Saad Al-Jabri Response To Sakab Complaint

2184CV00688
EFILED ec
3/29/2021
Exhibit 1
Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document 1 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY,

Case No. ____________________
Plaintiff,
v.
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI,
KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI,
MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI,
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
NEW EAST 804 805 LLC,
NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants Saad Khalid S Aljabri and Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri, by and through
undersigned counsel, hereby effect the removal of this action from the Superior Court Department
of the Trial Court, Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 2184-cv-
00688 (the “Action”), to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446, because the Plaintiff’s claims present
substantial federal questions. Venue is proper because this is the district court of the United States
for the district and division within which the Action is pending. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1446(a),
a true and correct copy of the state court case file is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Verified
Complaint); Exhibit 2 (the Superior Court docket); Exhibits 3-16 (remainder of documents on
1
Superior Court docket1), and incorporated by reference herein. These Exhibits include all process,
pleadings, motions, and orders filed in this case. A true and correct copy of the docket for this
Action is attached as Exhibit 2.
I. BACKGROUND
1. This Action purports to be brought by Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Plaintiff”
or “Sakab”) but in reality is directed by the current Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed
bin Salman, against a perceived political rival aligned with the former Crown Prince of Saudi
Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef. In a widely publicized palace coup, bin Salman supplanted bin
2
Nayef as Crown Prince, detained him, and ultimately had him extrajudicially disappeared. Since
the coup, bin Salman has pursued political rivals and opponents with abandon, using every means
at his disposal to quash dissent and consolidate power. As the United States Office of the Director
of National Intelligence recently confirmed, this includes but is not limited to approving the
3
murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This Action is bin Salman’s latest attack in a violent
campaign to silence Defendant Dr. Saad Aljabri (“Dr. Saad”), who poses a threat to bin Salman
1 Exhibit 3 contains all documents filed on the Superior Court docket, except for the exhibits to
the Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser (Doc. No. 3 in Superior Court), which are attached as
Exhibits 4-16.
2 See generally Ben Hubbard, Mark Mazzetti & Eric Schmitt, Saudi King’s Son Plotted Effort to
Oust His Rival, New York Times (July 18, 2017), available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-mohammed-bin-nayef-
mohammed-bin-salman.html; Bill Bostock, MBS is stamping out the final threat to his rule,
bringing an end to his 3-year coup marked by power grabs, forced disappearances, and
assassinations, Business Insider (Aug. 12, 2020), available at
https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-mbs-final-threats-saad-aljabri-mohammed-bin-
nayef-2020-8.
3 See, e.g., Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Assessing the Saudi Government’s Role
in the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi (Feb. 11, 2021), available at

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Assessment-Saudi-Gov-Role-in-JK-
Death-20210226v2.pdf (concluding that “bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey
to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi).
2
by virtue of his close relationships with the former Crown Prince bin Nayef and the United States
Government. And though framed as a commercial dispute, this Action implicates serious federal
interests.
2. Plaintiff Sakab is a company created in 2008 by the former Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Nayef, supported by bin Nayef’s then-Chief of Staff Dr. Saad, pursuant to an
order of the former King of Saudi Arabia. Sakab was created with the primary purpose of funding
and undertaking clandestine and sensitive operations in partnership with the United States
Government. These national security operations have helped to thwart terrorist attacks in the
United States, and the United States Government continues to rely on programs established
through Sakab with the support of Dr. Saad.4
3. Sakab is an instrumentality of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It
is now controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
4. What Plaintiff describes in the Complaint as Defendants’ “fraudulent activity”
refers to conduct undertaken at the direction of the then-leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, at times in partnership with the United States.
5. After deposing bin Nayef and seizing power in 2017, bin Salman, in his capacity
as Chairman of Saudi Arabia’s so-called “Supreme Anti-Corruption Committee,” issued a “top
secret” order requiring ownership of Sakab to be “transferred” to the Saudi Public Investment
4Spencer S. Hsu & Shane Harris, Former Saudi Intelligence Officer Accuses Crown Prince of
Ordering His Assassination in Canada, Washington Post, August 6, 2020,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/former-saudi-intelligence-officer-accuses-
crown-prince-of-ordering-his-assassination-in-canada/2020/08/06/04aab9a4-d7e3-11ea-9c3b-
dfc394c03988_story.html; Lucien Bruggeman, In Wake of Khashoggi Report, ex-Saudi
Spymaster’s Assassination Plot Accusation May Complicate Riyadh Relations, ABC News, March
2, 2021, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/saudi-spymasters-assassination-plot-accusation-
complicates-riyadh-relations/story?id=76182523.
3
Fund, which bin Salman chaired. (Ex. 1 ¶ 24). This order was carried out over the following
months. As a result, Sakab and similar companies, which had been owned and controlled by bin
Nayef, were placed under bin Salman’s control through the Public Investment Fund.
6. Since seizing power, bin Salman has carried out a series of actions purportedly
5
targeting corruption but in reality aimed at consolidating his power and silencing his critics.
Deposing and disappearing Crown Prince Mohammad bin Nayef is one example. Bin Salman
also has “arrested scores of princes and members of the kingdom’s political and business elite in
what was billed as an attempt to combat corruption among the higher echelons of the Saudi
bureaucracy,” but in reality was used “to remove people who could potentially pose a political
6
threat.” And, as the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded, bin Salman also had a personal
hand in the murder of Khashoggi, a former Saudi insider who was living in exile in the United
7
States and a vocal critic of bin Salman. Khashoggi is by no means the only victim: bin Salman
has used actual and attempted extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture to silence many
of his critics.8
5 See, e.g., Saudi Arabia detains hundreds of government officials, Al Jazeera (Mar. 16, 2020),
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/3/16/saudi-arabia-detains-hundreds-of-government-
officials.
6 Id.
7 See supra n. 2; see also Stephanie Kirchgaessner, US finds Saudi crown prince approved
Khashoggi murder but does not sanction him, The Guardian (Feb. 26, 2021),
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/26/jamal-khashoggi-mohammed-bin-salman-us-
report.
8 See Nicholas Kulish, Ritz-Carlton Has Become a Gilded Cage for Saudi Royals, N.Y. Times
(Nov. 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/middleeast/ritz-carlton-riyadh-saudi-

princes.html; The High Cost of Change: Repression Under Saudi Crown Prince Tarnishes
Reforms, Human Rights Watch (Nov. 4, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/11/04/high-cost-
change/repression-under-saudi-crown-prince-tarnishes-reforms (noting that “abusive practices
have included extorting financial assets of detainees in exchange for their release outside of any
legal process and seeking the death penalty against detainees for acts that do not resemble
recognizable crimes”).
4
7. This Action purports to reflect a continuation of bin Salman’s so-called
anti-corruption campaign—this time in the courts of the United States. But in fact it is part of a
wide-ranging scheme targeting Dr. Saad. In August 2020, months before Sakab instituted any
legal proceeding against Dr. Saad, Dr. Saad filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia against Mohammed bin Salman, stating claims under the Torture Victim
Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note) and
the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. These claims arose from bin Salman’s attempts to
assassinate Dr. Saad using similar extrajudicial methods to those he used to kill Jamal Khashoggi.9
According to Plaintiff, that suit is a “separate action” unrelated to this Action. (Ex. 1 ¶ 90).
8. Although Plaintiff brought this suit in state court, Defendants hereby remove it to
federal court because the case implicates serious federal interests and issues. Sakab was created
with the primary purpose of carrying out covert and clandestine national security programs and
operations in partnership with the United States Government. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Dr.
Saad Aljabri absconded with some of Sakab’s funds and that his actions constituted fraud, breach
of fiduciary duty, and conversion. But the funds that Dr. Saad earned through Sakab with the
blessing of the Kingdom’s Crown Prince bin Nayef are inextricably linked to Sakab’s sensitive
operations, and an examination of Sakab’s finances necessarily requires examining those
operations. Adjudicating Plaintiff’s claims will therefore require the Court to decide whether
certain activities by Dr. Saad and the then-Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia bin Nayef, including
covert counterterrorism operations in partnership with the United States Government, constituted
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or conversion under the law of Saudi Arabia. To assess these
9See Aljabri v. Mohammed Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, et al., No. 1:20-cv-02146-TJK
(D.D.C.), Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24 (Feb. 4, 2021).
5
claims, the Court will necessarily need to examine Sakab’s finances, including how they were
used to finance sensitive programs operated in partnership with the United States Central
Intelligence Agency, the United States National Security Agency, and the United States
Department of Defense. As such, Plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent activity at Sakab require
examination of the counterterrorism and national security activities of the United States
Government, raising disputed and substantial federal issues in this case.
9. Plaintiff’s claims are also rooted in a political struggle between two crown princes
of an absolute monarchy; the now-Crown Prince of the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia alleges
that actions undertaken by the previous Crown Prince (and approved by the King) were unlawful.
Plaintiff’s claims thus call on the Court to apply the law of Saudi Arabia as it existed under
former-Crown Prince bin Nayef as to whether certain business arrangements and financial
transactions were proper, questions that implicate the government officials who authorized the
arrangements and transactions, including the longtime partner of the United States Government,
and now disappeared, Crown Prince bin Nayef.10 Assessing those claims implicates serious
foreign policy interests of the United States Government.
10. Plaintiff’s claims also represent a stark effort by a foreign sovereign to reach into
the United States to target a perceived dissident and political opponent by attaching property,
creating a substantial federal interest. And even before assessing Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will
10In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo presented Mr. bin Nayef with the George Tenet Medal
for his “excellent intelligence performance” in the domain of counterterrorism. Bethan McKernan,
CIA Awards Saudi Crown Prince With Medal for Counter-Terrorism Work, Independent (Feb. 13,
2017), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/cia-saudi-arabia-crown-prince-
muhammed-bin-naye-medal-counter-terrorism-work-intelligence-a7577221.html.
6
need to determine how the case should proceed in light of state secrets of the United States
Government, an issue touching directly on the national security of the United States.
11. Plaintiff has attempted to frame what is in fact an international political dispute
implicating U.S. national security interests as a dispute concerning nothing more than routine and
legitimate commercial claims arising under Massachusetts state law. But Plaintiff fundamentally
is asking the Court to examine a partnership between the government of Saudi Arabia and the
intelligence and national security agencies of the United States Government, and to hold liable an
ally (Dr. Saad) of a deposed foreign government official (bin Nayef) in aid of a purported “anti-
corruption” campaign directed by the same government official (bin Salman) who ousted Dr.
Saad and bin Nayef. Federal issues and interests thus pervade Plaintiff’s claims.
THE PARTIES
12. Plaintiff Sakab is incorporated under the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the
“Kingdom”), and its principal place of business is Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Ex. 1 ¶ 17).
13. Sakab is owned by Tahakom Investment Company, which is wholly owned by the
Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia. (Ex. 1 ¶¶ 18, 24). In his capacity as Chairman of the
Public Investment Fund, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman controls the activities of Plaintiff
and other related companies.
14. Defendant Dr. Saad is a citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Malta, and a
resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Saad is a former Minister of State and senior intelligence
officer in the Saudi government and advisor to former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. While
serving at the Ministry of the Interior during bin Nayef’s tenure as Minister and Crown Prince, Dr.
Saad supported the then-King and Crown Prince in carrying out covert counterterrorism operations
and other highly sensitive national security projects. These projects included providing assistance
7
in establishing Sakab, the Plaintiff in this action, a company that carried out sensitive covert
programs with the United States Government. Even after leaving office in September 2015, Dr.
Saad continued to act as an advisor to bin Nayef and participated in bin Nayef’s businesses—
including Plaintiff Sakab—while bin Nayef served as Crown Prince. The United States
Department of State has recognized that Dr. Saad “has been a valued partner to the United States
Government, working closely with us to ensure the safety of Americans and Saudis,” pursuing
“shared counterterrorism efforts” that contributed to “keeping our citizens safe.”11
15. Defendant New East (US) Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with
its principal place of business in New York, New York. Its Directors are Khalid Aljabri, Jonathan
Wainwright (an attorney in the New York Office of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft), and
Leonhard Toenz (an attorney based in Zurich, Switzerland).
16. Defendant Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri is a son of Dr. Saad, and a citizen of the
Kingdom. He is a cardiologist who lives in exile as a resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
17. Defendant Mohammed Saad Kh Aljabri is a son of Dr. Saad, and a citizen of the
Kingdom. He lives in exile as a resident of the United Kingdom.12
18. Defendant New East 804 805 LLC is a limited liability company organized under
Massachusetts law. Its managers are Khalid Aljabri, Leonhard Toenz, and Jonathan Wainwright.
19. Defendant New East Back Bay LLC is a limited liability company organized under
Massachusetts law. Its managers are Khalid Aljabri, Jonathan Wainwright, and Leonhard Toenz.
11 Letter from Ryan M. Kaldahl, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Dep’t of State, to Sen. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senate 1 (Aug. 6, 2020),
https://twitter.com/hsu_spencer/status/1291766667639496706/photo/1.
12 In addition to the two named defendants, Dr. Saad has other children who were “disappeared”
in March 2020 and who are currently being held at an undisclosed location in Saudi Arabia. See
Aljabri v. Mohammed Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, et al., No. 1:20-cv-02146-TJK (D.D.C.),
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 182–95 (Feb. 4, 2021).
8
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
20. Plaintiff Sakab filed a Verified Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury
(“Complaint”) in Suffolk Superior Court on March 24, 2021. (Ex. 1).
21. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants purchased real property in
Massachusetts with the proceeds of business activities that Plaintiff mischaracterizes as a
“fraudulent scheme.” (Ex. 1 ¶ 2).
22. According to the Plaintiff’s own filings, the allegations in fact concern Defendant
Saad Khalid S Aljabri’s work on behalf of Sakab and 17 similar companies that were “established
between 2008 and 2016 pursuant to a 2007 Royal Instruction issued by King Abdullah Bin
Abdulaziz for the purpose of performing anti-terrorism activities in the public interest, and funded
by the Kingdom’s Ministry of Finance.” (See Ex. 1 ¶ 17).
23. Plaintiff’s own filings further make plain that King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz signed
“Royal Instruction 19134/B, which increased the level of funding from the [Ministry of Finance]
to be used by the [Ministry of Interior] for counter-terrorism activities.” (Ex. 1 ¶ 40). According
to Plaintiff’s translation, the Royal Instruction stated that the increased funding “was to be
managed by the [Ministry of Interior’s] then-Assistant-Minister for Security Affairs Prince
Mohammed Bin Nayef” in order to “‘fight terrorism activities as the situation and public interest
require,’ and that it could be used to ‘establish and fund investment intermediaries in the private
sector as His Royal Highness sees to serve the public interest.’” (Ex. 1 ¶ 41 (quoting Royal
Instruction)).
24. Plaintiff alleges that former Crown Prince bin Nayef distributed funds to Dr. Saad
and others to support companies pursuant to the Royal Instruction, but, without further
specification as to what constitutes common business practices in Saudi Arabia, Plaintiff states
9
that the agreements accompanying those distributions were not on government letterhead or sealed
“as would be customary under [Saudi] law and practice.” (Ex 1 ¶ 42–43).
25. Plaintiff alleges that, instead of “fund[ing] counter-terrorism activities” in Saudi
Arabia, “Sakab was used as a vehicle” for the fraudulent schemes. (Ex. 1 ¶ 23).
26. Plaintiff alleges that much of the funding for other companies created under the
Royal Instruction was “directed first into accounts held by Sakab” (Ex. 1 ¶ 52), and that “aside
from the co-conspirators’ activities in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme,” the other companies
created under the Royal Instruction “also conducted legitimate business in a number of industries,
including aviation, security and technology.” (Ex. 1 ¶ 55).
27. The Complaint references an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(“Ontario Action”) in which Plaintiff, along with other co-plaintiffs, is litigating similar claims
against the Defendants, along with other co-defendants. (Ex. 1 ¶ 1). A recent preliminary order
from the Ontario Action, originally obtained ex parte, is currently being appealed. The merits of
the Ontario Action have not yet been adjudicated. Nor has the substantive legal position of the
Defendants in that action been presented to the Ontario court.
28. While obscuring and distorting the counterterrorism mission made plain in its own
filings, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, an order for Defendants to hold their assets in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in constructive trust for the benefit of the Plaintiff, an order for
the disgorgement of certain rents received by the Defendants from properties in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, an order of attachment of the assets held by Defendants in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and an order piercing the corporate veil, among other relief.
(Ex. 1, pp. 43–46).
10
29. In conjunction with its Complaint in the underlying action, Plaintiff filed an
Emergency Motion To Stay Proceedings (Ex. 3, p; 154); an Emergency Motion For Approval of
Memorandums of Lis Pendens (Ex. 3, p. 86); an Emergency Motion For A Short Order of Notice
and Other Relief (Ex. 3, p. 52); and an Emergency Motion for Attachment of Real Property (Ex.
3, p. 60).
30. Plaintiff acknowledged in its Emergency Motion For A Short Order of Notice and
Other Relief that it plans to “seek to effect formal service on Defendants as provided in the
applicable Massachusetts rules and statutes,” but that “given the emergency nature of the
Motions,” it sought leave to “serve the papers in a manner reasonably calculated to provide actual
and timely notice to Defendants.” (Ex. 3, p 53). Plaintiff filed its “emergency” motions 61 days
after obtaining a preliminary order in the Ontario Action, which Plaintiff cites as one basis for its
13
motions. (Ex. 1 ¶ 1). To date, service has not been effected on any defendant.
II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
A. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over This Action.
31. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446, this Court has original jurisdiction over
any action in which (1) the notice of removal has been filed within thirty days after receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other
paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable;
and (2) the case presents a substantial federal question. Defendants satisfy these requirements,
and this Action therefore may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
13 Plaintiff also filed the “emergency” motions approximately twoyears after Plaintiff first received
a report from Deloitte purportedly documenting the alleged fraud. (See Ex. 3, p. 105 (Sakab Saudi
holding Co., et al. v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, et al., No. CV-21-00655418-00CL, Ruling on Set
Aside Motions, ¶ 22 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice Jan. 22, 2021)).
11
B. Plaintiff’s Claims Present a Substantial Federal Question.
32. Complaints raising state law claims may nevertheless “aris[e] under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
33. Federal jurisdiction over state law claims arises “if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily
raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without
disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258
(2013); see also Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140 S. Ct. 1335, 1350 n.4 (2020); Grable &
Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005).
34. A federal issue is “substantial where the resolution of the issue has ‘broader
significance . . . for the Federal Government.’” Municipality of Mayaguez v. Corporacion Para el
Desarollo del Oeste, Inc., 726 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Gunn, 568 U.S. at 1066). And
“issues involving ‘our relationship with other members of the international community must be
treated exclusively as an aspect of federal law.’” Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, 806 F.2d 344,
352 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 425 (1964)); see
also Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1377 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Where a state law
action has as a substantial element an issue involving foreign relations or foreign policy matters,
federal jurisdiction is present.”); Scrogin v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 3:10-CV-442 WWE, 2010 WL
3547706, at *3 (D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2010).
35. The federal interest is particularly strong in cases involving “disputes in which a
foreign government, or its instrumentality, is a named party to the lawsuit, or where the actions of
a foreign government are a direct focus of the litigation.” Pacheco de Perez, 139 F.3d at 1377
(citing Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 425; Republic of Philippines, 806 F.2d at 353; Republic of Iraq v.
First Nat’l City Bank, 353 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1965)).
12
36. Sakab’s parent company, Tahakom Investment Company, is wholly owned by the
Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, which is chaired and controlled by Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman. (Ex. 1 ¶ 24). Sakab is an instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, acting at the direction of bin Salman, seeking to attach assets in the United States based
on the activities of the former (now disappeared) Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia bin Nayef.
37. According to Plaintiff’s pleadings, the “fraudulent scheme” involves Dr. Saad’s
role in companies “established between 2008 and 2016 pursuant to a 2007 Royal Instruction issued
by King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz,” and through which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia conducted
sensitive “anti-terrorism” and other national security operations. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 17).
38. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Saad’s conduct did not advance the counterterrorism,
national security, and other goals under which Sakab and the other companies were organized, but
instead constituted fraudulent activity. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 23).
39. Although Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he vast majority of financial transactions
funneled through Sakab took place ‘off-the-book’ and were not recorded” (Ex. 1 ¶ 22), the
financial arrangements of Sakab and the affiliated companies were opaque by design and at the
direction of the then-leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
40. Plaintiff alleges that “nominee shareholders” were appointed to Sakab (Ex. 1 ¶ 19),
but the entire purpose of the Sakab was to conceal the involvement of the Saudi government in
covert operations. It would have defeated the purpose of the Royal Instruction if Saudi government
officials held official roles recorded in the corporate records.
41. Plaintiff has made Dr. Saad’s involvement in Sakab and Sakab’s covert operations
with partners, including the United States Government, central to this suit by alleging that Dr. Saad
13
defrauded the Plaintiff while working at the direction of the then-Crown Prince and, often, in
cooperation with the United States Government. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 2).
42. Deciding Plaintiff’s claims will require the Court to examine the relationships
between Sakab and its affiliated companies; the affiliated companies’ accounting practices;
financial transactions between Sakab or the affiliated companies and the United States
Government; the extent to which Sakab and the affiliated companies and their officers, directors,
and executives operated at relevant times in compliance with Saudi law; and whether their actions
were taken at the direction of the then-leadership of the Kingdom and, at times, in coordination
with the United States Government. It will also require the Court to assess the role of former
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who approved all expenditures of Sakab and its affiliated
entities in his role as Interior Minister and Crown Prince, and who has now been disappeared by
the current Crown Prince and detained in an unknown location in Saudi Arabia. And the Court
will be required to assess the authority of Crown Prince bin Nayef to approve expenditures
involving Dr. Saad even after Dr. Saad left the Saudi government but continued to be employed
by the Crown Prince as an advisor and continued to support the sensitive activities of Sakab and
its affiliated entities.
43. Plaintiff’s claims will also require the Court to decide whether Dr. Saad’s actions
were consistent with the broad mandate ordered by the King in establishing the entities, including
in the context of the Saudi partnership with the United States in engaging in counterterrorism
activities. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 43).
44. Deciding the Plaintiff’s claims in the underlying action will require the Court to
evaluate whether certain alleged conduct was somehow fraudulent or whether it instead involved
conduct undertaken pursuant to Sakab’s original purpose—clandestine counterterrorism and
14
national security operations, often in partnership with the United States Government. Furthermore,
the Court will need to determine whether Dr. Saad’s alleged conduct was undertaken at the
direction of then-leadership of the Kingdom, an absolute monarchy, even where the then-Crown
Prince is now disappeared by the current Crown Prince. These issues have “broader significance”
to the Federal Government. See Municipality of Mayaguez, 726 F.3d at 14 (internal citation
omitted). They “involve[e] ‘our relationship with other members of the international community
[and] must be treated exclusively as an aspect of federal law.’” Marcos, 806 F.2d at 352 (quoting
Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 425); see also McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d
1189, 1201 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
45. Further, assessing Plaintiff’s claims will implicate serious federal interests—
touching on the national security of the United States—about how the case should proceed in light
of state secrets of the United States government. It is a question of federal law whether “it may be
impossible to proceed with the litigation because—privileged evidence being inseparable from
nonprivileged information that will be necessary to the claims or defenses—litigating the case to
a judgment on the merits would present an unacceptable risk of disclosing state secrets, such that
the matter should not be allowed to proceed at all.” Husayn v. Mitchell, 938 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th
Cir. 2019) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also In re Nat'l Sec. Agency
Telecommunications Recs. Litig., 483 F. Supp. 2d 934, 942 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
C. The Notice of Removal Is Timely.
46. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), notice of removal of a civil action must be filed within
thirty (30) days of the defendant’s receipt of service of the summons and the Petition. Although
Defendants have not yet received a summons, and do not waive their rights to challenge service of
process, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 24, 2021. (Ex. 1); see Novak v. Bank of New York
15
Mellon Tr. Co., NA., 783 F.3d 910, 911 (1st Cir. 2015). This Notice of Removal is being filed
prior to the first hearing scheduled in Superior Court on March 29, 2021.
D. Defendants Have Satisfied All Other Requirements for Removal.
47. No Responsive Pleadings Filed in State Court. Defendants have not filed any
responsive pleadings or filed any papers responding to the Complaint in Suffolk County Superior
Court. (Ex. 2).
48. Attachment of Pleadings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendants have
attached all process, pleadings, or orders in the Action to this Notice of Removal as Exhibits 1-16.
A true and correct copy of the docket for this Action is attached as Exhibit 2.
49. Intradistrict Assignment. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)
because it is the district court of the United States for the district and division within which the
Action is pending.
50. Notice to State Court/Plaintiff. A copy of the Notice of Filing of Notice of
Removal, attached as Exhibit 19, will promptly be filed with the clerk of the Suffolk Superior
Court and served on Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Defendants will also serve a copy
of this Notice of Removal and the Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal upon counsel for Plaintiff
by e-mail and first-class mail, in accordance with the certificate of service on this filing.
51. Joinder. All Defendants in the underlying action have consented to this Notice of
Removal. (Exhibits 17 & 18).
NON-WAIVER OF DEFENSES
52. Defendants Saad Khalid S Aljabri and Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri expressly reserve
all of their defenses. By removing this Action to this Court, Defendants do not waive any rights
or defenses available under federal or state law. Defendants expressly reserve the right to move
16
for dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Nothing in this Notice of Removal should be taken as an admission that this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendants, that venue is proper, that Defendants were properly served in the
Action, or that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim or have any substantive merit,
nor do Defendants waive any rights to raise such challenges in this proceeding. See Morris & Co.
v. Skandinavia Ins. Co., 279 U.S. 405, 409 (1929) (“Petitioner suggests that, by removal of the
case to the federal court, objection to jurisdiction over the person of respondent was waived. Our
decisions are to the contrary.”); In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 245 F. Supp. 2d 280,
302 (D. Mass. 2003) (removal from state to federal court does not waive the right to object to a
lack of personal jurisdiction) (citing Nationwide Engineering & Control Systems, Inc. v. Thomas,
837 F.2d 345, 347–348 (8th Cir. 1988)).
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendants hereby give notice that this action is removed from the Suffolk
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Dated: March 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Scott C. Ford

