Case against Syrian businessmen accused of funding Al Nusra Front dismissed

Moutaz and Ramez Al Khayyat were being sued by hundreds of Syrians, but case fell 'woefully short'

The case against Ramez Al Khayyat, left, and Moataz Al Khayyat has been dismissed. Getty Images

A judge has dismissed a claim by hundreds of Syrians against two brothers and a Qatari bank they accused of financing Al Nusra Front, after they failed to submit details of the allegations.

The case was brought in 2020 at the High Court in London against Moutaz and Ramez Al Khayyat, who are described as “prominent Syrian/Qatari businessmen”, and the Doha Bank, but since then no evidence has been produced.

Judge Emma Kelly said the delay has been a drain on the resources of the court and that carrying on with the case “is not in the interests of justice”. The Syrians “abandoned any intention they had to pursue this claim for an unacceptable period of time” said the judge, who dismissed as “half-hearted” last-minute attempts to keep pursuing the case.

Joint UK-French strike targets ISIS arms cache in Syria

Read More

The claimants, many of whom live in the UK, lost their homes and suffered severe injuries at the hands of the Al Qaeda-aligned extremists, the court was told. Al Nusra Front was formed by the current Syrian President Ahmad Al Shara in 2012. The Syrians alleged the brothers used their account at the Doha Bank to fund the organisation.

Legal proceedings in the UK began against the Al Khayyats and the bank in 2019 when a separate group of eight Syrians sued them in the High Court on the same basis. Those claims effectively came to an end in July 2024 after being dismissed or abandoned.

The current case was brought by 330 Syrians, who have been granted anonymity by the court, but the High Court was told that in the ensuing five years very little has happened.

Al Nusra Front fighters in the Syrian city of Aleppo. AFP

The claimants' only act in that time was to serve a formal claim against Doha Bank, said its barrister, Hannah Brown KC. The bank’s lawyers asked judge Emma Kelly to strike the case out in June on the basis that the inaction on the part of the claimants amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

In October the claimants' lawyers asked for a further three months to submit details of their case. Judge Kelly was, however, scathing about their “lack of evidence and the opaque manner” of their representations, and said it was unlikely that would change even if they were allowed more time.

In the meantime, the threat of legal action has cause “reputational damage” to the bank, which has been footing the legal bill for the past five years.

“The claimants' approach to this litigation has already required a disproportionate allocation of the court's resources,” she said in her judgment. The Syrians' attempt to re-engage with the claims “falls woefully short of that required to give the court any confidence that they will now put their house in order”.

Judge Kelly said: “The court and defendants' have a legitimate expectation that claimants issuing claims will pursue those claims in a timely and responsible manner. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to strike out the claim.”

The decision appears to be the end of the long-running legal saga involving the two sets of claimants, which has led to allegations of intimidation.

Four of the separate group of claimants alleged Qatar threatened, tried to bribe and intimidated them in an effort to make them drop their cases. Scotland Yard confirmed at the time that it had received the reports but discontinued its investigation.

Al Nusra Front disavowed Al Qaeda in 2016 and became Hayat Tahrir Al Sham, a coalition of militant groups dominated by former members of Al Nusra Front.