A U.S. appeals court has reinstated litigation against a London-based bank on charges it aided Hamas in violation of the Antiterrorism Act, ruling a lower court had misinterpreted the law.

About 200 United States citizens, or their survivors, who were victims of terrorist attacks launched in Israel by Hamas, had filed suit against National Westminster Bank P.L.C., charging it had provided material support and resources to a terrorist organization in violation of the Antiterrorism Act, according to Monday’s ruling by the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York in Tzvi Weiss et al. v. National Westminster Bank PLC.

The litigation charged the bank had violated the law by maintaining bank accounts and transferring funds for the Palestine Relief & Development Fund, which is also known as Interpal, which allegedly engaged in terrorist activity by soliciting funds, and otherwise providing support for Hamas, according to the ruling. NatWest maintained accounts for Interpal from 1994, the year it was founded, until 2007, the ruling said.

NatWest moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that plaintiffs could not show that it had acted with requisite “scienter” or intent, to support an award of civil remedies under the Antiterrorism Act.

The U.S. federal court in Brooklyn agreed and dismissed the case on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable fact as to whether NatWest had the requisite intent, and did not address the other grounds the bank had proposed for dismissal.

A three-judge appeals panel unanimously held that the lower court had used too strict a standard in ruling in NatWest’s favor and dismissing the case. “Plaintiffs contend on this appeal that the District Court used an incorrect standard for determining whether NatWest acted with the requisite scienter for liability … by focusing on whether NatWest had knowledge that, or exhibited deliberate indifference to whether, Interpal funded terrorist activities,” said the 2nd Circuit.

“We conclude that the statute’s requirement is less exacting, and requires only a showing that NatWest had knowledge that, or exhibited deliberate indifference to whether Interpal provided material support to a terrorist organization.

“As Hamas is an organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Secretary of State, Plaintiffs can fulfill this burden by demonstrating either that NatWest had actual knowledge that Interpal provided material support to Hamas, or that NatWest exhibited deliberate indifference to whether Interpal provided material support to Hamas. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether NatWest possesses the requisite scienter,” said the appeals court in reinstating the case.

The case was remanded to the lower court to consider NatWest’s other suggested grounds for summary judgment, including that its acts were not a cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.