R. Robert Popeo (BBO #403360)
Scott C. Ford (BBO # 629280)
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY
AND POPEO, PC
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 348-1744
Fax: (617) 542-2241
rrpopeo@mintz.com
scford@mintz.com
17
Lindsay C. Harrison (pro hac vice

application forthcoming)
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Phone: (202) 639-6865
Fax: (202) 639-6066
lharrison@jenner.com
Attorneys for Saad Khalid S Aljabri &

Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the above Notice of Removal and all associated papers were filed
electronically using the CM/ECF system on March 29, 2021, and that on the same date copies
were served on counsel for the Plaintiff by first-class mail and e-mail.
/s/ Scott C. Ford

Scott C. Ford
18
Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document 1-1 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 129
Exhibit 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
EFILED 3/24/21 EC
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Sakab”), by and through its attorneys,
Goulston & Storrs PC and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, brings this action against Defendants
Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri (collectively,
the “Al Jabri Family Defendants”) and New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC and New
East Back Bay LLC (collectively the “New East Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff Sakab brings this action to give effect to orders issued by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Orders”) freezing and appointing a receiver over luxury
real property located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a parallel action already
4825-9679-2283.6
underway in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, entitled Sakab Saudi Holding Co., et al. v. Saad Khalid S
Al Jabri, et al., No. CV-21-00655418-00CL (Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial
List)) (the “Ontario Action”). In issuing the Ontario Orders, the Ontario Superior Court
requested the aid and recognition of foreign courts, including in the United States, in giving
effect to its orders.
2. The present action, like the Ontario Action, involves an elaborate, multi-billion
dollar, international fraud scheme, orchestrated by Defendant Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al
Jabri”), a former high-ranking government official in the government of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (“KSA”) (the “Fraudulent Scheme”). Through this scheme, and assisted by members of
his immediate family and close friends, Defendant Al Jabri defrauded Plaintiff Sakab and its
affiliated companies of at least 13 billion Saudi Riyals (“SAR”) (3.47 billion U.S. Dollars
(“USD”), valued at 3.75 SAR per USD). Al Jabri and his sons and co-conspirators Defendants
Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid Al Jabri”) and Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri
(“Mohammed Al Jabri”), acting through their alter ego companies the New East Defendants,
wrongfully acquired properties located in Massachusetts worth approximately $29 million USD
with the proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme.
3. As detailed below, the Fraudulent Scheme was complex and involved sham
shareholder agreements, unauthorized and illegal payments of purported compensation and
bonuses, off-the-book payments of unauthorized and illegal “dividends,” purported “profit
sharing” and “rewards” based on minimal or non-existent records, and the transfer of tens—if
not hundreds—of millions of dollars into real estate in the names of Al Jabri, Al Jabri’s children,
various companies they controlled and other co-conspirators, including the real property in
2
Massachusetts that is the subject of the present action and other luxury properties in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, the KSA and likely elsewhere not yet known.
4. Like the Ontario Action, the present action results from detailed, substantial and
comprehensive forensic investigative and financial tracing efforts performed by Deloitte
Financial Advisory Services Limited (which are still ongoing and may uncover additional
wrongdoing). As described below, those efforts show that billions of dollars of assets have been
misappropriated from Sakab and its affiliated companies that had been under Al Jabri’s direction
and control, both through direct payments to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators, and through a
variety of more complicated actions, including self-dealing and the fraudulent transfer of assets
to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators, and the use of stolen and fraudulently transferred funds to
acquire real property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
5. The purpose of the present action is to maintain the status quo—that is, to
preserve the fruit of the Fraudulent Scheme now located in Massachusetts that is subject to the
Ontario Orders. Accordingly, immediately upon commencing this action, Plaintiff Sakab intends
to file Emergency Motions for Attachment of Real Property, Approval of Memorandums of Lis
Pendens and to Stay Proceedings pending the ultimate adjudication of the Ontario Action.
Plaintiff Sakab expects that, should the Court grant the requested emergency relief, it will come
again before this Court upon the conclusion of proceedings in Canada, either to enforce a final
judgment against Defendants or to dissolve the attachment and lis pendens.
6. As detailed below, the Ontario Superior Court initially issued the Ontario Orders
on an ex parte basis, finding that Plaintiff Sakab and other defrauded affiliated companies
presented to the Ontario court “overwhelming evidence of fraud” by Defendant Al Jabri and his
co-conspirators. Defendants had the opportunity but chose not to challenge the Ontario court’s
3
ex parte orders on the merits; instead, Al Jabri sought to set aside the ex parte orders on the
purported grounds that Plaintiff Sakab and other defrauded affiliated companies failed to disclose
or misled the Ontario court with respect to material facts. After a full-day evidentiary hearing
held on February 19, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court denied the set aside motion and extended
the Ontario Orders (subject to certain modifications not relevant to this proceeding),
characterizing the motions to set aside and extend those orders as “but one initial step in what
will likely be lengthy and complex litigation.”
THE ONTARIO ACTION
7. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff Sakab, along with nine other affiliated defrauded
companies, brought the Ontario Action against Al Jabri and a number of his co-conspirators,
including all Defendants in this action. The plaintiffs in the Ontario Action immediately moved
for ex parte relief, submitting to the court in support a voluminous record that described in detail
the extent of the Fraudulent Scheme and the efforts to trace misappropriated assets. These
materials included:
a. a 102-page Statement of Claim;
b. an 111-page affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser, the CEO of Tahakom
Investment Company and current General Manager of Plaintiff and the other
Group Companies (as defined herein), sworn on January 18, 2021, and 248
exhibits attached thereto;
c. a 156-page Report of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services Limited and
Deloitte Professional Services (DIFC) Limited, affiliated firms of Deloitte and
Touche (M.E.) (collectively, “Deloitte”) dated January 18, 2021 (the “Deloitte
Report”); and
4
d. a legal expert report of Abudulaziz H. Al Fahad, dated January 17, 2021,
regarding relevant law of the KSA.
8. This extensive record in the Ontario Action explained in detail the particulars of
the Fraudulent Scheme and forensically traced the flow of misappropriated funds through Sakab
and its affiliated companies to Al Jabri and his family members and friends.
9. That same day, based on the substantial record put before the court, the
Honourable Justice Cory A. Gilmore of the Ontario Superior Court issued, among other relief,
three ex parte orders relevant to this Complaint:
a. an interim Order in the form of a Mareva injunction (the “Mareva Order”)
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) restraining Al Jabri from dissipating his assets
worldwide (including the real property in Massachusetts that is the subject of
the present action), requiring Al Jabri to provide a sworn statement detailing
the nature, value and location of his assets worldwide, and requesting that
foreign courts or tribunals give effect to the injunction and assist the plaintiffs
in carrying out its terms;
b. a Receivership Order (attached hereto as Exhibit 2) appointing KSV
Restructuring Inc. as receiver and manager over certain assets and properties
of the New East Defendants, including real property in Massachusetts that is
the subject of the present action, as well as other U.S. and Canadian
companies; and
c. a Disclosure (Norwich) Order (the “Norwich Order”), requiring various
Canadian and international financial institutions, entities and individuals to
disclose and produce certain information to the plaintiffs in the Ontario
5
Action, including records related to individuals, companies, accounts and
transactions that may assist in the effort to trace the funds stolen from Plaintiff
Sakab and its affiliated companies.
10. On January 27, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore released “Reasons on Ex Parte
Order” (attached hereto as Exhibit 3) finding, among other things, that the evidence submitted by
the plaintiffs in the Ontario Action “demonstrate that Al Jabri used fraudulent means to divert
funds that rightfully belonged to the Plaintiffs,” and that “Al Jabri was in a position of trust and
confidence in relation to the Plaintiffs. He breached his duties to the Plaintiffs by preferring his
own interests and those of his family, friends and co-conspirators over those of the Plaintiffs.”
11. Madam Justice Gilmore also found based on the substantial evidence before her
that “Al Jabri is adept at moving money around the world including establishing corporations
(such as the New East [Defendants]) to permit him to hold property indirectly,” and that “Al
Jabri has been bold in his schemes including transferring large amounts of money to himself and
other Persons of Interest even after he was relieved of his duties with the government of the
KSA.” Madam Justice Gilmore therefore concluded that “the risk of removal or dissipation [of
assets] may be established by inference given Al Jabri’s sophisticated, international, and multi-
layered means of moving money and assets.”
12. Madam Justice Gilmore acknowledged in the Reasons on Ex Parte Order that,
under Ontario law, “[a]s a Receivership is intrusive and thus to be used sparingly, the threshold
for an appointment is a high one.” However, she found that the plaintiffs in the Ontario Action
met that threshold, given the presence of assets that are only beneficially owned by Al Jabri
(such as the Massachusetts properties held in the name of the New East Defendants), and thus at
6
greater risk of dissipation, and the fact that the rents derived from the U.S. real estate holdings
(which are at issue in this case) are substantial.
13. On January 28, 2021, Al Jabri submitted a motion requesting that the Ontario
Superior Court set aside or stay enforcement of the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders.
Al Jabri submitted an affidavit of his son, Defendant Khalid Al Jabri, sworn on January 31, 2021,
in support of that motion.
14. On February 1, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore issued an Endorsement (attached
hereto as Exhibit 4) denying Al Jabri’s motion to set aside or stay the Mareva, Receivership and
Norwich Orders, finding that “[t]here is overwhelming evidence of fraud that has been presented
to court.” In so finding, Madam Justice Gilmore rejected Defendant Khalid Al Jabri’s affidavit,
which she characterized as “more of a political treatise than any concrete response to the serious
allegations raised [by the Plaintiffs].” Given the urgency of the matter, Madam Justice Gilmore
extended the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders to February 19, 2021 and set the matter
for a full-day evidentiary hearing on that date. On February 5, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore
entered an order, dated February 1, 2021, effectuating the extension of the Mareva, Receivership
and Norwich Orders.
15. On February 19, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court held a day-long evidentiary
hearing on motions filed by parties to the Ontario Action, including Al Jabri’s motion to set aside
the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders, and the plaintiffs’ motion to extend those orders.
The parties had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments of their choosing to the
Ontario court, including by questioning and cross-examining witnesses. Defendants had the
opportunity but chose not to challenge the Ontario court’s ex parte orders on the merits; instead,
Al Jabri sought to set aside the ex parte orders on the purported grounds that Plaintiff Sakab and
7
other defrauded affiliated companies failed to disclose or misled the Ontario court with respect to
material facts.
16. On March 11, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore issued a thorough, 30-page Ruling
(attached hereto as Exhibit 5), denying Al Jabri’s set-aside motion and extending the Mareva,
Receivership and Norwich Orders. (While the Ontario court modified the Norwich and
Receivership Orders as to certain Canadian defendant companies and assets transferred by Al
Jabri to his son Mohammed Al Jabri, it did not alter the application of the Mareva, Receivership
and Norwich Orders as to entities or real property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) The
Ruling described in detail the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, the applicable
legal standards, and the court’s findings. The thrust of Al Jabri’s position in seeking to set aside
the Ontario Orders was that the Ontario Action purportedly is not a commercial dispute, but
rather a political attack. However, the Ontario Superior Court rejected that contention, finding
that the plaintiffs in the Ontario Action (including Sakab) have “the right . . . to pursue their
claims against [Al Jabri].”
PARTIES
A. The Plaintiff
17. Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company was incorporated pursuant to the laws of
the KSA on May 10, 2008. Its place of business is Riyadh, KSA. Sakab is one of seventeen
KSA companies (the “Group Companies”) established between 2008 and 2016 pursuant to a
2007 Royal Instruction issued by King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz for the purpose of performing
anti-terrorism activities in the public interest, and funded by the KSA’s Ministry of Finance
(“MOF”).
8
18. Prior to its transfer to Tahakom Investment Company (“TIC”), Sakab’s Articles of
Association provided that Abdullah Homoud A Alsowailem (“Abdullah Alsowailem”) and
Majed Obaid S Almuzaini (“Majed Almuzaini”) were equal shareholders, each holding fifty
percent (50%) of the company.
19. In fact, Abdullah Alsowailem, Al Jabri’s friend and personal banker, and Majed
Almuzaini, Al Jabri’s nephew, were nominee shareholders for Al Jabri, appointed in order to
allow Al Jabri to exert control over Sakab while maintaining an illusion of separation. As
described below, Al Jabri installed his friends or family members as the nominee shareholders of
all seventeen Group Companies. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information
and belief alleges that the nominee shareholders had no control over the Group Companies.
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges
that Al Jabri used his ability to exercise control over Sakab to misappropriate funds by causing
Sakab to make unauthorized and improper direct payments to himself and to his family and
friends. Additionally, Al Jabri directed Sakab to: (i) transfer funds to other Group Companies,
which then (at Al Jabri’s direction) made further unauthorized and improper payments to Al
Jabri, his family and friends, (ii) engage in self-dealing transactions that improperly benefitted Al
Jabri and his family members, and (iii) purchase substantial assets that were later transferred to
Al Jabri and his co-conspirators. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information
and belief alleges that in order to disguise this wholesale looting, Al Jabri structured and used
Sakab as a vehicle to distribute funds that had been allocated for anti-terrorism activities to the
Group Companies, and then from the Group Companies unlawfully to himself, other co-
conspirators and companies under his and their control.
9
21. From July 2008 to August 2017, at least SAR 30 billion (USD 8 billion) flowed
through Sakab’s accounts to the other Group Companies and, as detailed below, in many
instances from Sakab and the other Group companies to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators. During
this time period, Al Jabri directed Sakab alone to make direct payments to himself of at least
SAR 950,891,970 (USD 253,571,192).
that Al Jabri directed and controlled the flow of funds through Sakab. The vast majority of the
financial transactions funneled through Sakab took place “off-the-book” and were not recorded
in the company’s financial statements.
23. Despite the amounts of money that moved through its accounts during this period,
Sakab had no actual operating business. Its purported “business” was limited to investments that
were intended to fund counter-terrorism activities in the KSA. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
and upon such information and belief alleges that, in fact, Sakab was used as a vehicle for Al
Jabri to embezzle and launder funds for himself and those close to him.
24. Following Al Jabri’s removal from his government positions, based on a
government direction, ownership of Plaintiff Sakab and the other Group Companies was
transferred to TIC, an entity wholly owned by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia (the
“PIF”), an independent sovereign wealth fund of the KSA.
B. The Defendants
a. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri
25. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri is a former high ranking government official of the KSA.
He previously served as Director of the Department of Officers and Personnel Affairs and as a
Security Advisor in the Ministry of Interior (“MOI”). In 2015, he was named a Minister of State
10
and appointed to the KSA Council of Ministers and the Council of Political and Security Affairs.
However, later that year, on September 10, 2015, Al Jabri was stripped of his titles and positions.
26. As a result of the roles he held in the KSA government, Al Jabri was forbidden by
Saudi law (of which he was or should have been aware) from obtaining any additional
compensation or profits from private companies such as Sakab.
27. Nevertheless, during this time period and continuing through 2017, Al Jabri was
the directing mind of the Fraudulent Scheme, which resulted in direct payments from Sakab to
Al Jabri totaling SAR 950,891,970 (USD 253,571,192) and payments of additional amounts
worth billions of U.S. dollars from Group Companies to Al Jabri and other co-conspirators. Al
Jabri also received payments from other co-conspirators as “kickbacks” from the amounts that
they received through the Fraudulent Scheme.
28. Al Jabri fled the KSA while under investigation in 2017, and has been a resident
of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, along with his wife and several members of his family, since then.
b. Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri
29. Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri is a resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and is Al
Jabri’s son. He is the beneficial owner of tens of millions of dollars in misappropriated funds
and real estate in the United States, the KSA and Canada that was purchased with funds that
were misappropriated and fraudulently transferred as part of the Fraudulent Scheme. He
conspired with his father and his brother, Defendant Mohammed Al Jabri, to use misappropriated
funds to acquire real estate in the United States, including in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
11
c. Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri
30. Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri is a resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and is Al
Jabri’s son. He is the beneficial owner of tens of millions of dollars in misappropriated funds
and real estate in the United States that was purchased with funds that were misappropriated and
fraudulently transferred as part of the Fraudulent Scheme. He conspired with his father and his
brother, Khalid Al Jabri, to use misappropriated funds to acquire real estate in the United States,
including in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He also served as Al Jabri’s nominee
shareholder of multiple Group Companies and was involved in fraudulent real estate transactions
in the KSA and Europe.
d. New East (US) Inc.
31. New East (US) Inc. (“New East US”) is a corporation organized pursuant to the
laws of the State of Delaware. Its current directors are Khalid Al Jabri, Jonathan Wainwright
(“Wainwright”), an attorney at the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and
Leonhard Toenz (“Toenz”), a lawyer based in Zurich, Switzerland. Its registered address is 200
Liberty Street, New York, New York 10281 (Cadwalader’s New York office). New East US is
the registered owner of properties located in the Millennium Place luxury condominium building
in Boston that are beneficially owned by Al Jabri.
that the Al Jabri Family Defendants are the ultimate beneficial owners of New East US. The
company served and continues to serve as the Al Jabri Family Defendants’ alter ego and was and
remains completely dominated and controlled by them. Al Jabri and his sons incorporated New
East US, and at all relevant times used it and continue to use it as a vehicle to effectuate elements
of the Fraudulent Scheme, to hide misappropriated funds and assets acquired with
12
misappropriated funds, and to hinder the ability of Sakab and other Group Companies to recover
the money Al Jabri and his sons stole from them and now owe them.
e. New East 804 805 LLC
33. New East 804 805 LLC (“New East 804 805”) is a limited liability company
organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its current managers are
Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri and Wainwright. Its registered address is 580 Washington
Street, Penthouse 1, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (a property owned by New East US). New
East 804 805 is the registered owner of properties located in the Millennium Place luxury
condominium building in Boston that are beneficially owned by Al Jabri.
that the Al Jabri Family Defendants are the ultimate beneficial owners of New East 804 805.
The company served and continues to serve as the Al Jabri Family Defendants’ alter ego and was
and remains completely dominated and controlled by them. Al Jabri and his sons formed New
East 804 805, and at all relevant times used it and continue to use it as a vehicle to effectuate
elements of the Fraudulent Scheme, to hide misappropriated funds and assets acquired with
misappropriated funds, and to hinder the ability of Sakab and other Group Companies to recover
the money Al Jabri and his sons stole from them and now owe them.
f. New East Back Bay LLC
35. New East Back Bay LLC (“New East Back Bay”) is a limited liability company
organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its current signatories
and directors are Khalid Al Jabri, Wainwright and Toenz. Its registered address is 580
Washington Street, Penthouse 1, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (a property owned by New East
US). New East Back Bay is the registered owner of properties in several luxury condominium
13
buildings in Boston, including the Mandarin Oriental and One Dalton Place, located at the Four
Seasons.
that the Al Jabri Family Defendants are the ultimate beneficial owners of New East Back Bay.
The company served and continues to serve as the Al Jabri Family Defendants’ alter ego and was
and remains completely dominated and controlled by them. Al Jabri and his sons formed New
East Back Bay, and at all relevant times used it and continue to use it as a vehicle to effectuate
elements of the Fraudulent Scheme, attempt to hide misappropriated funds and assets acquired
with misappropriated funds, and to hinder the ability of Sakab and other Group Companies to
recover the money Al Jabri and his sons stole from them and now owe them.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
37. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to M.G.L. c.
212, § 3, and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.
38. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to M.G.L. c.
223A, § 3, based on Defendants’ transacting business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
holding an interest in, using or possessing real property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and causing a tortious injury by an act or omission in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
39. Venue, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 223 § 1, is proper in Suffolk County, Massachusetts
because the usual place of business of Defendants New East 804 805 and New East Back Bay is
within Suffolk County. Additionally, the real property held by Defendants is located in Suffolk
Country.
14
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Royal Instruction and the Compensation Letter
40. On December 27, 2007, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz signed Royal Instruction
19134/B, which increased the level of funding from the MOF to be used by the MOI for counter-
terrorism activities from thirty percent (30%) of the MOI’s operational funds to forty-five
percent (45%) (the “Allowance”).
41. The Royal Instruction expressly stipulated that the Allowance was to be managed
by the MOI’s then Assistant-Minister for Security Affairs Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef (“Bin
Nayef”) to “fight terrorism activities as the situation and public interest require” and that it could
be used to “establish and fund investment intermediaries in the private sector as His Royal
Highness sees to serve the public interest” (emphasis added).
42. On January 19, 2008, Bin Nayef purportedly wrote a letter (the “Compensation
Letter”) to Al Jabri and Abdullah Saleh Abdullah Alhammad (“Abdullah Alhammad”), another
KSA government official and a long-time colleague and trusted associate of Al Jabri, requesting
that they establish companies in the technological and aviation security sectors. That purported
Compensation Letter stated that Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad would receive five percent
(5%) of the net profits of those companies (which ultimately would be the Group Companies),
described as “compensation for administrative, supervisory and follow up efforts.” The
purported Compensation Letter also stated that, in the event of “future success,” Al Jabri and
Abdullah Alhammad might be entitled to a “rewarding percentage” in those companies. The
purported Compensation Letter is not on any proper or formal government letterhead, is not
sealed nor stamped as would be customary under KSA law and practice, and does not contain a
15
log number as would normally be expected of such a significant, legitimate government
authorization.
43. Royal Instruction 19134/B authorized Bin Nayef to distribute the Allowance to
achieve the goals prescribed by the King. Nevertheless, in exercising this authority, Bin Nayef
was bound by that Instruction’s clear restrictions on how the funds could be used, and by the
general requirement that all activities must be undertaken in the public interest. Further, any
additional authority Bin Nayef may have held under Saudi law in his role as Assistant-Minister
of Security Affairs was limited to the inherent powers of that position. Bin Nayef’s position did
not allow him to waive Saudi legal restrictions against government employees profiting from
commercial activities, and he had no authority to grant a percentage of profits or any rewards to
Al Jabri or Abdullah Alhammad under the Royal Instruction, the purported Compensation Letter
or otherwise under Saudi law.
44. Under Saudi law, Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad, as government officials,
were prohibited from earning more than their government salaries through other commercial
sources. Al Jabri knew or should have known that, under Saudi law, Bin Nayef was prohibited
from authorizing payments to Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad of five percent (5%) of the
profits of the Group Companies or other “rewarding percentages,” and that Al Jabri and
Abdullah Alhammad were legally prohibited from accepting such payments.
that the purported Compensation Letter was one of the first means by which Al Jabri and others
attempted to lay a paper trail to cover their vast misappropriation of funds as part of the
Fraudulent Scheme. Indeed, even if the payments purportedly authorized by the Compensation
16
Letter had been legal (they were not), Al Jabri and his co-conspirators in fact received staggering
sums, well in excess of the five percent (5%) of net profits that they were purportedly granted.
B. Use of Nominee Shareholders to Implement the Scheme
46. As noted above, Sakab was established on May 10, 2008. The sixteen other
Group Companies were established from 2008 to 2016, ostensibly for the purpose of performing
activities related to the anti-terrorism mission described in Royal Instruction 19134/B. That
Instruction made Bin Nayef responsible for managing and disbursing the Allowance in the public
interest. Bin Nayef, in turn, delegated that responsibility and authority to Al Jabri, who selected
and installed his friends and family members as the nominee shareholders, and who was able to
exercise control over the Group Companies for purposes of carrying out the Fraudulent Scheme.
47. Upon the creation of each Group Company, Al Jabri directed the installation of
“nominee shareholders” to hold the shares of that company. All of these nominee shareholders
were family members or friends of Al Jabri who, upon information and belief, were selected to
allow Al Jabri to retain control over the Group Companies while maintaining an illusion of
separation. Abdullah Alsowailem and Majed Almuzaini, who were the nominee shareholders of
Sakab, also served as the nominee shareholders for fourteen of the seventeen Group Companies;
the nominee shareholders of the other three companies included Al Jabri’s son Mohammed Al
Jabri (21 years old at the time he was appointed), Al Jabri’s nephew and son-in-law Salem Abaid
S Almuzaini (Majed Almuzaini’s brother), Al Jabri’s brother Abdulrahman Al Jabri, and Al
Jabri’s trusted associate Bejad Barka SH Alharbi. These appointments allowed Al Jabri to
maintain control over the activities of Sakab and the other Group Companies.
48. The nominee shareholders were installed pursuant to side agreements that were
frequently signed by Bin Nayef and by the nominees. Those side agreements provided that the
17
nominee shareholders’ ownership of the Group Companies was a “sham ownership
arrangement.” In fact, the Group Companies were intended to be, and in fact were, actually
owned by the MOI, based on the Allowance established by the Royal Instruction.
49. As part of the Fraudulent Scheme, the nominee shareholder side agreements also
provided that the nominees would each receive one percent (1%) of the yearly net profits of the
relevant Group Company as compensation for registering the company in their names and for
their participation on the Board of Directors, could receive additional compensation through
contracts with the Group Company and would maintain strict confidentiality about the nominee
shareholding arrangement. The nominee shareholder side agreements were not logged or
registered as would be expected for properly authorized corporate documents. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that, like the purported
Compensation Letter, these side agreements were a means to “paper” a purported basis to
transfer substantial funds from the Group Companies to Al Jabri and his family and friends. In
fact, since the one percent (1%) compensation was a reward for helping to disperse funds beyond
the scope allowed by the Royal Instruction, it was invalid under Saudi law. Moreover, the funds
that these nominee shareholders actually received greatly exceeded what they were purportedly
entitled to receive under the side agreements.
C. The Sakab Profit Distribution Resolution
50. On June 15, 2008, after the nominee shareholder side agreement for Sakab was
signed, the Sakab Board of Directors, in breach of their fiduciary duties and in furtherance of the
Fraudulent Scheme, passed a resolution stating that fifty percent (50%) of Sakab’s net profits
would be distributed to Board members as compensation for their “efforts.” The resolution
purported to divide the fifty percent (50%) as follows:
18
a. Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad would each receive five percent (5%);
b. Abdullah Alsowailem and Majed Almuzaini, as nominee shareholders, would
each receive one percent (1%); and
c. Bin Nayef would receive thirty-eight percent (38%).
51. However, in reality and under Saudi law, none of these individuals had any
entitlement to Sakab’s profits; upon information and belief, the resolution was instead an attempt
to establish a fictitious basis to siphon funds away from Sakab and into the pockets of Al Jabri
and the other participants in the Fraudulent Scheme. Moreover, the funds that these individuals
actually received vastly exceeded the division of profits set out in the resolution.
D. Funding the Group Companies
52. From 2008 to 2017, the Group Companies received more than SAR 30 billion
(USD 8 billion) in funding. The vast majority of these funds were directed first into accounts
held by Sakab, largely through checks issued by the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority (the
Saudi Arabian Central Bank) and the Ministry of Finance.
53. Despite receiving these funds, Sakab had no operational business. The only
reported revenue it generated stemmed from “investments.” From fiscal years 2013 to 2016,
Sakab reported “investments” in Group Companies of a maximum of SAR 96 million (USD 25.6
million). Most of the billions in SAR that moved through Sakab’s accounts were not treated as
an investment or accounted for in Sakab’s books and records.
that instead, during this period Sakab was almost exclusively used by Al Jabri as a vehicle to
funnel funds directly to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators, or indirectly via the other Group
19
Companies. Payments to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators were made primarily through bank
accounts held in the KSA, as well as through international bank accounts held with HSBC.
55. However, throughout this time period, aside from the co-conspirators’ activities in
furtherance of the Fraudulent Scheme, the Group Companies (other than Sakab) also conducted
legitimate business in a number of industries including aviation, security and technology.
E. Misappropriation of Funds Directly from Sakab and the Other Group Companies
56. Over the course of the Fraudulent Scheme, Al Jabri and his co-conspirators
received significant unlawful transfers of funds directly from Sakab to accounts held in their
names or to offshore entities that they controlled. Each such transfer of funds was part of the
Fraudulent Scheme, and constituted a misappropriation of funds from Sakab for which there was
no legal or other justification. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and
belief alleges that each such transfer was made at Al Jabri’s direction, or with his knowledge,
assistance or approval.
57. The ongoing forensic investigation conducted by Deloitte over the course of more
than two years has determined that during the course of the Fraudulent Scheme, Al Jabri caused
Sakab to transfer directly to Al Jabri and the other co-conspirators at least SAR 3,180,807,609
(USD 848,215,362). Al Jabri caused at least SAR 950,891,970 (USD 253,571,192) of those
misappropriated funds to be transferred directly to himself.
58. The forensic investigation is ongoing and additional fraudulent transfers may be
uncovered.
59. These massive and fraudulent transfers of funds were done entirely “off-the-
book,” meaning that, in order to avoid detection, they were intentionally not recorded in the
financial records or audited financial statements of Sakab.
20
60. Many transfers were effected without any effort to “paper” a purportedly
legitimate basis for the transfers; in other cases, however, Al Jabri and his co-conspirators
created a rudimentary and fictitious paper trail in an attempt to lend a veneer of legitimacy to
their misappropriation of funds from Sakab. Some examples of those instances are outlined
below.
a. Fraudulent “Valuation” Rewards
61. Al Jabri and his co-conspirators received significant transfers of funds directly
from Sakab on the basis of unsubstantiated and absurdly inflated “valuations” of certain Group
Companies. These purported “valuations” were in fact handwritten, unsigned documents
containing no analysis but simply ascribing an arbitrary and vastly inflated value to each
company. These valuations in no way reflected a plausible true value of the companies. In one
egregious example, the “valuation” of a Group Company implied a multiple of 595 times the
company’s net income; the “valuation” of this company was set at SAR 1.3 billion (USD 346.66
million), despite the fact that the company’s annual net income was SAR 2.2 million (USD
586,666) and it held net assets worth a total of SAR 12.66 million (USD 3.38 million).
62. These “valuations” were then used as a purported basis to make substantial
payments, characterized as “rewards,” from Sakab to Al Jabri and other co-conspirators. Sakab
made these payments despite the fact that there was no corresponding transfer of funds from the
Group Companies to Sakab and no other indication that any sale of shares in the Group
Companies or other similar transaction took place. Rather, Al Jabri and the co-conspirators
appear to have received significant “reward” payments based on essentially a hypothetical
valuation of those companies, where the “valuation” itself was nothing more than an
unsubstantiated, handwritten figure.
21
b. Fraudulent Profit Distributions, Rewards and Other Compensation
63. Al Jabri and his co-conspirators received numerous transfers directly from Sakab
that were characterized as distributions of Group Companies’ profits, rewards for their
participation on Group Companies’ Boards, or other forms of compensation.
64. In fact, some or all of the purported profit distributions bore no relationship to the
actual profits of the Group Company to which the payment was linked. Additionally, in several
cases, Al Jabri and his co-conspirators received “profit distributions” that were paid two or even
three times based on the same purported profits of a particular Group Company for the same
