The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,219,291,292,293,296 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 99, 122,220 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 183,185,213,221 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 010) 176, 177, 178, 179, 180,181,182,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,194,195,196,214,215,216,217,222 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 245,246,247, 248, 249,250,251,252,279,280,289,290,297,304,305 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, it is While the prior motions were focused on the alleged money laundering aspect of the purported scheme to steal $101 million (Funds) from plaintiff Bangladesh Bank’s account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Fed.), these motions focus on the theft itself in New York. Accordingly, the result is different: the court finds that it has jurisdiction and denies the motions under CPLR 327 for forum non conveniens. In motion 003, defendant Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) moves pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) and (8) and CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint. In motion 004, defendants Lorenzo V. Tan and Raul Victor B. Tan move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) and (8) and CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint. In motion 009, defendant Ismael S. Reyes moves pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) and (8) and CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint. In motion 010, defendants Nestor Pineda, Romualdo Agarrado, and Brigitte Capina, (together the RCBC Individuals) move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) and (8) and CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint. In motion 014, defendant Kam Sin Wong, moves pursuant to CPLR 327(a) on forum non conveniens grounds dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, staying all proceedings in this action pursuant to CPLR 2201 pending resolution of plaintiff’s claims in a Philippine forum; and awarding him the costs of this action. The background of this case is set forth in this court’s decision of April 8, 2022 and will not be repeated here except as needed. (NYSCEF 237, Decision and Order [mot. seq. nos. 002, 006, 007] [April 8, 2022 Order].) RCBC “RCBC is one of the oldest and largest banks in the Philippines, with over 400 branches and approximately 1,500 ATMs across the Philippines.” (NYSCEF 53, Affirmation of Paula Fritzie C. Zamora, RCBC’s Head of Financial Institution Management Segment, [Zamora aff.] 5.) RCBC argues pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(8) that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it pursuant to CPLR 302 (a)(1), (2) and (3)(ii) as well as that due process prevents the exercise of jurisdiction. CPLR 3211 (a) (8) allows for dismissal where “the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.” “On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating ‘satisfaction of statutory and due process prerequisites.”‘ (Matter of James v. iFinex Inc., 185 AD3d 22, 28-29 [1st Dept 2020] [citation omitted].) CPLR 302 (a)(1) CPLR 302 (a)(1) provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary who “transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that “certain Defendants regularly transact business or contract in the state of New York.” (NYSCEF 1, Complaint 32.) Plaintiff seeks to obtain jurisdiction over these defendants based on allegations that they are co-conspirators. RCBC argues that correspondent bank accounts cannot support jurisdiction unless their use is purposeful and repeated. RCBC admits: “7. RCBC opened two correspondent banking accounts at commercial banks in New York City-one with Bank of New York Mellon and one with Citibank-in 1963 and 1980, respectively. RCBC also maintains a correspondent account with Wells Fargo in Philadelphia and may at times communicate with the New York office of Wells Fargo regarding this account. 8. The correspondent banking accounts are used to facilitate commercial and trade payments (inward and outward remittances) in U.S. dollars. The Bank of New York Mellon and Citibank accounts are still maintained in New York, and the Wells Fargo account is still maintained in Philadelphia. The accounts are strictly used to route funds out of the United States. 9. RCBC does not market or advertise its correspondent accounts to customers, either on its website or otherwise. Details of the accounts are published in Bankers Almanac and on the SWIFT system but not for the purpose of attracting customers.” (NYSCEF 53, Zamora aff.
7-9.) However, plaintiff alleges that RCBC has four additional U.S. correspondent accounts at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Deutsch Bank Trust Co. Americas, Standard Chartered Bank, and Bank of America, N.A., (NYSCEF 61, Affidavit of Sean O’Malley, Senior Vice President and Chief Investigator of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Unit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 13.) “In addition, [RCBC] Foreign Currency Deposit Unit, Gen. Gil. J. Puyat Avenue, Manila, Philippines, using SWIFT code [xxxxxxx], maintains a correspondent relationship with Wells Fargo Bank NY Intl.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges the use of these accounts in the theft the Funds. (NYSCEF 1, Complaint 150.) Plaintiff alleges that RCBC was actively involved in the theft, not just through its correspondent accounts. (Id.
