 3. TVPA [77,78] “The TVPA establishes a cause of action in federal court against an indi- vidual who, under actual or apparent au- thority, or color of law, of any foreign nation subjects an individual to torture or extrajudicial killing.” Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F.Supp.2d 182, 141 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (citing Flores, 343 F.3d at 153); 28 U.S.C. § 13850 note. Only individuals maybe sued under the TVPA. Arndt, 342 F.Supp.2d at 141 (citing Friedman v. Bayer Corp., No. 99 Civ. 3675, 1999 WL 33457825, at *2 39. The ATA defines international terrorism as: activities that—(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended—to intimi- date or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassina- 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1999)). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs have not already with- drawn these claims, the TVPA claims are dismissed against Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, Arab Bank, Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., NCB, Saudi Binladin Group, and the SAAR Net- work. Similarly, there have been no alle- gations that Saleh Abdullah Kamel or Adel Batterjee acted under color of law and, therefore, the TVPA claims against these individuals are dismissed as well. 4. ATA [79,80] The ATA provides a civil rem- edy for “[a]lny national of the United States injured in his or her person, proper- ty, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her es- tate, survivors, or heirs.” 18 U.S.C. § 2338(a).° To adequately plead the pro- vision of material support under this sec- tion, a plaintiff would have to allege that the defendant knew about the terrorists’ illegal activities, the defendant desired to help those activities succeed, and the de- fendant engaged in some act of helping those activities. Boim I, 291 F.3d at 1023; see also Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 340 F.Supp.2d 885, 906-913 (N.D.III. 2004) (“Boum IIT”) (granting summary judgment against two entity defendants where record evidence demonstrated the charities’ concession that Hamas used ter- rorism in pursuit of its goals, the organiza- tions’ repeated desire to help Hamas by tion or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national bound- aries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1). For now, the Court assumes the attacks of September 11 were an act of international terrorism. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017893