year. In many instances Sakab paid these “profit distributions” to Al Jabri and his co-
conspirators without any corresponding payments from the relevant Group Company into Sakab.
65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges
that the rewards and other forms of compensation paid to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators were
arbitrarily determined.
66. The recipients of these transfers had no legal or other entitlement to the funds. In
fact, these transfers were characterized as profit distributions, rewards or other forms of
compensation only in an effort to create a “paper trail” that would disguise the massive
misappropriation of funds from Sakab.
F. Further Extent of the Fraudulent Scheme
67. In addition to transfers directly from Sakab, large amounts of funds were
improperly and illegally transferred from Sakab to other Group Companies, and then from the
other Group Companies to Al Jabri and the other co-conspirators. Each such transfer of funds
was part of the Fraudulent Scheme and constituted a misappropriation of funds for which there
was no legal or other justification. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information
22
and belief alleges that each such transfer was made at Al Jabri’s direction or with his knowledge,
assistance or approval.
68. Funds were also improperly and illegally transferred to Al Jabri and his co-
conspirators through more complex methods, including self-dealing and skimming from several
real estate transactions in the KSA, the purchase of valuable real estate assets outside of KSA by
a Group Company that later transferred control of those assets (without receiving fair value) for
the ultimate benefit of Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri and Bin Nayef, and payments from Group
Companies to foreign corporate entities that Al Jabri and his co-conspirators control.
69. In addition, Al Jabri received “kickback” payments of at least SAR 697,861,920
(USD 186,096,512) from other co-conspirators and third parties from misappropriated funds that
had been transferred to them from Plaintiff and other Group Companies.
G. Efforts to Disburse and Conceal the Proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme
that in order to enjoy and conceal the vast sums of money misappropriated from Sakab and the
other Group Companies, Al Jabri, assisted by his sons Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri,
acquired real estate and corporate assets around the world. As described in greater detail below,
this included establishing companies in the United States, including in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and in other countries for the purpose of acquiring luxury real estate assets with
the proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme, and to avoid holding those properties directly in his own
name.
71. These efforts led Madam Justice Gilmore, in the January 27, 2021 “Reasons on
Ex Parte Order” issued in the Ontario Action, to note “Al Jabri’s sophisticated, international, and
multi-layered means of moving money and assets” and to find that “Al Jabri is adept at moving
23
money around the world including establishing corporations (such as the New East [Defendants])
to permit him to hold property indirectly.”
H. Misappropriated Funds Used to Purchase Real Property
72. Al Jabri, along with his sons Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri, used funds
misappropriated from Sakab and the other Group Companies to purchase substantial real estate
assets around the world, including in the United States, Canada and the KSA. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that these properties were
purchased with misappropriated funds, have been used to secret the ill-gotten proceeds of the
Fraudulent Scheme to foreign locations in order to enrich Al Jabri and his immediate family,
and/or are being used as a means (and with intent) to hinder, delay and defraud Sakab and other
Group Companies in their ability as Al Jabri’s and his family members’ creditors to recover what
Al Jabri and his family members owe them.
73. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Al Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri and
Mohammed Al Jabri purchased a number of luxury real estate properties, with the transactions
following a similar pattern:
a. First, Al Jabri establishes a company in the United States using some variant
of “New East” in the naming convention.
b. Al Jabri establishes himself as manager and/or director in the entity at the time
of its organization, along with his son Khalid Al Jabri and Wainwright.
c. After a property is purchased by the company using funds misappropriated
from Sakab, Al Jabri removes himself from his position as manager and/or
director of the company, and replaces himself with one of his sons or Toenz.
24
a. Properties Owned by New East US and New East 804 805
74. New East US owns three, and New East 804 805 owns two, properties located in
a Boston luxury condominium building developed by Ritz Carlton.
i. Establishment of New East US
75. On March 14, 2013, New East US was incorporated pursuant to the laws of the
State of Delaware, where it remains in good standing. New East US registered to do business in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on March 28, 2013. At the time it registered in
Massachusetts, Al Jabri was identified as the President and Director, and his son Khalid Al Jabri
was identified as the Vice-President, Treasurer and a Director. Both listed their address as
Cadwalader’s New York office.
76. At some time between filings made on April 6, 2017 and March 7, 2019,
Mohammed Al Jabri replaced Al Jabri as President and Director of New East US.
77. At some point between March 7, 2019 and March 16, 2020, Mohammed Al Jabri
was replaced as President and Director by his brother Khalid Al Jabri. Wainwright now holds
the role of Vice-President and Director. Toenz is Secretary and Director.
ii. Establishment of New East 804 805
78. On April 30, 2013, New East 804 805 was established as a limited liability
company pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At the time it was
established, the company’s managers (and the individuals with signing authority) were Al Jabri,
Khalid Al Jabri and Wainwright, each listing Cadwalader’s New York office as its address.
79. As with New East US, at some point between March 12, 2018 and March 7, 2019,
Al Jabri was replaced as manager and authorized signatory by his son Mohammed Al Jabri, also
using Cadwalader’s New York address. Further changes were made, and the 2020 Annual
25
Report lists the company’s managers as Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri and Wainwright,
with Khalid Al Jabri, Wainwright and Toenz having signatory authority.
iii. The Boston Ritz Carlton Properties Owned by New East US and New
East 804 805
80. On December 18, 2013, New East US and New East 804 805 acquired five
properties in the Millennium Place building at 580 Washington Street, a luxury condominium
tower by Ritz Carlton developers. These properties include:
a. PH-01—a 2,654 square foot penthouse acquired by New East US for
approximately $3.495 million. The property’s current assessed value is in
excess of $5 million, and it is currently being rented for $14,000 per month.
b. Unit 805—a 1,166 square foot unit, the purchase of which included a parking
easement (which was signed by Khalid Al Jabri on behalf of New East 804
805), acquired by New East 804 805 for $1.04 million. The property’s current
assessed value is in excess of $1.3 million, and it is currently being rented for
$5,800 per month.
c. Unit 804—a 777 square foot unit, the purchase of which included a parking
easement (which was signed by Khalid Al Jabri on behalf of New East 804
805), acquired by New East 804 805 for $750,000. The property’s current
assessed value just under $1 million, and it is currently being rented for
$4,300 per month.
d. Unit 714—a 799 square foot unit, the purchase of which included a parking
easement (which was signed by Khalid Al Jabri on behalf of New East US),
acquired by New East US for $670,000. The property’s assessed value is just
under $1 million, and it is currently being rented for $4,000 per month.
26
e. Unit 3E—an 814 square foot unit, the purchase of which included a parking
easement (which was signed by Khalid Al Jabri on behalf of New East US),
acquired by New East US for $715,000. The property’s assessed value is just
under $1 million, and it is currently being rented for $3,900 per month.
81. Al Jabri funded these purchases through a wire transfer of $6,075,000 from an
account with HSBC Private Bank Switzerland to an account Al Jabri established in the name of
New East US at HSBC Bank USA. On December 11, 2013, an HSBC employee sent Al Jabri
instructions to transfer “the required amount to close your real estate acquisition in the USA.”
The next day, December 12, 2013, Al Jabri sent a signed authorization for the transfer from a fax
machine located at Sakab’s office.
that Al Jabri directed, authorized and funded the purchase of these five properties at the Boston
Ritz Carlton with funds he misappropriated from Plaintiff, and continues to beneficially own
these properties with his sons Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri, through their alter ego
companies New East US and New East 804 805.
83. Together, these five properties are estimated to be able to generate gross rental
proceeds of approximately $32,000 per month.
84. Al Jabri also established an account in the name of New East 804 805 at HSBC
Bank USA. From January to February 2014, Al Jabri transferred a total of SAR 1,126,710 (USD
300,456) from an account in the KSA to the New East 804 805 account.
85. In addition to the transfer of funds noted above, Al Jabri also transferred an
additional total of SAR 14,318,860 (USD 3,998,684) from an account in the KSA to the New
East US account from January 2014 to July 2015.
27
b. Boston Mandarin Oriental and Four Seasons Properties Owned by New East
Back Bay
86. New East Back Bay was established as a limited liability company pursuant to the
laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 23, 2015. At that time, Al Jabri, Khalid Al
Jabri and Wainwright were identified as managers. The listed address for Al Jabri and Khalid Al
Jabri was 580 Washington Street, Penthouse 1 (a property owned by New East US).
87. The Annual Reports filed by New East Back Bay indicate that, at some point
between March 12, 2018 and March 7, 2019, Mohammed Al Jabri was added as a manager.
However, between March 7, 2019 and June 23, 2020, Toenz replaced Al Jabri and Mohammed
Al Jabri as manager and authorized signatory. The 2020 Annual Report identifies the company’s
managers and authorized signatories as Khalid Al Jabri, Wainwright and Toenz, and the
company’s principal office as Cadwalader’s New York address.
88. New East Back Bay is the owner of three properties located in Boston:
a. On April 10, 2017, New East Back Bay acquired Unit W10-C, a 2,556 square
foot property located at 776 Boylston Street, a luxury condominium building
at the Mandarin Oriental in Boston, for $4.3 million. The property’s assessed
value is approximately $5.9 million. It was previously rented for $13,568 per
month; it is unknown if the property is rented at this time.
b. On September 10, 2019, New East Back Bay acquired two properties in One
Dalton Place, a luxury condominium building located at the Four Seasons in
Boston:
i. Unit 5203 is a 1,403 square foot property purchased for $4 million. The
property’s assessed value is slightly under the purchase price, and it is
currently being rented for $13,000 per month.
28
ii. Unit 5202 is a 2,945 square foot property purchased for $9.75 million.
The property’s assessed value is around $1 million less than the
purchase price, and it is currently being rented for $20,000 per month.
that Al Jabri directed, authorized and funded the purchase of these properties at the Boston
Mandarin Oriental and Four Seasons with funds he misappropriated from Plaintiff, and continues
to beneficially own these properties with his sons Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri
through their alter ego company New East Back Bay.
90. In filings in a separate action in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, Al Jabri referred to the property located at 776 Boylston Street in the Mandarin
Oriental as “family owned” and a “family residence.”
91. Together, these three properties are estimated to be able to generate gross rental
proceeds of approximately $46,500 per month.
92. Al Jabri established an account in the name of New East Back Bay, held at HSBC
Bank USA. In February 2017, Al Jabri transferred of SAR 1,181,880 (USD 315,168) from an
account in the KSA to the New East Back Bay account.
I. Discovery of the Fraudulent Scheme
93. As described above, based on a government direction, ownership of Sakab and the
other Group Companies was transferred to TIC and the PIF. In advance of that transfer, Ernst &
Young LLP (“EY”) was engaged to perform due diligence and valuation of several Group
Companies. In the course of that review, EY identified and reported irregularities to the PIF in
January 2018.
29
94. Based on these findings of irregularities, Deloitte was engaged to perform a
forensic review related to the issues identified by EY. In the course of that forensic review,
Deloitte identified a number of additional issues suggesting the need for a further investigation,
which were summarized in a report dated October 31, 2018.
95. Based on that report, and TIC’s growing suspicion that Al Jabri and others may
have been involved in or condoned misconduct including misappropriation of funds from Group
Companies, Deloitte was engaged to perform a wider forensic investigation, including all
seventeen of the Group Companies created under Al Jabri’s direction, with a particular focus on
Sakab as the entity used as the “clearinghouse” for the Allowance funds and the conduit for
disbursing funds to the other Group Companies.
96. Deloitte presented its preliminary findings from this investigation to TIC in a
report dated December 5, 2019. Based on those findings, TIC engaged Deloitte to undertake
further analysis and efforts to trace the funds that appeared to have been misappropriated from
Sakab and the other Group Companies.
97. In connection with the effort to trace the movement of these funds, Sakab brought
a motion seeking a disclosure order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial
List). On December 18, 2020, the Honourable Justice Glenn A. Hainey of the Ontario Superior
Court granted that motion, ordering the disclosure to Sakab of certain information related to
funds transferred to specified individuals and entities.
98. On January 22, 2021, as described above, Sakab and other plaintiffs brought the
Ontario Action.
30
COUNT ONE
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Al Jabri)
99. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs
1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
100. At all relevant times, Al Jabri had a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. He
exercised control over Plaintiff by selecting friends and family members to serve as Sakab’s
nominee shareholders and by directing the transfer of funds (i) directly from Sakab to himself
and his co-conspirators and (ii) to other Group Companies, and then from those other Group
Companies to himself and his co-conspirators. He was Plaintiff’s de facto director and manager
in a position of trust, confidence and reliance. He assumed the responsibility to act as Plaintiff’s
trusted agent. Al Jabri was aware of and accepted the trust and confidence placed in him.
101. Al Jabri undertook activities on behalf of Plaintiff and customarily performed
services for Sakab as part of the company’s normal course of business.
102. Al Jabri owed Plaintiff the fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and fair
dealing.
103. Al Jabri breached these duties by engaging in self-dealing and failing to act in
Plaintiff’s best interests. Instead, Al Jabri put his own interests, and the interests of his family,
friends and associates, above those of Plaintiff. Al Jabri abused his position of trust to
misappropriate funds from Plaintiff, and to engage in self-dealing with Plaintiff’s assets. He
concealed from Plaintiff the nature and extent of his conflicts of interest, misappropriation of
funds and self-dealing.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Al Jabri’s breach of these duties owed to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages. Deloitte’s forensic accounting investigation
to date has identified approximately $850 million in funds that were misappropriated from Sakab
31
and paid directly to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators as a direct and proximate result of Al Jabri’s
actions. Had Al Jabri not engaged in his breaches of duty, Plaintiff would not have suffered
these damages. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.
105. In equity and good conscience, Al Jabri should be required to disgorge the full
amount of funds Al Jabri improperly received.
COUNT TWO
(Fraud Against Al Jabri)
107. Al Jabri engaged in and masterminded a massive fraudulent scheme to
misappropriate funds from Plaintiff.
108. He appointed his friends and family members as the purported shareholders and
Board Members of Plaintiff and other Group Companies, while in fact Al Jabri controlled and
directed Plaintiff’s and other Group Company activities.
109. Al Jabri’s control of Plaintiff and the other Group Companies allowed him to
cause those companies to improperly disburse funds to him and his co-conspirators, and to
manipulate the books and records of the Group Companies in an effort to hide the
misappropriations. Al Jabri, directly and indirectly, through use of fictitious paper trails, false
valuations, off-the-book and unrecorded transactions and payments, payment of unlawful profit-
sharing rewards and distributions, and by other fraudulent means, caused Plaintiff and other
Group Companies to improperly and unlawfully, and without authorization, transfer funds to
himself and his friends, family and co-conspirators, and to companies they controlled.
32
110. Al Jabri knew or should have known that these transfers of funds were improper
and unlawful.
111. Plaintiff’s reliance on Al Jabri’s direction was reasonable and justified based on
Al Jabri’s role as a senior government official and as Plaintiff’s de facto director, and based on
the control he exercised over Plaintiff and the other Group Companies.
112. As a direct and proximate result of Al Jabri’s fraud and Plaintiff’s reliance on Al
Jabri’s fraudulent actions, misrepresentations and material omissions, Al Jabri succeeded in
obtaining improper and unlawful transfers of funds from Plaintiff to himself and to his co-
conspirators. Had Al Jabri not engaged in fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff would not have suffered
these damages. Deloitte’s forensic accounting investigation to date has identified approximately
$850 million in funds that were misappropriated from Sakab to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators.
Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
113. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination that Defendants hold the misappropriated
funds, and any property acquired with misappropriated funds, in constructive trust for the benefit
of Plaintiff.
COUNT THREE
(Fraudulent Misrepresentation Against Al Jabri)
115. Al Jabri made misrepresentations of material fact to Plaintiff. Al Jabri falsely
represented that he and his co-conspirators were entitled to “reward” payments on the basis of
the valuation of Group Companies. Al Jabri further falsely represented that the Group
Companies’ valuations were substantially higher than could be justified by the companies’
financial performance. Al Jabri also falsely represented that Plaintiff should make these
33
payments, despite the fact that there was no corresponding transfer of funds from the Group
Companies to Sakab, and that no shares had been sold in and no funds had been raised by the
Group Companies at this valuation.
116. Al Jabri also made misrepresentations that he and his co-conspirators were
entitled to “profit distributions” from Group Companies and that these payments should be made
by Plaintiff. He falsely represented that these Group Companies had earned profits that were
well in excess of what was indicated on their audited financial statements.
117. These misrepresentations were false and were known by Al Jabri to be false. Al
Jabri knew or should have known that as a KSA government official he was prohibited from
earning more than his government salary through other commercial sources. He was also aware
that, under Saudi law, it was illegal for him and his co-conspirators to receive “rewards” or
“profit distributions” from the Group Companies. As a senior government official who exercised
control over Plaintiff and the other Group Companies, Al Jabri knew or should have known that
his representations regarding the valuation and profits of the Group Companies were inflated and
false.
118. In reliance on Al Jabri’s misrepresentations, Plaintiff made or caused to be made
transfers of very large amounts of funds to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators.
119. Plaintiff’s reliance on Al Jabri’s representations were reasonable and justified
based on Al Jabri’s role as senior government official and as Plaintiff’s de facto director, and
based on the control he exercised over Plaintiff and the other Group Companies.
120. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s reliance on Al Jabri’s
misrepresentations, Al Jabri succeeded in obtaining transfers of funds from Plaintiff to himself
and to his co-conspirators. Forensic accounting investigation to date has identified
34
approximately $850 million in funds that were misappropriated from Sakab and paid directly to
Al Jabri and his co-conspirators. Had Al Jabri not made these fraudulent misrepresentations,
Plaintiff would not have suffered these damages. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
of Plaintiff.
COUNT FOUR
(Fraud by Omission Against Al Jabri)
122. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 1
through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
123. Al Jabri continuously concealed from Plaintiff material facts concerning the
illegality and impropriety of transferring funds for “rewards,” “profit distributions” and other
compensation to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators. Upon information and belief, this information
was concealed from Plaintiff for the purpose of misleading Plaintiff and inducing Plaintiff to rely
on and act upon a false belief that such payments were properly authorized and lawful. Al Jabri
concealed these facts in order to continue to improperly and unlawfully obtain funds from
Plaintiff for himself and his co-conspirators.
124. Al Jabri knew or should have known that these payments were improper and
unlawful. As a senior Saudi government official, he was well-aware that it was prohibited for
government officials to receive more than their government salary through other commercial
sources. He was also aware that, under Saudi law, it was illegal for him and his co-conspirators
to receive “rewards” or “profit distributions” from the Group Companies.
35
125. These undisclosed facts were both basic and central to the transactions in
question: the transfer of funds from Plaintiff to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators.
126. Al Jabri had a duty to disclose to Plaintiff that these payments were not legally
authorized. Because of his role as a de facto director of Plaintiff, and his position of control and
dominance over Plaintiff, he owed a duty of care and loyalty to Plaintiff.
127. As a direct and proximate result of Al Jabri’s intentional omission of material
fact, Al Jabri and his co-conspirators succeeded in their plan to illegally obtain payments from
Plaintiff. Forensic accounting investigation to date has identified approximately $850 million in
funds that were misappropriated from Sakab and paid directly to Al Jabri and his co-
conspirators. Had Al Jabri not engaged in these frauds by omission, Plaintiff would not have
suffered these damages. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount
to be proven at trial.
of Plaintiff.
COUNT FIVE
(Conversion Against Al Jabri)
130. Plaintiff had possession of funds that were allocated for anti-terrorism activities in
the service of the KSA and its public interest.
131. Al Jabri converted specific, identifiable amounts of Plaintiff’s funds to his own
use. He intentionally appropriated and exercised ownership of the funds by causing them to be
transferred to accounts that he controlled. Although these transfers were in some cases described
36
as “rewards,” “profit distributions” or “compensation,” they were in fact unlawful and Al Jabri
had no right to Plaintiff’s funds.
132. Al Jabri also converted specific, identifiable amounts of Plaintiff’s funds by
intentionally exercising control or dominion over the funds and transferring them into the
possession of his co-conspirators.
133. By so doing, Al Jabri intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s property and caused
Plaintiff to be deprived of the possession or use of these funds.
134. As a direct and proximate result of Al Jabri’s actions, Plaintiff suffered damages
in the specific amount of the funds that Al Jabri caused to be transferred away from Plaintiff and
to himself or his co-conspirators. Forensic accounting investigation to date has identified
Al Jabri and his co-conspirators. Had Al Jabri not converted these specific funds, Plaintiff would
not have suffered these damages. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.
135. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination that Defendants hold the converted funds,
and any property acquired with misappropriated funds, in constructive trust for the benefit of
Plaintiff.
COUNT SIX
(Conspiracy Against All Defendants)
137. Defendants and their co-conspirators (named and unnamed in this complaint) had
a common design or agreement to improperly obtain funds from Plaintiff and to conceal those
funds throughout the world so as to make use of and benefit from them.
37
138. Al Jabri committed tortious acts by directing the scheme to obtain funds from
Plaintiff and, through his control and dominance, causing Plaintiff to improperly transfer funds
into accounts that he controlled.
139. Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri provided substantial assistance to the
scheme to obtain and conceal funds from Plaintiff. They acted as directors and signatories to
companies established as part of the effort to conceal these funds, and held properties, purchased
with the improperly obtained funds, in their names. They took affirmative steps to encourage the
achievement of this scheme, including registering companies, serving as officers and directors
and managing properties purchased with the funds obtained from Plaintiff.
140. Upon information and belief, the Al Jabri Family Defendants were aware that
they were contributing to a common tortious plan.
141. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ efforts
to fraudulently obtain and conceal funds from Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been deprived of, and
Defendants have obtained, funds. Forensic accounting investigation to date has identified
Al Jabri and his co-conspirators. Had Defendants not engaged in this conspiracy, Plaintiff would
not have suffered these damages. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.
142. As a result of their conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators are jointly
and severally liable to Plaintiff.
38
COUNT SEVEN
(Aiding and Abetting Against Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri
New East US, New East 804 805 and New East Back Bay)
144. Al Jabri was an agent of, a de facto director of, and exercised control over
Plaintiff and the other Group Companies. Al Jabri owed a fiduciary duty of care, loyalty, good
faith and fair dealing to Plaintiff.
145. Al Jabri breached this fiduciary duty, as alleged above.
146. Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri and the New East Defendants knowingly
participated in these breaches. They assisted Al Jabri in secreting the proceeds of this breach
outside of the KSA, and concealing these proceeds by investing them in luxury real estate. They
registered companies, served as officers and directors and managed properties purchased with
the funds obtained from Plaintiff.
participated in Al Jabri’s defrauding of Plaintiff. As described above, they assisted Al Jabri in
secreting the proceeds of this fraud outside of the KSA, and concealing these proceeds by
investing them in luxury real estate.
participated in Al Jabri’s conversion of specific funds from Plaintiff. As described above, they
assisted Al Jabri in misappropriating these funds, transferring them outside of the KSA, and
concealing these funds by investing them in luxury real estate.
149. As a direct and proximate result of Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri and the
New East Defendants’ aiding and abetting, Plaintiff has been damaged by having significant
39
amounts of funds transferred away from its control, and by having those funds concealed so as to
prevent Plaintiff from recovering them. Forensic accounting investigation to date has identified
approximately $850 million in funds misappropriated from Sakab and paid directly to Al Jabri
and his co-conspirators. Had Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri, and the New East
Defendants not aided and abetted Al Jabri’s misconduct, Plaintiff would not have suffered these
damages. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.
COUNT EIGHT
(Unjust Enrichment Against All Defendants)
151. Plaintiff conferred a benefit on Defendants by transferring funds to accounts
controlled by Defendants. Defendants made use of these funds to purchase luxury properties
throughout the world.
152. Defendants were enriched by the virtue of unlawfully causing Plaintiff to provide
Defendants with more than $253 million in funds. Defendants made use of these funds to
purchase luxury properties for their enjoyment, and to generate significant monthly rents, and for
other personal beneficial uses, which benefits Defendants received and retained.
153. Defendants were aware that they were receiving and retaining benefits from these
funds, including the ownership of real estate holdings and the rents generated therefrom,
inequitably at the significant expense and to the detriment of Plaintiff because they knew that
they had no right to the funds received from Plaintiff. In fact, Defendants participated in a
conspiracy to fraudulently obtain and conceal these funds.
40
154. Under these circumstances, equity and good conscience require that the
Defendants give restitution for their receipt of the benefits that Plaintiff conferred, in the amount
of the value of the benefit conferred, which will be proven at trial. Forensic accounting
investigation to date has identified at least $253 million in funds misappropriated from Sakab
and paid directly to Al Jabri.
COUNT NINE
(Fraudulent Transfer Against All Defendants)
1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein
156. As a result of the improper and unauthorized transfers of funds from Plaintiff to
the Al Jabri Family Defendants as part of the Fraudulent Scheme, Plaintiff is a creditor with a
right to recover the amount of the misappropriated funds (plus interest and any consequential
damages provided for by law) from the debtor Al Jabri Family Defendants.
157. After incurring this debt to Plaintiff by knowingly and improperly receiving
misappropriated funds, debtor Al Jabri Family Defendants fraudulently transferred a portion of
those funds to the New East Defendants with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiff, their
creditor. The Al Jabri Family Defendants’ intent is evidenced by the fact that, by virtue of their
control over the New East Defendants, they retained control of the transferred funds, the funds
were transferred without receipt of reasonably equivalent value, and the transfer had the effect of
concealing the funds from the creditor by moving them to a different country and holding them
indirectly. The fraudulent transfer of funds from the Al Jabri Family Defendants to the New East
Defendants is thus subject to avoidance, as Plaintiff has a right to recover those funds.
158. Here, the funds fraudulently transferred to the New East Defendants have been
used to purchase real property. The New East Defendants are insiders and alter egos of the Al
41
Jabri Family Defendants. The New East Defendants are not bone fide purchasers for value
without knowledge of the fraudulent transfer. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the properties
purchased by Defendants, or the value thereof, as they were acquired with the fraudulently
transferred funds.
159. As Plaintiff has an ownership interest in those funds that were misappropriated as
part of the Fraudulent Scheme and fraudulently transferred to the New East Defendants, it has an
ownership interest in the properties purchased with those funds. In addition, the properties
purchased by Defendants should be deemed to be held by Defendants in constructive trust for the
benefit of Plaintiff, pending the avoidance of the transaction and the recovery of the properties
and the fraudulently transferred funds by Plaintiff.
160. Plaintiff also has a right to prejudgment attachment of the property acquired by
the New East Defendants to ensure that the property is not dissipated before Plaintiff can obtain
recovery of the fraudulently transferred funds. Plaintiff also has a right to request the court to
issue an injunction barring Defendants from any further disposition or dissipation of the
properties and the fraudulently transferred funds.
COUNT TEN
(Alter Ego/Piercing Corporate Veil Against
New East US, New East 804 805 and New East Back Bay)
161. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth
herein.
162. The New East Defendants are and at all times have been beneficially owned by
the Al Jabri Family Defendants. They act as these individuals’ corporate alter egos, and are
completely dominated and controlled by them.
42
163. The Al Jabri Family Defendants actively and directly participate in exercising
pervasive control over each of the New East Defendants.
164. The New East Defendants engaged in a confused intermingling between their
assets and those of the Al Jabri Family Defendants, which were the proceeds of fraud. Al Jabri
transferred funds to the New East Defendants without receiving equivalent consideration.
165. The New East Defendants are owned and pervasively controlled by the Al Jabri
Family Defendants. They are used for non-corporate transactions by and for the sole benefit of
the dominant members and owners (the Al Jabri Family Defendants), primarily for the purpose
of promoting and enabling fraud.
166. Through the collection of rents, they profit from the proceeds of the fraud
committed by the Al Jabri Family Defendants.
167. The New East Defendants are plagued at all material times by non-functioning
officers, directors and managers, including a director located in Switzerland.
168. Upon information and belief, the Al Jabri Family Defendants and the New East
Defendants have substantially disregarded any separate nature that they might otherwise have to
each other under law.
169. Piercing the corporate veil would address the gross inequity presented by the Al
Jabri Family Defendants’ efforts to make use of the corporate form to conceal their ill-gotten
gains from the Fraudulent Scheme. The New East Defendants were established for the purpose
of allowing the Al Jabri Family Defendants to make use of the corporate form to engage in
misconduct by concealing and enjoying their misappropriated funds.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sakab respectfully requests that the Court:
43
a. Enter judgment against Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims and award compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
b. Issue an order confirming that Defendants hold their assets in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts in constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiff, including:
i. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), PH-01,
held by New East US;
ii. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 805,
held by New East 804 805;
iii. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 804,
iv. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 714,
v. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 3E,
vi. Mandarin Oriental (776 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199), Unit
W10-C, held by New East Back Bay;
vii. One Dalton Place (1 Dalton Street, Boston, MA 02115), Unit 5203, held
by New East Back Bay;
viii. One Dalton Place (1 Dalton Street, Boston, MA 02115), Unit 5203, held
by New East Back Bay.
c. Order the disgorgement of rents received by Defendants from the properties
owned by New East US, New East 804 805 and New East Back Bay, as these
properties were acquired pursuant to the Fraudulent Scheme and the rents were
44
therefore received by Defendants as constructive trustees for the benefit of
Plaintiff.
d. Order that the corporate veil of New East US, New East 804 805 and New East
Back Bay is pierced and that these companies and their beneficial owners Al
Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri be held jointly liable.
e. Issue an order of attachment of the assets held by Defendants in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts that were acquired as part of the Fraudulent
Scheme, including:
i. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), PH-01,
ii. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 805,
iii. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 804,
iv. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 714,
v. Millennium Plaza (580 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111), Unit 3E,
vi. Mandarin Oriental (776 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199), Unit
W10-C, held by New East Back Bay;
vii. One Dalton Place (1 Dalton Street, Boston, MA 02115), Unit 5203, held
by New East Back Bay;
45
viii. One Dalton Place (1 Dalton Street, Boston, MA 02115), Unit 5203, held
by New East Back Bay.
f. Order the appointment of a receiver to secure control of the assets held by
Defendants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that were acquired as part of
the Fraudulent Scheme, and to collect and hold rents from those properties,
pending resolution of Plaintiff’s claims.
g. Enjoin Defendants from selling, transferring, disposing of, dissipating,
mortgaging, concealing or secreting any of their assets in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, or allowing such assets to become subject to a security interest or
lien, except upon approval by this Court.
h. Award pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
i. Award attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by law.
j. Award all such other and further relief in Plaintiff’s favor as the Court deems just
and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
46
Respectfully submitted,
By its attorneys,
/s/ Richard M. Zielinski

Richard M. Zielinski (BBO#540060)
Douglas B. Rosner (BBO# 559963)
Denis M. King (BBO# 555838)
GOULSTON & STORRS PC
400 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3333
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com
drosner@goulstonstorrs.com
dking@goulstonstorrs.com
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
1775 I St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 200006
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
william.stein@hugheshubbard.com
samuel.salyer@hugheshubbard.com
(Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Forthcoming)
47
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
One Battery Park Plaza
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
neil.oxford@hugheshubbard.com
meaghan.gragg@hugheshubbard.com
Dated: March 24, 2021
48
VERIFICATION
I Abdulaziz Alnowaiser, under the pains and penalties of perjury, hereby depose and say
that I am the Chief Executive Officer of Tahakom Investments Company and the General
Manager of Sakab Saudi Holding Company, the plaintiff in this action, and that I have read the
allegations in the foregoing Verified Complaint and, as to each statement of fact alleged therein,
I hereby affirm and verify that each such fact is true to my knowledge, except where they are
alleged on information and belief, in which case I believe them to be true.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury on this ___ day of March 2021
_____________________________________
Abdulaziz Alnowaiser
CEO, Tahakom Investments Company
General Manager, Sakab Saudi Holding Company
49
EXHIBIT 1
Court File No. CV-21-00655418-00CL
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(COMMERCIAL LIST)
THE HONOURABLE ) FRIDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF

JUSTICE GILMORE ) JANUARY, 2021
)
B E T W E E N:
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA STAR AVIATION

SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KAFA’AT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY
& SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL COMPANY,
TECHNOLOGY CONTROL COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING
COMPANY and SKY PRIME INVESTMENT COMPANY
Plaintiffs
- and -
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES

LTD., 1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST
BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH
SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED
SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL
JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN
GROWTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL
INC. and QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC.
Defendants
ORDER
NOTICE
If you, the Defendant Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”), disobey this order you
may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your
assets seized. You are entitled to apply on at least twenty-four (24) hours notice to
HHR-2554
-2-
the Plaintiffs, for an order granting you sufficient funds for ordinary living expenses
and legal advice and representation.
Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or permits
Al Jabri to breach the terms of this Order may also be held to be in contempt of
court and may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.
THIS MOTION, made by the Plaintiffs, without notice, for an interim Order in the form
of a Mareva injunction restraining the Defendant Al Jabri from dissipating his assets and other
relief, was heard this day by judicial videoconference via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
ON READING the Motion Record, including the Notice of Motion; the Affidavit of
Abdulaziz Alnowaiser sworn January 18, 2021; the Affidavit of Neil David Hargreaves sworn
January 18, 2021; the Affidavit of Abdulaziz Hamad Al Fahad sworn January 17, 2021; the
Affidavit of James Bart Holladay sworn January 18, 2021; the Affidavit of Elizabeth Wozniak
sworn January 18, 2021; and the Factum and Book of Authorities of the Plaintiffs;
AND ON NOTING the undertaking of the Plaintiffs to abide by any Order this Court may
make concerning damages arising from the granting and enforcement of this Order;
AND UPON hearing the submissions of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs;
Mareva Injunction
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that Al Jabri, and his servants, employees, agents, assigns and
anyone else acting on his or their behalf or in conjunction with any of them, and any and all persons
with notice of this injunction, are restrained from directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever:
HHR-2555
-3-
(a) selling, removing, disposing of, dissipating, alienating, transferring, assigning,
encumbering, or similarly dealing with any of Al Jabri’s assets, or any assets in
which he has any type of interest, wherever situate, including but not limited to:
(i) Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd., 1147848 B.C. Ltd., New East
(US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, New East Back Bay LLC, New East DC
LLC and Jaalik Contracting Ltd, including any property or assets held
directly or indirectly of any of them; and
(ii) the accounts and assets listed in Schedule “1”, Schedule “2”,
Schedule “3”, Schedule “4”, Schedule “5”, Schedule “6” and
Schedule “7” hereto;
(b) instructing, requesting, counselling, demanding, or encouraging any other person
to do so; and
(c) facilitating, assisting in, aiding, abetting, or participating in any acts the effect of
which is to do so.
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that paragraph 1 applies to all of Al Jabri’s assets whether or not
they are in his own name and whether they are solely or jointly owned. For the purpose of this
Order, Al Jabri’s assets include, but are not limited to:
(a) any asset which he has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with
as if it were his own. Al Jabri is to be regarded as having such power if a third
party holds or controls the assets in accordance with his direct or indirect
instructions;
HHR-2556
-4-
(b) anything regarded in law or equity as property or as an interest in property, any
right or interest that can be transferred for value from one person to another, any
right, including a contingent or future right, to be paid money or receive any other
kind of property, and any cause of action in which Al Jabri has any interest;
(c) any bank, investment or other account of Al Jabri at any bank, financial or other
institution;
(d) any motor vehicle, trailer, or other vehicle registered to Al Jabri;
(e) any real property in which Al Jabri has any interest;
(f) any and all other personal property of Al Jabri; and
(g) any and all share certificates, negotiable instruments and the like of Al Jabri.
3. THIS COURT ORDERS that, without limiting the scope of paragraph 1, Al Jabri is further
prohibited from dealing with or using in any manner any secured credit, including but not limited
to any credit card, loan, or line of credit, for which payment is secured against any personal or real
property in which Al Jabri has any interest, pending further order of this Court.
Ordinary Living Expenses
4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Al Jabri may apply for an Order, on at least twenty-four (24)
hours notice to the Plaintiffs, specifying the amount of funds which Al Jabri is entitled to spend
on ordinary living expenses and legal advice and representation.
HHR-2557
-5-
Disclosure of Information
5. THIS COURT ORDERS that Al Jabri prepare and provide to the Plaintiffs within ten (10)
days of the date of service of this Order, a sworn statement detailing the nature, value, and location
of his assets worldwide, including all assets referred to in paragraph 2 herein, whether in his own
name or not and whether solely or jointly owned or whether held in trust for any other party.
6. THIS COURT ORDERS that Al Jabri submit to examinations under oath within ten (10)
days of the delivery by Al Jabri of the aforementioned sworn statement.
7. THIS COURT ORDERS that if Al Jabri refuses to provide the information referred to in
paragraph 5 herein, he is contempt of court and may render Al Jabri liable to be imprisoned, fined,
or have his assets seized.
Third Parties
8. THIS COURT ORDERS the banks listed in Schedule “1”, Schedule “2”, Schedule “3”,
Schedule “4”, Schedule “5”, Schedule “6” and Schedule “7” and any other banks, financial
institutions or other financial entities that are served with a copy of this Order (the “Banks”) to
forthwith freeze and prevent any removal or transfer of monies or assets of Al Jabri held in any
account or on credit on behalf of Al Jabri, with the Banks, until further Order of the Court,
including but not limited to the accounts listed in Schedule “1”, Schedule “2”, Schedule “3”,
Schedule “4”, Schedule “5”, Schedule “6” and Schedule “7” hereto.
9. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Banks forthwith disclose and deliver up to the Plaintiffs
any and all records held by the Banks concerning Al Jabri’s assets, accounts and safety deposit
HHR-2558
-6-
boxes, including the existence, nature, value and location of any monies or assets or credit,
wherever situate, held on behalf of Al Jabri by the Banks.
10. THIS COURT ORDERS that any of the Banks that know or become aware of any safety
deposit box held by or on behalf of Al Jabri are directed to forthwith advise the Plaintiffs of the
location of such safety deposit boxes and provide the Plaintiffs, or such other person as authorized
to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs, with access to such safety deposit boxes, including without
limitation, access to the contents of such safety deposit boxes.
Variation, Discharge or Extension of Order
11. THIS COURT ORDERS that anyone served with or notified of this Order may apply to
the Court at any time to vary or discharge this order, on four (4) days notice to the Plaintiffs.
12. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiffs shall apply for an extension of this Order on
February 1, 2021, failing which this Order will terminate.
Service
13. THIS COURT ORDERS that service of this Order may be effected by delivering same to
any party located in Ontario by email, PDF or facsimile.
Foreign Proceedings
14. THIS COURT HEREBY REQUESTS the aid and recognition of any court, tribunal,
regulatory or administrative body having jurisdiction in Canada, the British Virgin Islands, the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, or in
any other foreign jurisdiction necessary, to give effect to this Order and to assist the Plaintiffs and
HHR-2559
-7-
its respective agents in carrying out the terms of this Order. All courts, tribunals, regulatory and
administrative bodies are hereby respectfully requested to make such orders and to provide such
assistance to the Plaintiffs as may be necessary or desirable to give effect to this Order.
15. Insofar as this Order purports to have any effect outside of the territorial jurisdiction of this
court, no person shall be affected by it or concerned by the terms of it until this Order is declared
enforceable or registered or enforced by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction for that purpose,
unless that person is:
(a) a party to this action or any agent of a party to this action; or
(b) a person who is subject to the judicial jurisdiction of this court, who has received
written notice of this Order within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
, '~V .
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GILMORE
HHR-2560
SCHEDULE “1”
Assets in Canada
Bank Accounts
Bank Asset Account Holder Account Number
HSBC Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 051-028727-150

Canada
Real Estate
Person / Entity in Asset Description

Possession
1147848 B.C. Ltd Real Estate 14 The Bridle Path, Toronto, M2L 1C8; PIN 10126 –
0242; Described as:
PT LT 8 CON2 EYS TWP OF YORK AS IN
TB288346 EXCEPT THE EASEMENT THEREIN;
TORONTO (N YORK), CITY OF TORONTO
HHR-2561
SCHEDULE “2”
Assets in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Bank Accounts
Alawwal Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri SA1450000000010374772001
Alawwal Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 010374772028
Alawwal Bank Bank Account Jaalik Contracting Ltd. SA1150000000038045737015
Alawwal Bank Bank Account Jaalik Contracting Ltd. SA3350000000038045737007
Banque Saudi Bank Account Jaalik Contracting Ltd. 89083800124

Fransi
National Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 25747544000108

Commercial
Bank – Saudi
Arabia
National Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 25747544000206

Commercial
Bank – Saudi
Arabia
HHR-2562
-2-
Riyad Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 2390006410440

and AbdulRahman
Khaled Saadallah
AlJabri
Samba Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 2610341164

Financial Group
SJSC
Samba Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 2640069160

Financial Group
SJSC
Samba Bank Account Jaalik Contracting Ltd. 2807002609

Financial Group
SJSC
Saudi British Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 020-007498-001

Bank
HHR-2563
-3-
Real Estate

Possession
Saad Khalid S Al Jabri Real Estate Deed No. 310111004681

Plot No. 1728, Block No. 139 of plan No. 2924
located in Al-Falah Neighborhood in the city of
Riyadh

Plot No. 295, Block No. 16 of plan No. 3119 located
in Qurtuba Neighborhood in the city of Riyadh

in Qurtuba Neighborhood in the city of Riyadh
Saad Khalid S Al Jabr Real Estate Deed No. 310105034341

Plot No. 1932/2 of plan No. 2825 located in Al
Hazm Neighborhood in the city of Riyadh

in Shabra Neighborhood in the city of Riyadh

Plot No. 4, Block No. 55 of plan No. 1/7/78/[letter
ba’] located in Batha Quraish Neighborhood in the
city Mecca

Plot No. 170, of plan No. 302/[letter jim]/[letter sin]
located in South Obhur Neighborhood in the city of
Jeddah

Plot No. 133, of plan No. 1/15/23/[letter ba’] located
in Prince Abdullah Al-Faisal Al-Shisha
Neighborhood in Mecca
HHR-2564
-4-

Possession
Flat No. 3/1, Third floor of Buildings situated on an
unnumbered plot of plan No. 459/[letter ba’] located
in Al-Shati Neighborhood in Jeddah

The entire remaining part of the land located in
southern Al Hurra Al Gharbiya Neighborhood in
Medina

Plot No. 19/[letter ba’], of plan No. 272/[letter ba’],
located in Al-Zumurud Neighborhood in Jeddah

The remaining parts of plot No. 227, of plan No.
South Obhur located in South Obhur Neighborhood
in Jeddah

Plot No. 31/2, of plan No. 205, located in Al-Raid
Neighborhood in the city of Riyadh



Nadyah Sulaiman A Real Estate Deed No. 310116008543

Aljabbari Plot No. 472, of plan No. 2301, located in Al
Khaleej Neighborhood in the city of Riyadh

Aljabbari
HHR-2565
-5-

Possession
Plot No. 1732, Block No. 139 of plan No. 2924
located in Al Falah Neighborhood in the city of
Riyadh

Aljabbari Plot No. 35, of plan No. 2688, located in Al
Janadriyah Neighborhood in Riyadh
Khalid Saad Khalid Al Real Estate Deed No. 810122036301

Jabri Plot No. 34/2, of plan No. 205, located in Al-Raid
Saleh Saad Khalid Al Real Estate Deed No. 510112043372

Omar Saad Khalid al Real Estate Deed No. 310112043369

Naif Saad KH Al Jabri Real Estate Deed No. 910112043371

Sulaiman Saad Khalid Real Estate Deed No. 410112043375

Al Jabri Plot No. 33/1, of plan No. 205, located in Al-Raid
Hissah Saad KH Al Real Estate Deed No. 910112043374

Hissah Saad KH Al Real Estate Deed No. 510105046583

Jabri Plot No. 883, Block No. 728 of plan No. 1637
located in Al Yasmin Neighborhood in the city of
Riyadh
HHR-2566
SCHEDULE “3”
Assets in Switzerland
Bank Accounts
HSBC Private Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri CH0708689050913184674

Bank (Suisse)
SA
HSBC Private Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 1502433

Bank (Suisse)
SA
HSBC Private Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 13309779

Bank (Suisse)
SA
HSBC Private Bank Account Dreams International CH4708689050914082271

Bank (Suisse) Advisory Ltd.
SA
HSBC Private Bank Account Dreams International 14343334

Bank (Suisse) Advisory Ltd.
SA
HHR-2567
SCHEDULE “4”
Assets in Turkey
Bank Accounts
HSBC Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri TR510012300482102065377599

A.S.
Turkiye Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri TR480001000202749473005003

Cumhuriyeti
Ziraat
Bankasi A.S.

Cumhuriyeti
Ziraat
Bankasi A.S.

Garanti
Bankasi A.S.

Garanti
Bankasi A.S.
HHR-2568
SCHEDULE “5”
Assets in the United Kingdom
Bank Accounts
Citibank UK Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri Unknown
HSBC UK Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 91832514
Royal Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 00100385

of Scotland
HHR-2569
SCHEDULE “6”
Assets in the United States – Massachusetts
Bank Accounts
HSBC Bank Bank Account New East 804 805 LLC 0605184356
USA NA
HSBC Bank Bank Account New East Back Bay LLC 0605183929
USA NA
HSBC Bank Bank Account New East (US) Inc. 0605184364

USA NA
Real Estate

Possession
New East Back Bay Real Estate Unit W10-C, Mandarin Oriental, 776 Boylston Street,
LLC Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Parcel 0401037856
New East Back Bay Real Estate Unit 5203, Four Seasons Boston, One Dalton Place,
Parcel 0401149310
New East Back Bay Real Estate Unit 5202, Four Seasons Boston, One Dalton Place,
Parcel 0401149308
New East (US) Inc. Real Estate Pent House PH-01, Millennium Place, 580
Washington Street, Boston Massachusetts, USA
Parcel 0304488502
New East (US) Inc. Real Estate Unit 714, Millennium Place, 580 Washington Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Parcel 0304488242
HHR-2570
-2-

Possession
New East (US) Inc. Real Estate Unit 3E, Millennium Place, 580 Washington Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Parcel 0304488052
New East 804 805 Real Estate Unit 805, Millennium Place, 580 Washington Street,
Parcel 0304488266
New East 804 805 Real Estate Unit 804, Millennium Place, 580 Washington Street,
Parcel 0304488264
HHR-2571
SCHEDULE “7”
Assets in the United States – District of Columbia
Bank Accounts
HSBC Bank Bank Account New East DC LLC 0605187223

USA NA
HSBC Bank Bank Account Saad Khalid S Al Jabri 389-09170-7

USA NA
Real Estate

Possession
New East DC LLC Real Estate Millennium Square Condominium – 111 23rd Street,
NW, in Washington DC – Penthouse
Deed: 2008094210
HHR-2572
EXHIBIT 2
Court File No. CV-21-00655418-00CL
ONTARIO
(COMMERCIAL LIST)
THE HONOURABLE ) FRIDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF

JUSTICE GILMORE ) JANUARY, 2021
)
B E T W E E N:
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA STAR AVIATION

SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KAFA'AT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY
& SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL COMPANY,
TECHNOLOGY CONTROL COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING
COMPANY and SKY PRIME INVESTMENT COMPANY
Plaintiffs
- and -
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES

LTD., 1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST
BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH
SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED
SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL
JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN
GROWTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL
INC. and QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC.
Defendants
ORDER
THIS MOTION, made without notice by the Plaintiffs, for an Order pursuant to section
101 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, as amended (the "CJA") and Rule 41 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure appointing KSV Restructuring Inc. ("KSV") as receiver and manager (in
HHR-2574
-2-
such capacities, the "Receiver"), without security, over certain assets and properties of the
defendants New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, New East Back Bay LLC and New East
DC LLC (collectively, the "New East Companies"); and QFive Global Investment Inc. ("QFive",
and together with the New East Companies, the "Defendants"), was heard this day by judicial
videoconference via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
ON READING the Motion Record, including the Notice of Motion; the Affidavit of
Abdulaziz Alnowaiser sworn January 18, 2021; the Affidavit of Neil David Hargreaves sworn
January 18, 2021; the Affidavit of Abdulaziz Hamad Al Fahad sworn January 17, 2021; the
Affidavit of James Bart Holladay sworn January 18, 2021; the Affidavit of Elizabeth Wozniak
sworn January 18, 2021; the Factum and Book of Authorities of the Plaintiffs; and the consent of
KSV to act as the Receiver;
AND UPON hearing the submissions of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs:
Service
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the time for service of the Notice of Motion and the Motion
is hereby abridged and validated so that this motion is properly returnable today and hereby
dispenses with further service thereof.
Appointment
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that pursuant to section 101 of the CJA and Rule 41 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, KSV is appointed Receiver, without security, of the Defendants in respect of
the following assets and properties, including all rents arising therefrom and proceeds thereof (the
"Property"):
HHR-2575
-3-
(a) New East (US) Inc.:
(i) 580 Washington Street, Unit PH-01, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

(Parcel 0304488502);
(ii) 580 Washington Street, Unit 714, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

(Parcel 0304488242); and
(iii) 580 Washington Street, Unit 3E Boston, Massachusetts, USA

(Parcel 0304488052).
(b) New East 804 805 LLC:
(i) 580 Washington Street, Unit 805, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

(Parcel 0304488266); and
(ii) 580 Washington Street, Unit 804, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

(Parcel 0304488264).
(c) New East Back Bay LLC:
(i) 776 Boylston Street, Unit W10-C, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

(Parcel 0401037856);
(ii) One Dalton Place, Unit 5203, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (Parcel
0401149310); and
(iii) One Dalton Place, Unit 5202, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (Parcel
0401149308).
(d) New East DC LLC:
(i) 1111 23rd Street NW, Unit PH-1D, Washington, DC, USA.
(e) QFive Global Investment Inc.:
(i) 400,000 common shares in Canadian Growth Investments Limited.
HHR-2576
-4-
3. THIS COURT ORDERS that KSV's appointment as Receiver of each of the New East
Companies shall only become effective once recognized by any court, tribunal, regulatory or
administrative body having jurisdiction in the United States over each of the New East Companies,
respectively.
4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Lax O'Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP be appointed as counsel
to the Receiver.
Receiver's Powers
5. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Receiver is hereby empowered and authorized, but not
obligated, to act at once in respect of the Property and, without in any way limiting the generality
of the foregoing, the Receiver is hereby expressly empowered and authorized to do any of the
following where the Receiver considers it necessary or desirable:
(a) to take possession of and exercise control over the Property and any and all
proceeds, receipts and disbursements arising out of or from the Property;
(b) to receive, preserve, and protect the Property, or any part or parts thereof,
including, but not limited to, the changing of locks and security codes, the
relocating of Property to safeguard it, the engaging of independent security
personnel, the taking of physical inventories and the placement of such insurance
coverage as may be necessary or desirable;
(c) to manage, operate, and carry on the business of the Defendants that relates to
the Property, including the powers to enter into any agreements, incur any
obligations in the ordinary course of business, cease to carry on all or any part
HHR-2577
-5-
of the business, or cease to perform any contracts of the Defendants that relate
to the Properties;
(d) to engage consultants, appraisers, agents, experts, auditors, accountants,
managers, counsel and such other persons from time to time and on whatever
basis, including on a temporary basis, to assist with the exercise of the Receiver's
powers and duties, including without limitation those conferred by this Order;
(e) to purchase or lease such machinery, equipment, inventories, supplies, premises
or other assets to continue the business of the Defendants that relates to the
Property or any part or parts thereof;
(f) to receive and collect all monies and accounts now owed or hereafter owing to
the Defendants that relate to the Property and to exercise all remedies of the
Defendants in collecting such monies, including, without limitation, to enforce
any security held by the Defendants that relate to the Property;
(g) to settle, extend or compromise any indebtedness owing to the Defendants that
relate to the Property;
(h) to execute, assign, issue and endorse documents of whatever nature in respect of
any of the Property, whether in the Receiver's name or in the name and on behalf
of the Defendants, for any purpose pursuant to this Order;
(i) to initiate, prosecute and continue the prosecution of any and all proceedings and
to defend all proceedings now pending or hereafter instituted with respect to the
Property or the Receiver, and to settle or compromise any such proceedings. The
HHR-2578
-6-
authority hereby conveyed shall extend to such appeals or applications for
judicial review in respect of any order or judgment pronounced in any such
proceeding;
(j) to market any or all of the Property held by the New East Companies, including
advertising and soliciting offers in respect of the Property or any part or parts
thereof and negotiating such terms and conditions of lease as the Receiver in its
discretion may deem appropriate for the purposes of leasing the Property;
(k) to lease the Property or any part or parts thereof out of the ordinary course of
business,
(l) to report to, meet with and discuss with such affected Persons (as defined below)
as the Receiver deems appropriate on all matters relating to the Property and the
receivership, and to share information, subject to such terms as to confidentiality
as the Receiver deems advisable;
(m) to register a copy of this Order and any other Orders in respect of the Property
against title to any of the Property;
(n) to apply for any permits, licences, approvals or permissions as may be required
by any governmental authority and any renewals thereof for and on behalf of
and, if thought desirable by the Receiver, in the name of the Defendants;
(o) to exercise any shareholder, partnership, joint venture or other rights which the
Defendants may have that relate to the Property; and
HHR-2579
-7-
(p) to take any steps reasonably incidental to the exercise of these powers or the
performance of any statutory obligations.
and in each case where the Receiver takes any such actions or steps, it shall be exclusively
authorized and empowered to do so, to the exclusion of all other Persons (as defined below),
including the Defendants, and without interference from any other Person.
Duty to Provide Access and Co-Operation to the Receiver
6. THIS COURT ORDERS that (i) the Defendants, (ii) all of their current and former
directors, officers, employees, agents, accountants, legal counsel and shareholders, and all other
persons acting on their instructions or behalf, and (iii) all other individuals, firms, corporations,
governmental bodies or agencies, or other entities having notice of this Order (all of the foregoing,
collectively, being "Persons" and each being a "Person") shall forthwith advise the Receiver of the
existence of any Property in such Person's possession or control, shall grant immediate and
continued access to the Property to the Receiver, and shall deliver all such Property to the Receiver
upon the Receiver's request.
7. THIS COURT ORDERS that all Persons shall forthwith advise the Receiver of the
existence of any books, documents, securities, contracts, orders, corporate and accounting records,
and any other papers, records and information of any kind related to the business or affairs of the
Defendants that relate to the Property, and any computer programs, computer tapes, computer
disks, or other data storage media containing any such information (the foregoing, collectively, the
"Records") in that Person's possession or control, and shall provide to the Receiver or permit the
Receiver to make, retain and take away copies thereof and grant to the Receiver unfettered access
to and use of accounting, computer, software and physical facilities relating thereto, provided
HHR-2580
-8-
however that nothing in this paragraph 6 or in paragraph 7 of this Order shall require the delivery
of Records, or the granting of access to Records, which may not be disclosed or provided to the
Receiver due to the privilege attaching to solicitor-client communication or due to statutory
provisions prohibiting such disclosure.
8. THIS COURT ORDERS that if any Records are stored or otherwise contained on a
computer or other electronic system of information storage, whether by independent service
provider or otherwise, all Persons in possession or control of such Records shall forthwith give
unfettered access to the Receiver for the purpose of allowing the Receiver to recover and fully
copy all of the information contained therein whether by way of printing the information onto
paper or making copies of computer disks or such other manner of retrieving and copying the
information as the Receiver in its discretion deems expedient, and shall not alter, erase or destroy
any Records without the prior written consent of the Receiver. Further, for the purposes of this
paragraph, all Persons shall provide the Receiver with all such assistance in gaining immediate
access to the information in the Records as the Receiver may in its discretion require including
providing the Receiver with instructions on the use of any computer or other system and providing
the Receiver with any and all access codes, account names and account numbers that may be
required to gain access to the information.
No Proceedings Against the Receiver
9. THIS COURT ORDERS that no proceeding or enforcement process in any court or tribunal
shall be commenced or continued against the Receiver except with the written consent of the
Receiver or with leave of this Court.
HHR-2581
-9-
No Interference with the Receiver
10. THIS COURT ORDERS that no Person shall discontinue, fail to honour, alter, interfere
with, repudiate, terminate or cease to perform any right, renewal right, contract, agreement, licence
or permit in favour of or held by the Defendants that relate to the Property, without written consent
of the Receiver or leave of this Court.
Continuation of Services
11. THIS COURT ORDERS that all Persons having oral or written agreements with the
Defendants or statutory or regulatory mandates for the supply of goods and / or services, including
without limitation, all computer software, communication and other data services, centralized
banking services, payroll services, insurance, transportation services, utility or other services to
the Defendants that relate to the Property are hereby restrained until further Order of this Court
from discontinuing, altering, interfering with or terminating the supply of such goods or services
as may be required by the Receiver, and that the Receiver shall be entitled to the continued use of
the Defendants' current telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, internet addresses and domain
names as they relate to the Property, provided in each case that the normal prices or charges for all
such goods or services received after the date of this Order are paid by the Receiver in accordance
with normal payment practices of the Defendants or such other practices as may be agreed upon
by the supplier or service provider and the Receiver, or as may be ordered by this Court.
Receiver to Hold Funds
12. THIS COURT ORDERS that all funds, monies, cheques, instruments, and other forms of
payments received or collected by the Receiver from and after the making of this Order from any
HHR-2582
-10-
source whatsoever, including without limitation the leasing of all or any of the Property and the
collection of any accounts receivable in whole or in part, whether in existence on the date of this
Order or hereafter coming into existence, shall be deposited into one or more new accounts to be
opened by the Receiver (the "Post Receivership Accounts") and the monies standing to the credit
of such Post Receivership Accounts from time to time, net of any disbursements provided for
herein, shall be held by the Receiver to be paid in accordance with the terms of this Order or any
further Order of this Court.
Limitation on Environmental Liabilities
13. THIS COURT ORDERS that nothing herein contained shall require the Receiver to occupy
or to take control, care, charge, possession or management (separately and/or collectively,
"Possession") of any of the Property that might be environmentally contaminated, might be a
pollutant or a contaminant, or might cause or contribute to a spill, discharge, release or deposit of
a substance contrary to any federal, provincial or other law respecting the protection, conservation,
enhancement, remediation or rehabilitation of the environment or relating to the disposal of waste
or other contamination including, without limitation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, or the Ontario
Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations thereunder (the "Environmental Legislation"),
provided however that nothing herein shall exempt the Receiver from any duty to report or make
disclosure imposed by applicable Environmental Legislation. The Receiver shall not, as a result of
this Order or anything done in pursuance of the Receiver's duties and powers under this Order, be
deemed to be in Possession of any of the Property within the meaning of any Environmental
Legislation, unless it is actually in possession.
HHR-2583
-11-
Limitation on the Receiver's Liability
14. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Receiver shall incur no liability or obligation as a result
of its appointment or the carrying out the provisions of this Order, save and except for any gross
negligence or wilful misconduct on its part. Nothing in this Order shall derogate from the
protections afforded the Receiver by any applicable legislation.
Service and Notice
15. THIS COURT ORDERS that the E-Service Protocol of the Commercial List (the
“Protocol”) is approved and adopted by reference herein and, in this proceeding, the service of
documents made in accordance with the Protocol (which can be found on the Commercial List
website at http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/practice/practice-directions/toronto/e-service-
protocol/) shall be valid and effective service. Subject to Rule 17.05 this Order shall constitute an
order for substituted service pursuant to Rule 16.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to
Rule 3.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and paragraph 21 of the Protocol, service of
documents in accordance with the Protocol will be effective on transmission.
16. THIS COURT ORDERS that if the service or distribution of documents in accordance with
the Protocol is not practicable, the Receiver is at liberty to serve or distribute this Order, any other
materials and orders in these proceedings, any notices or other correspondence, by forwarding true
copies thereof by prepaid ordinary mail, courier, personal delivery or facsimile transmission to the
interested parties that relate to the Property at their respective addresses as last shown on the
records of the Defendants that relate to the Property, and that any such service or distribution by
courier, personal delivery or facsimile transmission shall be deemed to be received on the next
HHR-2584
-12-
business day following the date of forwarding thereof, or if sent by ordinary mail, on the third
business day after mailing.
Receiver's Accounts
17. THIS COURT ORDERS that costs of the receiver shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, provided
that nothing in this Order shall prevent the Plaintiffs from later claiming such costs in the cause.
Extension of Order
18. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiffs shall apply for an extension of this Order on
February 1, 2021, failing which this Order will terminate.
General
19. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Receiver may from time to time apply to this Court for
advice and directions in the discharge of its powers and duties hereunder.
20. THIS COURT HEREBY REQUESTS the aid and recognition of any court, tribunal,
regulatory or administrative body having jurisdiction in Canada or in the United States to give
effect to this Order and to assist the Receiver and its agents in carrying out the terms of this Order.
All courts, tribunals, regulatory and administrative bodies are hereby respectfully requested to
make such orders and to provide such assistance to the Receiver, as an officer of this Court, as
may be necessary or desirable to give effect to this Order or to assist the Receiver and its agents in
carrying out the terms of this Order.
21. THIS COURT further confirms that the within Order is granted in accordance with the
practice and procedure of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and, further, that Ontario Courts
HHR-2585
-13-
would honour a reciprocal form of request from a Court located elsewhere in Canada or in the
United States.
22. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Receiver be at liberty and is hereby authorized and
empowered to apply to any court, tribunal, regulatory or administrative body, wherever located,
for the recognition of this Order and for assistance in carrying out the terms of this Order, and that
the Receiver is authorized and empowered to act as a representative in respect of the within
proceedings for the purpose of having these proceedings recognized in a jurisdiction outside
Canada.
23. THIS COURT ORDERS that any interested party may apply to this Court to vary or amend
this Order on not less than four (4) days' notice to the Receiver, the Plaintiffs and to any other party
likely to be affected by the order sought or upon such other notice, if any, as this Court may order.
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GILMORE
HHR-2586
EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document 1-1 Filed 03/29/21 Page 86 of 129 17
?KQNP BEHA JK-8 CV-21-00655418-00CL

@=PA8 20210127
KJP=NEK
OQLANEKN ?KQNP KB FQOPE?A
>APSAAJ8 )
)
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ) Munaf Mohamed Q.C., Amanda C.
ALPHA STAR AVIATION SERVICES ) McLachlan `mc Jonathan Bell, enq sgd
COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED REAL ESTATE ) Pk`hmsheer
INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT )
COMPANY, KAFA•AT BUSINESS )
SOLUTIONS COMPANY, SECURITY )
CONTROL COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY )
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING )
COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY & )
SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL )
COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL )
COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING )
COMPANY AND SKY PRIME INVESTMENT )
COMPANY )
)
Pk`hmsheer )
, \i_ )
)
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS )
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES )
LTD., 1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) )
INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST )
BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST DC LLC, )
JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH )
SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID SAAD )
KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH )
AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, )
SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, )
HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD )
KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN GROWTH )
INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON )
SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL INC. `mc )
QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC. )
)
Ddedmc`nts )
)
) DA=N@8 J`mt`qx 22, 2021
Page: 2
C. GILMORE. J.
REASONS ON EX-PARTE ORDERS
OVERVIEW AND RELIEF SOUGHT
[1] The Plaintiffs allege they are victims of a massive international fraud, orchestrated by a
former high-ranking government official in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ("KSA"), through which
at least USD 3.5 billion has been brazenly stolen, misdirected and misappropriated (the "Fraudulent
Scheme").
[2] The former Saudi cabinet minister behind the Fraudulent Scheme, the Defendant Saad
Khalid A1 Jabri ("Al Jabri"), has now relocated to Toronto in an attempt to avoid investigation.
Each of the other Defendants, led by Al Jabri, has allegedly participated in or benefited from the
Fraudulent Scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs.
[3] The Plaintiffs allege that Al Jabri orchestrated the Fraudulent Scheme by leveraging and
abusing his high-ranking government position in the KSA to:
(a) establish corporations intended ostensibly to perform anti-terrorism activities in

accordance with a government directive;
(b) ensure those corporations were funded by the KSA; and
(c) then unlawfully and fraudulently direct and misappropriate billions of dollars from
those companies to himself, the other Defendants, and other friends, family
members and co-conspirators.
[4] On this motion, the Plaintiffs seek the following relief:
(a) A worldwide Mareva injunction against Al Jabri in respect of his worldwide assets,
including bank accounts, corporations and properties of which he is the ultimate
beneficial owner and directing mind.
(b) A Mareva injunction against the defendant QFive Global Investment Inc.
("QFive"), an Ontario corporation, only in respect of the shares it holds in Canadian
Growth Investments Limited ("Canadian Growth") on the basis that funds
allegedly stolen from the Plaintiffs have been traced to the purchase of those
specific shares.
(c) A certificate of pending litigation over the property located at 14 The Bridle Path,
Toronto (the "Bridle Path Property"), over which the Plaintiffs assert a
constructive trust.
(d) The appointment of a Receiver under section 101 of the Courts ofJustice Act, for
purposes of preserving the relevant assets, in respect of (i) the New East Companies
(as defined below) and their properties, subject to foreign recognition, and (ii)
QFive, solely in respect of the shares it holds in Canadian Growth.
Page: 3
(e) A Disclosure (Norwich) Order, against the persons and for the documents and
materials particularized in the proposed Norwich Order, as required in order to
continue tracing the funds misappropriated from the Plaintiffs and to quantify and
discover the full extent of the Fraudulent Scheme.
[5] 1 heard the ex-parte motion on January 22, 2021 and was satisfied that the record contained
sufficient evidence to meet the tests for the Orders sought. A copy of the signed Orders was sent
to counsel on that date for filing and for service on the Defendants as required. My endorsement
of January 22, 2021 indicated that 1 would provide reasons in relation to my decision to grant those
Orders. These are those reasons.
[6] This case has been a massive undertaking for the Plaintiffs. The Deloitte report alone was
156 pages long with seven Appendices and multiple Exhibits. The Motion Record was 6,900 pages
long which included a 135 page affidavit from Abdulaziz Alnowaiser, the CEO of the Plaintiffs’
parent company Tahakom Investments Company (“TIC”), affidavits from various translators, and
a lengthy legal opinion from Abdulaziz A1 Fahad. Mr. A1 Fahad is a Saudi Arabian lawyer fluent
in Arabic and English who provided background on the KSA legal system and in particular civil
fraud claims and corporate structures, the legal effect of certain key documents, and restrictions
on the receipt of compensation from outside sources for government employees and their friends
and family. These reasons will be brief in comparison to the vast factual landscape of this case and
in consideration of the fact that this is only the beginning of a very complex case.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[7] The particulars of the factual background in this case are provided mostly in the affidavit
of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser sworn January 18,2021 (“the affidavit”), the lengthy Report of Deloitte
Middle East dated January 18, 2021 dated January 18, 2021 (“the Report”) and the legal expert
report of Abudulaziz H. A1 Fahad dated January 17, 2021 (“the Expert Report”).
[8] A1 Jabri is a former Director of the Department of Officers and Personnel Affairs and
Security Advisor to the Ministry of Interior of the KSA. After rising through the ranks of the Saudi
government to be appointed Minister of State and to the Council of Ministers, A1 Jabri was relieved
of his titles and position on September 10, 2015. Since fleeing the KSA in 2017 after the
investigation against him commenced, A1 Jabri has lived in Toronto, Ontario with his wife and
several members of his family.
[9] 1147848 B.C. Ltd ("114") is a corporation registered in British Columbia. The director of
114 is a a New York attorney, involved in setting up the U.S. entities through which A1 Jabri
purchased nine properties in the U.S. A certificate of pending litigation is being sought in respect
of the Bridle Path Property which has 114 as its registered owner. The registered office of 114 is a
law firm in Vancouver.
[ 10] Relief is also being sought in respect of various "New East" entities created by A1 Jabri and
the real property held by these entities in the United States: New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805
EEC, New East Back Bay EEC and New East DC EEC (collectively, the "New East Companies").
As further explained below, the Plaintiffs submit that A1 Jabri indirectly controls and is the
beneficial owner of the New East Companies.
P`fd: 4
[11\ C`m`ch`m Gqnvsg, QFhud, Gqxognm Sdbtqd Imb. (#Clskcji#) `mc Imenrdb Gkna`k Imb.
(#Eiajm`^#) `qd Oms`qhn bnqonq`shnmr sg`s qdbdhudc etmcr vghbg sgd Pk`hmsheer `kkdfd vdqd
lhròoqnoqh`sdc eqnl sgdl. Mareva `mc Rdbdhudqrgho qdkhde hr adhmf rntfgs `f`hmrs QFhud nm sghr
lnshnm adb`trd etmcr gùd addm chqdbskx sq`bdc eqnl sgd Pk`hmsheer hmsn QFhud sg`s vdqd tshkhydc sn
otqbg`rd 400,000 rg`qdr ne C`m`ch`m Gqnvsg.
[12\ Dqd`lr Imsdqm`shnm`k Acuhrnqx Sdquhbdr Lsc. (#@l`\hm Ein`li\ndji\g#) hr ` bnqonq`shnm

qdfhrsdqdc hm sgd Bqhshrg Vhqfhm Irk`mcr, vghbg Ak Jàqh trdr `r ghr `ksdq dfn. Tgd Pk`hmsheer gùd
nas`hmdc ` bnox ne ` cnbtldms shskdc #Ersàkhrgldms ne sgd Bdmdehbh`k Ovmdq'r Icdmshsx# enq
Dqd`lr Imsdqm`shnm`k (vghbg v`r knb`sdc hm sgd qdbnqcr ne sgd Gqnto Cnlo`mhdr) bnmehqlhmf sg`s
Ak Jàqh hr sgd tkshl`sd admdehbh`k nvmdq ne Dqd`lr Imsdqm`shnm`k.
[13\ Tgd Ddedmc`ms J``khj Cnmsq`bshmf Lsc. (#F\\gdf#) hr ` bnqonq`shnm hmbnqonq`sdc otqrt`ms sn
sgd k`vr ne sgd KSA. Tgd Pk`hmsheer rtalhs sg`s Ak Jàqh hmchqdbskx bnmsqnkr `mc hr sgd admdehbh`k
nvmdq ne J``khj.
[14\ Tgd nsgdq Ddedmc`msr khrsdc adknv `qd e`lhkx ldladqr ne Ak Jàqh, hmbktchmf ghr rontrd
`mc bghkcqdm, vgn `kkdfdckx o`qshbho`sdc hm sgd Fq`tctkdms Sbgdld hmbktchmf rdquhmf `r mnlhmdd
rg`qdgnkcdqr `mc chqdbsnqr ne u`qhntr bnqonq`shnmr `mc ax qdbdhuhmf lhròoqnoqh`sdc etmcr (nesdm
vgdm rshkk lhmnqr): N`cx`g Stk`hl`m A Akiàa`qh, Kg`khc S``c Kg`khc Ak Jàqh, Mng`lldc S``c
KH Ak Jàqh, N`he S``c KH Ak Jàqh, Stk`hl`m S``c Kg`khc Ak Jàqh, Hhrr`g S``c KH Ak Jàqh,
`mc S`kdg S``c Kg`khc Ak Jàqh.
[15\ Tgd Ss`sdldms ne Ck`hl `mc sgd Aeehcùhs `krn l`jd qdedqdmbd sn u`qhntr bn-bnmrohq`snqr
`mc sghqc o`qshdr vgn, vghkd mns Ddedmc`msr, gùd o`qshbho`sdc hm `mc `bpthdrbdc hm sgd Fq`tctkdms
Sbgdld.
[16\ Tgd Pk`hmsheer `kkdfd sg`s Ak Jàqh qdbdhudc tm`tsgnqhydc o`xldmsr `mc/nq oqnehsr vgdm gd
v`r oqnghahsdc eqnl cnhmf rn `r ` fnudqmldms dloknxdd. Ak Jàqh, hm bnmbdqs vhsg nsgdqr,
drsàkhrgdc sgd Pk`hmshee bnlo`mhdr nrsdmrhakx sn etqsgdq bntmsdq-sdqqnqhrl `bshuhshdr `kkdfdckx hm
sgd otakhb hmsdqdrs. Tgdqdèsdq, gd hmrs`kkdc ghr bknrd eqhdmcr `mc e`lhkx ldladqr `r •mnlhmdd
rg`qdgnkcdqr vgn qdbdhudc oqnehsr eqnl sgd bnlo`mhdr. Abbnqchmf sn sgd Pk`hmsheer kdf`k dwodqs,
e`lhkx ldladqr ne Ak Jàqh vdqd `krn oqnghahsdc eqnl qdbdhuhmf oqnehsr nq bnlodmr`shnm `r ` qdrtks
ne Ak Jàqh•r fnudqmldms onrhshnm.
[17\ Im Ddbdladq 2019 èsdq ` enqdmrhb qduhdv ax Ddknhssd, hs v`r chrbnudqdc sg`s nudq 2.6B
USD g`c addm sq`mredqqdc eqnl sgd Pk`hmsheer sn Ak Jàqh `mc nsgdq Ddedmc`msr `mc bn-bnmrohq`snqr.
B`rdc nm sgdrd ehmchmfr sgd Pk`hmsheer dmf`fdc Ddknhssd sn odqenql etqsgdq `m`kxrhr `mc sq`bhmf.
Urhmf sgd qdrtksr ne sg`s `m`kxrhr, S`jà nas`hmdc ` Nnqvhbg Oqcdq eqnl sghr bntqs nm Ddbdladq
18, 2020 vhsg qdrodbs sn hmenql`shnm qdk`sdc sn etmcr sq`mredqqdc `mc a`mj `bbntmsr.
[18\ Tgd Ddknhssd hmudrshf`shnm hr rshkk nmfnhmf, ats sgd qdonqs oqnctbdc ax Ddknhssd c`sdc
Ddbdladq 18, 2020, vghbg hr qdkhdc tonm hm sghr lnshnm, qdud`kdc chqdbs `mc hmchqdbs o`xldmsr sn
Ek Jàqh, Dqd`lr Imsdqm`shnm`k nq J``khj ne 480M USD. Tghr cndr mns hmbktcd etmcr sq`bdc sn Ak
Jàqh•r bn-bnmrohq`snqr `mc nsgdq eq`tctkdms sq`mr`bshnmr rds nts hm sgd Pk`hmsheer• bk`hl. Im sns`k sgd
Pk`hmsheer bk`hl 3.47B USD `r ` qdrtks ne sgd `kkdfdc Fq`tctkdms Sbgdld.
Page: 5
[19] The types of alleged fraud include but are not limited to;
(a) illegitimate and double counted profit;
(b) transfers of profit that had no relation to the company’s actual profit;
(c) off-book transactions;
(d) inflated, handwritten and uncorroborated “valuations” of the Plaintiff companies

which Deloitte described as “bearing no resemblance to reality” which were used
as the basis to pay “rewards” from Sakab to A1 Jabri;
(e) selling property owned by A1 Jabri and his co-conspirators at grossly inflated prices
to Enma A1 Ared or KSA government agencies including substantial brokerage
fees;
(0 the acquisition of significant real estate holding including;
0) 26 properties in the KSA many of which were gifted to El Jabri’s children;
00 The purchase of nine luxury properties in the U.S. through corporations;
(iii) The purchase of two properties in Canada for cash; one for $13M and the
other purchased by El Jabri’s son Khalid for $4.465M.
(iv) Properties purchased in Geneva and Vienna which can be traced to A1 Jabri.
(g) Holdings in Canadian companies including QFive which are alleged to have been
purchases with funds originating from Sakab.
[20] The Plaintiffs allege A1 Jabri could never have accumulated the assets traced to him on his
government salary. All of A1 Jabri’s assets were purchased with funds traceable to him which in
turn can be traced back to the Fraudulent Scheme.
The Worldwide Mareva Injunction Against Al Jabri and the QFive Mareva
[21] In order to obtain the injunction sought, the Plaintiffs must establish a strong prima facie
case of fraud, a genuine risk that the Defendant will put his assets beyond his creditors or out of
the reach of the court and, that if not granted, the moving party will suffer irreparable harm.
[22] The Plaintiffs need not prove their case at this point, they need only show that they would
likely succeed based on the record before the court. The substantive law governing this case is the
law of KSA (Shari’a law) and in the alternative, Ontario law.
[23] Plaintiffs’ counsel took the court through only one example of the elaborate manner in
which El Jabri is alleged to have misappropriated funds. In one case, one of the Plaintiff companies
(“SCC”) was “valued” at 1.3B Saudi Riyal (“SAR”) but made profits of only 2.2M SAR. Deloitte
noted at para 5.35.2 of their report that this was 595 times its net income. 50% of the “valuation”
P`fd: 6
v`r sgdm `kknb`sdc `r oqnehs sn Ek Jàqh `mc `mnsgdq Pdqrnm ne Imsdqdrs. Tgd r`ld oqnehs v`r o`hc
nts sn sgdl `f`hm svn xd`qr k`sdq a`rdc nm dw`bskx sgd r`ld u`kt`shnm. Ddknhssd mnsdr sg`s sgd
`kkdfdc u`kt`shnm v`r g`mcvqhssdm nm ` o`fd vhsgnts kdssdqgd`c `mc tmrhfmdc. Ddknhssd bnmbktcdr
sg`s rtbg u`kt`shnmr chc mns qdk`sd hm `mx v`x sn sgd `bst`k ehm`mbh`k rs`sdldmsr ne SCC.
[24\ I `l r`shrehdc sg`s sgd Pk`hmsheer• dwodqs kdf`k qdonqs drsàkhrgdr sg`s ` rsqnmf prima facie
b`rd g`r addm drsàkhrgdc a`rdc nm sgd dpthu`kdms nq bnqqdronmchmf sdrs hm Sg`qh•` k`v nq a`rdc nm
vdkk-drsàkhrgdc Oms`qhn k`v. Tg`s hr, sgd Ddknhssd qdonqs `mc sgd èehcùhsr `mc dwghahsr ehkdc
cdlnmrsq`sd sg`s Ak Jàqh trdc eq`tctkdms ld`mr sn chudqs etmcr sg`s qhfgsetkkx adknmfdc sn sgd
Pk`hmsheer `mc sgd Pk`hmsheer rteedqdc ` knrr eqnl sg`s bnmctbs.
[25\ Tgd cnbtldmsr ehkdc drsàkhrg nm sgdhq e`bd sg`s Ak Jàqh v`r hm ` onrhshnm ne sqtrs `mc
bnmehcdmbd hm qdk`shnm sgd Pk`hmsheer. Hd aqd`bgdc ghr ctshdr sn sgd Pk`hmsheer ax oqdedqqhmf ghr nvm
hmsdqdrsr `mc sgnrd ne ghr e`lhkx, eqhdmcr `mc bn-bnmrohq`snqr nudq sgnrd ne sgd Pk`hmsheer.
[26\ Whsg qdrodbs sn sgd qdpthqdldms ne drsàkhrghmf `rrdsr ex juris, sgd Ddknhssd qdonqs g`r
tmbnudqdc rhfmhehb`ms `rrdsr ex juris `r etqsgdq dwok`hmdc adknv vhsg qdrodbs sn sgd Nnqvhbg Oqcdq.
[27\ Ttqmhmf sn sgd hrrtd ne hqqdo`qàkd g`ql, sgd Pk`hmsheer ltrs drsàkhrg sg`s sgdqd hr ` qd`k
qhrj sg`s sgd Ddedmc`msr vhkk qdlnud `rrdsr eqnl sgd itqhrchbshnm nq chronrd ne nq chrrho`sd `rrdsr
ntsrhcd ne sgd nqchm`qx bntqrd.
[28\ Is hr bkd`q eqnl sgd Ddknhssd qdonqs sg`s Ak Jàqh hr `cdos `s lnuhmf lnmdx `qntmc sgd vnqkc
hmbktchmf drsàkhrghmf bnqonq`shnmr (rtbg `r sgd Ndv E`rs bnlo`mhdr) sn odqlhs ghl sn gnkc
oqnodqsx hmchqdbskx. Im 2017 Ak Jàqh l`cd ` k`qfd o`xldms sn Icdmshsx M`ks` Afdmbx. Hd `mc ghr
e`lhkx `qd mnv bhshydmr ne M`ks`. Tgd bnmchshnmr ne nas`hmhmf bhshydmrgho qdpthqdc Ak Jàqh sn l`jd
` k`qfd hmudrsldms hm M`ks`. Tgd Pk`hmsheer `qd bnmbdqmdc sg`s Ak Jàqh vhkk lnud sgdqd vhsg ghr
e`lhkx nq trd hs `r `mnsgdq ok`bd sn rghdkc `rrdsr.
[29\ I `fqdd sg`s, hm `bbnqc`mbd vhsg sgd oqhmbhokdr rds nts hm Sibley & Associates LP v. Ross,
2011 ONSC 2951 `s o`q` 64, sg`s •` o`ssdqm ne oqhnq eq`tctkdms bnmctbs l`x rtoonqs ` qd`rnmàkd
hmedqdmbd sg`s sgdqd hr ` qd`k qhrj sgd o`ssdqm vhkk bnmshmtd. Ak Jàqh g`r addm ankc hm ghr rbgdldr
hmbktchmf sq`mredqqhmf k`qfd `lntmsr ne lnmdx sn ghlrdke `mc nsgdq Pdqrnmr ne Imsdqdrs dudm èsdq
gd v`r qdkhdudc ne ghr ctshdr vhsg sgd fnudqmldms ne KSA. I sgdqdenqd bnmbktcd sg`s sgd qhrj ne
qdlnu`k nq chrrho`shnm l`x ad drsàkhrgdc ax hmedqdmbd fhudm Ak Jàqh•r rnoghrshb`sdc,
hmsdqm`shnm`k, `mc ltksh-k`xdqdc ld`mr ne lnuhmf lnmdx `mc `rrdsr.
[30\ Whsg qdrodbs sn sgd a`k`mbd ne bnmudmhdmbd I `l r`shrehdc sg`s ` qdetr`k ne sgd Mareva
rntfgs hm khfgs ne sgd rtars`msh`k `mc bnloqdgdmrhud ehm`mbh`k sq`bhmf oqnuhcdc ax Ddknhssd (vghbg
hr rshkk nmfnhmf) vntkc ad g`qletk sn sgd Pk`hmsheer• bg`mbd ne qdbnudqx. Imcddc, sgd sq`bhmf qdud`kr
sg`s sgdqd l`x vdkk ad etmcr sg`s enql o`qs ne sgd Fq`tctkdms Sbgdld vghbg `qd vdkk hm dwbdrr ne
vg`s g`r addm tmbnudqdc sgtr e`q. Ftqsgdq, sgd trt`k oqnsdbshnmr b`m ad ots hmsn ok`bd vhsg qdrodbs
sn khuhmf dwodmrdr `mc u`qh`shnmr ne sgd Oqcdq `r mddcdc.
[31\ I `l etqsgdq r`shrehdc sg`s sgd Pk`hmsheer gùd l`cd etkk `mc eq`mj chrbknrtqd `mc gùd s`jdm
rhfmhehb`ms shld `mc deenqs sn ots snfdsgdq ` bnloqdgdmrhud qdbnqc vhsg bnlodkkhmf duhcdmbd ne sgd
`kkdfdc Fq`tctkdms Sbgdld.
P`fd: 7
[32\ Whsg qdrodbs sn sgd Mareva rntfgs `f`hmrs QFhud, sgd sdrsr `qd sgd r`ld `r ànud `mc mddc
mns ad qdod`sdc. Tgd duhcdmbd drsàkhrgdr ` prima facie b`rd `r chqdbs o`xldmsr vdqd l`cd eqnl
S`jà sn QFhud `mc $8M USD ne sgnrd etmcr vdqd trdc sn l`jd `m dpthsx hmudrsldms hm C`m`ch`m
Gqnvsg hm dwbg`mfd enq 400,000 rg`qdr. I `bbdos sg`s sgd Pk`hmsheer l`x rteedq hqqdo`qàkd g`ql he
sgnrd rg`qdr `qd chronrdc ne.
[33\ Tgd Pk`hmsheer `mc sgdhq o`qdms bnlo`mx TIC gùd oqnuhcdc `m tmcdqs`jhmf `r sn c`l`fdr
vhsg qdrodbs sn ansg Mareva Oqcdqr rntfgs. TIC•r 2019 hmbnld v`r `klnrs $1B CDN `mc sgdx
`qd sgdqdenqd vdkk àkd sn rs`mc adghmc sgdhq tmcdqs`jhmf.
The Certificate of Pending Litigation
[34\ Tgd Bqhckd P`sg oqnodqsx v`r otqbg`rdc nm Fdaqt`qx 28, 2018 enq $13M CDN b`rg. Is v`r
otqbg`rdc ax 114 vgnrd rnkd chqdbsnq hr Mq. W`hmqhfgs, ` U.S. k`vxdq eqdptdmskx trdc ax Ak Jàqh
`r ` mnlhmdd hm u`qhntr dmshshdr sn gnkc qd`k drs`sd `rrdsr hm sgd U.S. Mq. W`hmqhfgs•r hmunkudldms
hm Ak Jàqh•r qd`k drs`sd gnkchmfr hr lnqd etkkx rds nts hm qdk`shnm sn sgd fqntmcr enq fq`mshmf sgd
Nnqvhbg Oqcdq.
[35\ I ehmc sgdqd hr ` sqhàkd hrrtd vhsg qdrodbs sn ` bnmrsqtbshud sqtrs bk`hldc hm qdk`shnm sn sgd
Bqhckd P`sg Pqnodqsx hm sg`s sgdqd hr ` rsqnmf hmedqdmbd hs v`r otqbg`rdc trhmf lhròoqnoqh`sdc
etmcr. Tgd dpthshdr eùntq fq`mshmf sgd CPL.
The Appointment of a Receiver
[36\ Tgd Pk`hmsheer rddj ` Rdbdhudqrgho Oqcdq nudq sgd Ndv E`rs Cnlo`mhdr hm sgd U.S. (adhmf
dmshshdr admdehbh`kkx nvmdc ax Ak Jàqh) `mc nudq sgd C`m`ch`m Gqnvsg Sg`qdr hm nqcdq sn nas`hm
sgd annjr `mc qdbnqcr ne QFhud.
[37\ Tgd Pk`hmsheer cn mns hmsdmc sn rdkk `rrdsr ax v`x ne sgd Rdbdhudqrgho, nmkx oqdrdqud `rrdsr
hmsn vghbg sgd Pk`hmsheer gùd sq`bdc etmcr hm sgd Fq`tctkdms Sbgdld.
[38\ Ar ` Rdbdhudqrgho hr hmsqtrhud `mc sgtr sn ad trdc ro`qhmfkx, sgd sgqdrgnkc enq `m
òonhmsldms hr ghfg nmd. Im sghr b`rd sgd prima facie b`rd ne eq`tc, `knmf vhsg sgd onrrhahkhsx ne
sgd Pk`hmsheer• qhfgs ne qdbnudqx adhmf ots hm idno`qcx `qd hlonqs`ms bnmrhcdq`shnmr. Hnvdudq, tmcdq
sgd Courts of Justice Act, sgd Cntqs ltrs bnmrhcdq vgdsgdq sgd òonhmsldms hr itrs `mc bnmudmhdms
a`rdc nm sgd e`bst`k bhqbtlrs`mbdr ne sgd b`rd.
[39\ Im sghr b`rd `rrdsr nvmdc ax sgd Ndv E`rs Cnlo`mhdr `qd nmkx admdehbh`kkx nvmdc ax Ak
Jàqh `mc `qd sgdqdenqd `s fqd`sdq qhrj ne chrrho`shnm. Tgd r`ld qhrj ne chrrho`shnm òokhdr sn sgd
C`m`ch`m Gqnvsg rg`qdr. A Rdbdhudqrgho vntkc `krn dmrtqd sg`s sgd rtars`msh`k qdms`k o`xldmsr
hm qdk`shnm sn sgd ktwtqx oqnodqshdr `qd `krn oqnsdbsdc. Tgd qdmsr `qd rhfmhehb`ms vhsg sns`k qdmsr
adhmf hm sgd q`mfd ne $71,500 USD odq lnmsg.
[40\ Fhm`kkx, sgd bnrs ne sgd Rdbdhudq hr adhmf anqmd dmshqdkx ax sgd Pk`hmsheer `s sghr onhms. Tghr
hr mns ` sq`chshnm`k Rdbdhudqrgho hm vghbg sgd Rdbdhudq o`xr hsrdke nts ne sgd `rrdsr ne sgd drs`sd,
mnq cndr sgd Rdbdhudq rddj sn chronrd ne `mx `rrdsr. Tgd Rdbdhudq rddjr sn oqdrdqud `rrdsr `mc
nas`hm ehm`mbh`k qdbnqcr hm nqcdq sn bnlokdsd sgd mdbdrr`qx sq`bhmf.
Page: 8
The Norwich Order
[41] The Plaintiffs seek a Norwich Order over the third parties, documents and materials as set
out in the Order dated January 22, 2021.
[42] The factors for the court to consider with respect to whether to grant such relief are:
(a) Whether there is evidence provided by the Plaintiffs sufficient to raise a valid,
reasonable or bona fide claim;
(b) Whether the evidence establishes that the third parties are involved in the acts
complained of;
(c) Whether the third party is the only practicable source for the information;
(d) Whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which it may become
exposed due to the disclosure, and;
(e) Whether granting such an Order would be in the interests of justice.
[43] As I have already found that the Plaintiffs have met the threshold of a prima facie case,
there is no question that they are able to meet the lower threshold of raising a bona fide claim.
[44] With respect to the second branch of the test, fraudulent schemes necessarily involve
innocent parties such as banks, law firms and accounting firms through which money and
transactions are processed. As set out in Isofoton SA v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2007 CarswellOnt
2741 (Sup Ct) at para 40, innocent parties who become mixed up in tortious acts so as to facilitate
the wrongdoing of others owe a duty to the person wronged to provide information and the identity
of the wrongdoer.
[45] With respect to the law firms involved, the Plaintiffs are seeking only non-privileged
information, understanding that payments in and out of a law firm’s trust account are not
privileged.
[46] Given the above, I am satisfied that the second branch of the test is met and that the
innocent third parties named in the Order have a duty to provide the information sought.
[47] With respect to the third branch of the test, this is not a situation in which the information
can be requested from the impugned parties. Indeed, I have already found that A1 Jabri was likely
to dissipate assets. There is no reason to believe that the other Defendants would not do the same
given their connection or subordination to A1 Jabri.
[48] Finally, the Plaintiffs have agreed to indemnify the Respondents for their reasonable costs
in relation to the Norwich Order. The interests of justice favour granting the Order to permit
Deloitte to continue with its tracing exercise. Persons who engage in fraud cannot hide behind the
confidentiality of banking and lawyers’ records in order to shield their wrongdoing.
P`fd: 9
[49\ Ghudm `kk ne sgd ànud, I ehmc sg`s sgd Oqcdq rntfgs lddsr sgd qdpthqdc sdrs `mc sgd Nnqvhbg
Oqcdq rg`kk hrrtd.
[50\ Tgd o`qshdr rg`kk qdstqm adenqd ld nm Fdaqt`qx 1, 2021 `s 2:00 o.l. enq ` rbgdctkhmf
òonhmsldms.
C. Ghklnqd, J.
N`g`\m`_8 J`mt`qx 27, 2021

?KQNP BEHA JK-8 CV-21-00655418-00CL

@=PA8 20210127
KJP=NEK
OQLANEKN ?KQNP KB FQOPE?A
>APSAAJ8
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA

STAR AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA
AL ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KAFA•AT BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL
COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI
TECHNOLOGY & SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE
CONTROL COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL
COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL
COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING
COMPANY AND SKY PRIME INVESTMENT
COMPANY
Pk`hmsheer
, \i_ ,
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES LTD.,
1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW
EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC,
NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING
LTD., NADYAH SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI,
KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED
SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI,
SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, HISSAH
SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL
JABRI, CANADIAN GROWTH INVESTMENTS
LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC
GLOBAL INC. `mc QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT
INC.
Ddedmc`nts
NA=OKJO KJ EX PARTE KN@ANO
C. Ghklnqd, J.
N`g`\m`_8 J`mt`qx 27, 2021
EXHIBIT 4
#.,)* $+4
%21/" >WZ[]_S& DORO[ AbàWQS :]_e $H:A% 5:]_e(>WZ[]_S7`QX'Q`X(QO6

&*03" D]\ROe& =SP_bO_e +& ,*,+ /3.1 FD
'1" Db\OT D]VO[SR4 8[O\RO DQCOQVZO\4 A]\OaVO\ 9SZZ4 FObZ CS KOe4 EORS_ ?OÒ\4
HaS^VS\ 8eZdO_R4 I][ :b__e4 #O[]S`S_7ZWaWUOaS(Q][#4 Q_OdT]_R `[WaV4 8\R_Sd LW\a]\4
;OcWR HWS_ORfYW
$)" AJH'>'D8>':H;'I]_]\a]'H:A :][[S_QWOZ CWà
&4(-*)3" HOYOP HObRW ?]ZRW\U :][Ô\e Sa OZ( c( HOOR Sa OZ( :]b_a =WZS E]( :K',+'**0//.+1
"3826+0< %++ 1: #2*356+1+27 (+039=
4F;8P @J K?< J:?<;LC@E> ;8K< J<K 9P D< 8E; K?< <OG@IP ;8K< F= K?< &C +89I@ "$+&-$0 K?< 1'@M< "$+&-$0 8E; K?<
2<:<@M<IJ?@G /I;I8EK<; FE +8EL8IP ``Q `^`_S
4?< %<=<E;8EK %IS 388; ,?8C@; 3 "C +89I@ XU%IS 388;VY ?8J 9IFL>?K 8 DFK@FE KF J<K 8J@;< K?< NFIC;N@;< "$+&-$
/I;8@EJK ?@D 8E; K?< #)+.(%' /I;8@EJK M8I@FLJ K?@I; G8IK@<JS )< ;F<J JF FE K?< >IFLE;J K?8K K?<
0C8@EK@==J ?8M< D@JC<; K?< :FLIK 89FLK D8K<I@8C =8:KJS "CK<IE8K@M<CPQ ?< J<<BJ 8 JK8P F= K?FJ< FI;<IJ G<E;@E> 8E
@EK<ICF:LKFIP ?<8I@E> FE K?< "$+&-$ 8E; #)+.(%' /I;<IJS .IS -< 68P JL9D@KJ K?8K K?@J D8KK?K KF 9< ;@J:CFJ<; GI<J<EKJ 8 G<IJFE8C J<:LI@KP I@JB KF ?@J :C@<EK N?F ?8J 8CI<8;P 9<<E K8I><K<;
9P K?< :LII<EK 38L;@ I<>@D<S )< J<<BJ ?@J I<C@<= GLIJL8EK KF 2LC< agS^_ FE K?< 98J@J K?8K K?< :FLIK ?8J 9<<E
D8K<I@8CCP D@JC<; 8E; K?8K ?@J :C@<EK ?8J K?< I@>?K KF J<<EK 98J@JS "EP
FK?><JK<; GIF:<;LI< @J LE=8@I KF %IS 388; 8J K?< K@D< KF GI<G8I< =FI 8 =LCC @EK<ICF:LKFIP DFK@FE NFLC; 9<
N<<BJS
4?< %<=<E;8EKJ $(*Q (IPG?FE 8E; *E=FJ<: XUK?< $8E8;@8E $FDG8E@<JVY ?8M< 8CJF 9IFL>?K 8 DFK@FE KF J<K 8J@;<
K?< +8EL8IP ``Q `^`_ #)+.(%' /I;8K@FE I<C8K@E> KF K?FJ< :FDG8E@<J FI K?<@I JL9J@;@8I@<JS
.IS $LIIP ;F<J EFK 8:K =FI 1cQ ?FN<M<IQ K?<I< 8I< 8CC<>8K@FEJ K?8K =LE;J 8CC<><;CP D@J8GGIFGI@8K<; 9P K?<
%<=<E;8EKJ KFK8C@E> @E K?< I8E>< F= [_dS_c. :8E 9< KI8:<; @EKF K?< $8E8;@8E $FDG8E@<JS 4?< 1c J?8I<J ?8M<
9<<E JFC; 8E; JFD< =@E8E:@8C @E=FID8K@FE =IFD $(* ?8J 8CI<8;P 9<<E GIFM@;<; KF K?< 2<:<@M<IS )FN<M<IQ K?<I<
I<D8@EJ 8 :FE:<IE 89FLK E8K@FE8C J<:LI@KP @JJL<J N@K? I<JG<:K KF :FE=@;<EK@8C @E=FID8K@FE @E I<C8K@FE KF =FI<@>E
>FM<IED<EKJ K?8K :FLC; 9< ;@J:CFJ<; 8J 8 I<JLCK F= K?< #)+.(%' /I;<IS *= K?< /I;<I @J KF :FEK@EL< K?<I< DLJK 9<
8E /I;<I KF <EJLI< K?8K 8EP J<EJ@K@M< @E=FID8K@FE K?8K @J :FCC8K<I8C KF K?< 0C8@EK@==JT @EK<EK@FE J?FLC; 9<
GI<J<IM<; 8E; GIFK<:K<;S
.IS .F?8D<; FE 9<?8C= F= K?< 0C8@EK@==J JL9D@KJ K?8K %IS 388;TJ :FE:<IEJ 89FLK ?@J G<IJFE8C J<:LI@KP 8I< D<I<CP
8 :FEJKIL:K >@M<E K?8K %IS 388; ;@; EFK ?<J@K8K< KF JL< K?< 38L;@ I<>@D< @E 8 C8NJL@K N?@:? @J FE>F@E> @E K?< 5S3S
.IS .F?8D<; N@CC :FDGCP N@K? 8EP J:?<;LC< J<K 9P K?< :FLIK 9LK I<D@E;J K?8K :FLIK K?8K 8E @EK<I@D JK8P N@CC
LE;<ID@E< K?< @E=<I<E:<J ;I8NE @E K?< I<8JFEJ =FI K?< M8I@FLJ &/1*$+,& /I;<IJ I<C<8J<; FE +8EL8IP èQ `^`_S )<
GF@EKJ FLK K?8K @K N@CC 9< ;@==@:LCK =FI K?< :FLIK KF J<K 8J@;< K?< /I;<IJ 8J I<HL<JK<; N@K?FLK =LIK? K?< :FLIK KF D8B< =@E;@E>J 8J KF N?8K @J I<C<M8EK 8E; D8K<I@8C =FI K?< J<K 8J@;< DFK@FES
* 8>I<< N@K? .IS .F?8D<;S 4?<I< @J FM<IN?<CD@E> <M@;<E:< F= =I8L; K?8K ?8J 9<<E GI<J<EK<; KF :FLIKS *E
I<JGFEJ<Q * ?8M< 8E 8==@;8M@K =IFD %IS 388;TJ JFE N?@:? @J DFI< F= 8 GFC@K@:8C KI<8K@J< K?8E 8EP :FE:I<K< I<JGFEJ<
KF K?< J<I@FLJ 8CC<>8K@FEJ I8@J<;S %IS 388; ?8J 8GG8I<EKCP ?@I<; `b ?FLI J<:LI@KP KF ;<8C N@K? :FE:<IEJ 89FLK ?@J
G<IJFE8C J8=<KPS #<=FI< * :8E J<K 8J@;< FI JK8P 8EP /I;<IJQ DFI< @E=FID8K@FE @J I<HL@I<; KF J8K@J=P K?< :FLIK K?8K
@K N8J D@JC<; @E D8B@E> K?< /I;<IJ F= +8EL8IP ``Q `^`_S 4?< J:?<;LC< F= 8CC AL;><J FE K?< $FDD<I:@8C -@JK @J
"
:LII<EKCP 8CI<8;P FM<I<OK<E;<;S )FN<M<IQ >@M<E K?< LI><E:P F= K?@J D8KK<IQ K?< K@D< I<HL@I<;Q 8E; K?< 98C8E:<
KF 9< :FEJ@;<I<; N@K? I<JG<:K KF AL;@:@8C 8M8@C89@C@KP * D8B< K?< =FCCFN@E> /I;<IJR
_S 4?< &/1*$+,& /I;<IJ ;8K<; +8EL8IP ``Q `^`_ J?8CC 9< <OK<E;<; KF '<9IL8IP _gQ `^`_S
B= &.+ 1'77+5 6.'00 453)++* (: 9': 3, ' ,800 *': .+'5/2- )311+2)/2- '7 A@<AE '=1= 32 $+(58'5: AI; B@BA=
C= 4?< DFM@E> G8IK@<J X%IS 388; 8E; K?< $8E8;@8E $FDG8E@<JY J?8CC =@C< K?<@I DFK@FE D8K<I@8C 9P '<9IL8IP cQ
`^`_S * ;F EFK I<JKI@:K K?< I<C@<= JFL>?K 9P K?< DFM@E> G8IK@<J 9LK I<D@E; K?<D K?8K EF DFI< K?8E FE< ;8P @J
8CCFKK<; KF K?@J D8KK<IS
D= 4?< 0C8@EK@==J J?8CC =@C< K?<@I I<JGFE;@E> D8K<I@8C 9P '<9IL8IP _^Q `^`_S
E= 4?< DFM@E> G8IK@<J KF =@C< 8EP I<GCP D8K<I@8C 9P '<9IL8IP _`Q `^`_S
F= $IFJJW<O8D@E8K@FEJQ @= 8EPQ KF 9< :FE;L:K<; FE '<9IL8IP _c 8E; _dQ `^`_S
G= '8:K8 KF 9< <O:?8E><; FE '<9IL8IP _fQ `^`_S
H= .IS $LIIP KF @;<EK@=P 8EP J<EJ@K@M< D8K<I@8C N?@:? @J ;@J:CFJ<; 9P ?@J :C@<EKJ 8E; JL:? ;@J:CFJLI< J?8CC 9< =FI
:FLEJ<CJT <P<J FECP LEK@C =LIK? 8::<JJ KF :FLIK D8K<I@8C 8E; K?< ;8K< =FI K?@J DFK@FES *= K?<I<
@J :FE=@;<EK@8C D8K<I@8C KF 9< =@C<; @E JLGGFIK F= 8EP DFK@FEQ * D8P 9< JGFB<E KF N@K? I<JG<:K KF 8 J<8C@E> /I;<IS
4?< D<;@8Q @= K? 8E; 7FFD 8::<JJS
'<9IL8IP _Q `^`_
',.,6 &=;<3-/ #8:? "A %3568:/

(7<,:38 )=9/:38: #8=:< 80 &=;<3-/
EHD +73>/:;3<? ">/7=/
F<2 $588:
*8:87<8@ (7<,:38
'G% D*E
-8:?A13568:/C;-4B-;4A-,
#
EXHIBIT 5
CITATION: Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, 2021 ONSC 1772

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655418-00CL
DATE: 20210311
ONTARIO
BETWEEN: )
)
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA )
STAR AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ) Munaf Mohamed Q.C., Amanda C.
ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND ) McLachlan and Jonathan Bell, for the
?@Q@GJKH@IO >JHK<IS* F<A<u<O =PNDI@NN ) Plaintiffs
SOLUTIONS COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL )
COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY INDUSTRIAL )
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI )
TECHNOLOGY & SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE )
CONTROL COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL )
COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING )
COMPANY AND SKY PRIME INVESTMENT )
COMPANY )
)
Plaintiffs )
)
D and D )
)
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS ) Paul Le Vay, Nader Hasan, Stephen
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES LTD., ) Aylward, and Luisa Ritacca for the
1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW ) Defendant Saad Khalid S Al Jabri
EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC, )
NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., )
NADYAH SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID )
SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH ) J. Thomas Curry, Andrew Moeser, Scott
AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, SULAIMAN Azzopardi and Sahar Talebi for the
)
SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL Defendants Canadian Growth Investment
)
JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, Limited, Gryphon Secure Inc. and Infosec
)
CANADIAN GROWTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED, Global Inc.
)
GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL INC. )
and QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC. )
)
)
Defendants
)
)
) HEARD: February 19, 2021
C. GILMORE, J.
Page: 2
RULING ON SET ASIDE MOTIONS
OVERVIEW
[1] In the motions before the court, the Defendant Saad Khalid A1 Jabri (“Dr. Saad”) and the
Corporate Defendants Canadian Growth Investments Limited, Gryphon Secure Inc., and Infosec
Global Inc. (the “Canadian Companies”) seek to set aside certain Orders made by this court on an
ex-parte basis, on January 22, 2021 and continued on February 1 and 19, 2021.
[2] These motions are but one initial step in what will likely be lengthy and complex litigation.
The court is not being asked in these motions to make any findings at to whether or not a fraud
was perpetrated on the Plaintiffs. Rather, the court is being asked whether assets and documents
alleged to be part of that fraud should be frozen and/or disclosed pending discovery and trial. As
will be set out below, it is this court’s view that some of the current Orders should stay in place
but with various modifications.
[3] Those Orders (referred to herein as the “Orders”) granted detailed and wide-ranging relief
on a without notice basis. The Orders may be summarized as follows:
a. A Mareva injunction against Dr. Saad restraining him from dissipating any
worldwide assets he owns in his own name or jointly, or over which he has power
or control. The Orders also required Dr. Saad to prepare a sworn statement of all of
his worldwide assets within 10 days and to submit to an examination on that
declaration.
b, A Norwich Order requiring certain banking, legal and accounting firms worldwide
to provide various listed disclosure from certain listed Defendants for tracing
purposes and requesting judicial assistance in the enforcement of the Order.
c. A Mareva Order restraining the Defendant QFive from dissipating or encumbering

400,000 common shares of the Defendant Canadian Growth Investments Ltd.
(“CGI”) and requiring that any banks served with the Order prevent any removal
or transfer of the shares held in any account on behalf of QFive.
d. A Receivership Order limited to certain properties located in Boston and

Washington, D.C., as well as the 400,000 common shares in CGI.
e. A Certificate of Pending Litigation over the property municipally known as 14 The

Bridle Path, Toronto, Ontario.
[4] The specific motions, argued before the court on February 19, 2021, are as follows:
Dr. Saad's Motion:
a. Dr. Saad seeks to set aside the ex-parte Orders on the grounds that
Page: 3
i. the Plaintiffs misled the court respecting material facts or failed to disclose
material facts;
ii. i]Zn h]djaY WZ hZi Vh^YZ eZcY^c\ V YZiZgb^cVi^dc d[ i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu bdi^dc id
continue the Orders on an interlocutory basis; or
iii. they should be varied to stay ec[dgXZbZci eZcY^c\ i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu bdi^dc id
continue as set out above.
The Motion of the Canadian Companies:
a. An Order setting aside the Norwich Order as it relates to the Canadian Companies
or, in the alternative, an Order varying the Norwich Order to remove any disclosure
obligations relating to the Canadian Companies and affected subsidiaries or to stay
the enforcement of those obligations;
b. An Order varying the Norwich Order of Hainey J. dated December 18, 2020, to
remove any disclosure obligations related to the Canadian Companies and affected
subsidiaries or stay the enforcement of those obligations;
c. An Order setting aside the Receivership Order or to stay the enforcement of the
Receivership Order with respect to any CGI shares;
d. A Sealing Order and/or Confidentiality Order sealing or restricting the disclosure

of any information obtained by the Norwich Order with respect to the Canadian
>dbeVc^Zh VcY Vcn V[[ZXiZY hjWh^Y^Vg^Zh* ^cXajY^c\ egdk^h^dc d[ V >djchZahu @nZh
Only designation to protect the information from being used for any purpose other
than this proceeding;
e. Further relief related to relieving the Canadian Companies, their affected

subsidiaries and certain banking institutions of their obligations under the Norwich
Order; and/or
f. Restraining the Plaintiffs from taking steps to obtain aid and recognition of the
Norwich Order outside of Ontario until there is a final determination of this matter.
CNK ?RGOTYOLLX` <UYOUT.
a. An Order extending the three ex-parte Orders made on January 22, 2021 and
extended on February 1 and 19, 2021;
b. An Order varying the Mareva Order to include the Defendant Mohammed Saad
FC <a EVWg^ (rHd]VbbZY Al EVWg^s)9
c. An Order requesting the court to sign letters of request to the relevant judicial
Vji]dgî^Zh d[ i]Z =gî^h] Q^g\^c DhaVcYh (r=QDs)* i]Z PcîZY F^c\Ydb (rP,F,s) VcY
Page: 4
Guernsey for judicial assistance to compel authorities to comply with the January
22, 2021 Norwich Order;
d. A declaration that the deemed undertaking rule does not apply to documents
obtained through the Norwich JgYZg VcY id ?g, NVVYuh ?ZXaVgVi^dc d[ <hhZih VcY
Supplementary Statement of Assets; and
e. An Order that the confidentiality provisions of paragraph 4 of the Extension Order

no longer apply.
[5] It should be noted that the motion to vary the Mareva Order to include Mohammed Al Jabri
did not proceed on February 19, 2021. Mohammed Al Jabriuh counsel appeared and sought an
adjournment as Mohammed Al Jabri intends to challenge the jurisdiction of this court to make any
order that is binding on him. Mohammed Al Jabriuh XdjchZa hjWbîiZY i]Vi ]^h Xa^Zci gZh^YZh ^c i]Z
U.K. and has no connection to Ontario. This is contested by the Plaintiffs.
[6] By way of my endorsement dated February 20, 2021, I adjourned that motion and will deal
with it in my reasons herein.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[7] In addition to the background facts set out below, the court relies on background facts set
out in my reasons dated January 27, 2021 and the endorsement dated February 1, 2021.
[8] O]Z KaV^ci^[[ XdbeVc^Zh (i]Z rBgdje >dbeVc^Zhs) lZgZ ZhiVWa^h]ZY WZilZZc 0..5 VcY
2015 and operate in strategic industries, such as aerospace and cybersecurity. They also funded
covert operations and served as commercial fronts for counterterrorism operations. The Group
Companies operated legitimate businesses to provide plausible public cover for these activities.
[9] Dr. Saad is a highly educated individual and served for decades as a senior civil servant in
the securitn VcY ^ciZaa^\ZcXZ V\ZcX^Zh d[ i]Z F^c\Ydb d[ NVjY^ <gVW^V (i]Z rFN<s), CZ hZgkZY Vh
a Minister of State and as a Special Advisor to Mohammed Bin IVnZ[ (rH=Is)* i]Z [dgbZg >gdlc
Prince and Minister of the Interior.
[10] In 2015, MBN was named Minister of the Interior and King Salman acceded to the throne
dc F^c\ <WYjaaV]uh YZVi], Jc EVcjVgn 01* 0./3* i]Z XjggZci >gdlc Kg^cXZ* Hd]VbbZY Bin
NVabVc (rH=Ns) (F^c\ NVabVcuh hdc VcY H=Iuh Xdjh^c)* lVh Veed^ciZY H^c^hiZg d[ ?Z[ZcXZ Vi
age 29.
[11] On April 29, 2015, MBN was named Crown Prince and MBS was named Deputy Crown
Prince. In September 2015 Dr. Saad was removed from office at the instance of MBS. The reason
[dg i]Z gZbdkVa ^h ^c Y^hejiZ, O]Z KaV^ci^[[hu edhî^dc ^h i]Vi i]Z gZbdkVa lVh gZaViZY id i]Z
discovery of Dr. NVVYuh [gVjYjaZci VXi^kîn, ?g, NVVY hjWbîh i]Vi î lVh WZXVjhZ ]Z bZi lî] i]Z
CIA Director at that time in the U.S. and did not report that meeting to MBS. Apparently, MBS
felt that Dr. Saad had exceeded his authority in meeting with the CIA Director.
Page: 5
[12] In late 2015, Dr. Saad applied for Maltese citizenship and left the KSA for Turkey in May
2017. He received Maltese citizenship in August 2017.
[13] In June 2017, MBS texted Dr. Saad and requested that he return to the KSA. Dr. Saad did
not return citing health reasons.
[14] In June 2017, there was a palace coup in which MBN was deposed as Crown Prince and
MBS was named as Crown Prince. MBN was placed under house arrest and texted Dr. Saad shortly
thereafter warning him not to return to the KSA. MBN was arrested about a year ago on charges
of treason and has not been seen since.
[15] Jc EjcZ 0/* 0./5* ?g, NVVYuh X]âYgZc JbVg VcY NVgV] lZgZ egZkZciZY [gdb aZVk^c\ i]Z
KSA. In September 2017, Dr. Saad texted MBS requesting that he allow Omar and Sarah to leave
the KSA in order to return to school in the U.S. MBS refused and advised Dr. Saad that he must
return to the KSA to answer questions related to corruption, failing which MBS would file a
complaint with Interpol. In September 2020, Sarah and Omar were charged with international
money laundering and attempting to flee the KSA unlawfully. In November 2020, they were
convicted and commenced appeals of the convictions immediately thereafter.
[16] Dc <j\jhi 0./5* H=N Vh >]V^g d[ i]Z FN< KjWa^X DckZhibZci AjcY (rKDAs) gZiV^cZY @gcst
& Sdjc\ (r@Ss) id egdk^YZ V kVajVi^dc gZedgi dc i]Z Bgdje >dbeVc^Zh,
[17] In September 2017, the KSA Public Prosecution issued a warrant for the arrest of Dr. Saad.
It was alleged that Dr. Saad received profits from the Group Companies by way of an abuse of
power for personal financial gain and by placing the companies in the name of his nephew Majid
Almuzaini and his friend Abdullah Alswelam. These allegations are different from the ones
originally made by MBS for the removal of Dr. Saad from his government position in 2015. Two
weeks after the arrest warrant for Dr. Saad was issued, EY published a draft report dated September
25, 2017 highlighting financial irregularities within the Group Companies.
[18] In September 2017, Dr. Saad relocated to Toronto. The Plaintiffs submit this was because
Dr. Saad was attempting to avoid the fraud allegations. Dr. Saad submits that he relocated to
Toronto believing it would be safer for him and his family.
[19] In November 2017, MBS created the Supreme Anti-Corruption Committee (rN<>>s) d[
which he is the Chair. The purpose of the committee is to investigate, freeze assets or take any
other necessary measures to deal with corruption. In that same month, the bank accounts of Dr.
Saad and his family in the KSA were frozen and Dr. NVVYuh ^ckZhi^\Vi^dc lVh eaVXZY jcYZg i]Z
purview of the SACC.
[20] On December 24, 2017, MBS ordered the transfer of the ownership of the Group
>dbeVc^Zh id i]Z KDA VcY OV]V`db DckZhibZci >dbeVcn (rOD>s) lVh XgZViZY, O]Z Bgdje
Companies were then transferred to TIC, which is owned by PIF.
[21] Jc EVcjVgn 7* 0./6* NVjY^ <gVW^V ^hhjZY Vc DciZgeda rMZY Idi^XZs V\V^chi ?g, NVVY Xî^c\
VaaZ\Vi^dch d[ Xdggjei^dc, Pedc ?g, NVVYuh Veea^XVi^dc* i]Z MZY Idi^XZ lVh gZbdkZY dc i]Z
grounds that it was politically motivated.
Page: 6
[22] In May 2018, PIF retained Deloitte to conduct a forensic examination of the Group
Companies. Deloitte reports were released in October 2018 and December 2019. In September
0.0.* ?ZadîiZ lVh gZiV^cZY Wn =ZccZii EdcZh (i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu XdjchZa) dc WZ]Va[ d[ OD> to conduct
a further analysis. In October 2020, the CEO of TIC sought access to the criminal investigation
[âZh [gdb i]Z FN< KjWa^X KgdhZXji^dc J[[^XZ (ri]Z KKJs) id Vhh^hi ^c i]Z [gVjY ^ckZhi^\Vi^dc, O]Z
PPO required a Court Order. On December 18, 2020 the Plaintiffs received a Norwich Order from
this court requiring the PPO to produce its investigation file to the Plaintiffs. On December 24,
2020, the PPO produced its investigative file. On January 18, 2021, Deloitte produced the report
that is before this court. The Plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief immediately, following the
delivery of the Deloitte report.
[23] In October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey,
while trying to obtain documents for his upcoming marriage. The investigation is ongoing, but
sources claim that MBS was behind the murder because Khashoggi was a prominent critic of the
NVjY^ gZ\^bZ, O]Z NVjY^ \dkZgcbZci YZhXg^WZY i]Z ZkZci Vh V rgd\jZ deZgVi^dcs VcY H=N ]Vh
denied involvement. In that same month, certain individuals whom Dr. Saad claims were members
d[ i]Z rO^\Zg NfjVY*s l]d ]VY VaaZ\ZYan VhhVhh^cViZY Hg, F]Vh]d\\^* lZgZ ijgcZY VlVn Vi i]Z
Ottawa airport. Dr. Saad claims they were sent to assassinate him. In December 2020, RCMP
agents met with Dr. Saad in Toronto to advise of a high threat level against his life.
[24] The Canadian Companies and QFive are Ontario corporations that allegedly received funds
misappropriated from the Plaintiffs. Relief was sought against QFive because funds traced directly
from the Plaintiffs into QFive were used to purchase 400,000 shares of CGI.
[25] O]Z ?Z[ZcYVci ?gZVbh DciZgcVi^dcVa <Yk^hdgn NZgk^XZh GiY, (r?gZVbh DciZgcVi^dcVas) ^h V
BVI corporation. The Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Saad is the ultimate beneficial owner of Dreams
International.
[26] The Defendant Jaalik Contracting Ltd. is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws
d[ FN<, O]Z KaV^ci^[[h VaaZ\Z i]Vi ?g, NVVY ^h EVVa^` >dcigVXi^c\ GiY,uh WZcZ[^X^Va dlcZg,
[27] The other defendants are family members of Dr. Saad, including his spouse and children.
They are alleged to have participated in the alleged fraud by serving as nominee shareholders and
directors of various corporations and by allegedly receiving misappropriated funds (often when
still minors).
[28] The Group Companies are ten Plaintiff companies who are members of a group of 17 KSA
XdbeVc^Zh, @VX] d[ i]Zb XaV^bh id ]VkZ hj[[ZgZY V adhh YjZ id i]Z ?Z[ZcYVcihu VaaZ\ZY [gVjY,
[29] On February 1, 2021, Dr. Saad delivered a declaration of assets to the Plaintiffs in
accordance with the January 22, 2021 Mareva Order. Dr. Saad delivered a supplementary
declaration of assets on February 11, 2021 and was examined on those declarations on February
11, 2021.
Page: 7
THE SET ASIDE MOTION ON THE MAREVA AND NORWICH ORDERSETHE

DEFENDANT DR. SAAD
Positions of the Parties
The Defendant Dr. Saad
[30] ?g, NVVYuh edhî^dc ^h i]Vi i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu bdi^dch lZgZ Zci^gZan ^cVeegdeg^ViZ ^c i]Z XdciZmi
of ex-parte proceedings and that the Plaintiffs failed to make the necessary full and frank
disclosure. SjX] Y^hXadhjgZ ^cXajYZh VYk^h^c\ i]Z Xdjgi d[ [VXih ZmeaV^c^c\ ?g, NVVYuh edhî^dc Vh
well as any legal defences he may have raised. Dr. Saad submits that the Plaintiffs completely
failed in this regard and the Orders should be set aside.
[31] Dr. Saad submits that the Plaintiffs have breached the duty of full and fair disclosure by
failing to present the case in a balanced and forthright manner and bring to the attention of the
court certain key information which may have made a difference in the outcome. Even if such
information would not have made a difference in the outcome, the fact that it was not raised by the
Plaintiffs at the ex parte hearing is fatal and sufficient to have the Orders set aside.
[32] According to Dr. Saad, this is not a commercial dispute at all. It is a politically driven
attack, masterminded by MBS through state-owned companies that he directly or indirectly
Xdcigdah, ?g, NVVYuh X]âYgZc JbVg VcY NVgV] ]VkZ WZZc VggZhiZY* YZiV^cZY VcY ig^ZY lî]dji YjZ
legal process, and he has been the subject of assassination attempts in Ontario. The court did not
mention any of this in its Reasons with respect to granting the subject Orders because the court
was not made aware of these allegations.
[33] Counsel for Dr. Saad urges the Court to take judicial notice of the political situation in the
KSA and cites authorities for this. Where the court is unable to take judicial notice, counsel urges
i]Z Xdjgi id gZan dc ?g, NVVYuh ZmeZgihu gZedgih,
[34] Dr. Saad agrees that as a highly placed civil servant he received large patronage gifts from
the Royal Family. However, he maintains that this is an accepted custom in the KSA, despite civil
servant salary limits. The patronage gifts were considered rewards for his loyalty and as a sign of
favour from the King.
[35] Dr. Saad denies that he was removed from office because of any wrongdoing. Rather, he
was removed because of a meeting with the CIA, which King Salman viewed as exceeding his
authority and believed should have been reported.
[36] Counsel for Dr. Saad emphasized that the Plaintiffs failed to present to the court key facts
relating to the transfer of the Group Companies id KDA Wn H=N ^c AZWgjVgn 0./6 VcY H=Nuh
ultimate control over PIF. The nexus between MBS and the Group Companies was not sufficiently
highlighted by the Plaintiffs and the events of February 2018 (re the transfer of the companies to
KDA) lVh cdi eVgi d[ i]Z VcVanh^h egdk^YZY Wn i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu ZmeZgi,
Page: 8
[37] Further, it is alleged that the court was not given full details about the SACC, its extensive
powers and how the SACC, under the control of MBS, ordered the transfer of the Group
Companies id KDA, O]Z KaV^ci^[[hu ZmeZgi YdZh cdi YZVa lî] i]Z Zk^YZcXZ egZhZciZY Wn ?g, NVVY
head-on and does not address what is actually transpiring in the KSA. What should have been
]^\]a^\]iZY id i]Z Xdjgi lVh H=Nuh de facto control of the Plaintiff companies and that he was
behind the seizure of the PIF.
[38] Dr. Saad relies on three main areas of non-disclosure: the failure to disclose the
involvement of MBS in this proceeding, the failure to disclose the Interpol decision and the failure
to disclose the U.S. litigation.
[39] In this motion, Dr. Saad relies on three sources of evidence: an affidavit from his son Dr.
F]Va^Y <a EVWg^ (r?g, <a EVWg^s)* V XVgY^dad\^hi l]d gZh^YZh ^c i]Z P,N,9 Vc V[[^YVkî-ZmeZgiuh gZedgi
[gdb EdhZe] =aVX`* V [dgbZg ?^gZXidg d[ i]Z >D<uh >djciZgiZggdg^hb >ZciZg9 VcY i]Z ZmeZgi gZedgi
d[ >]^Wa^ HVaaVi (Hg, HVaaVis)* V G^WnVc aVlnZg VcY aVl egd[Zhhdg l]d egdk^YZh Vc ZmeZgi de^c^dc
dc H=Nuh gdaZ ^c the government and state-owned entities and the likelihood that MBS was
involved in the commencement of the Ontario litigation.
1. The Affidavit of Dr. Al Jabri
[40] Dr. Al Jabri explained that he provided his affidavit on behalf of his father because of his
[Vi]Zguh [ZVg d[ ejghjî [gdb V\Zcih d[ H=N l]d lâa ViiZbei id VhhVhh^cViZ ]^b ^c >VcVYV, CZ
deposes that it is his view, as well as that of his father, that this proceeding is being used by MBS
to obtain information about Dr. Saad in order facilitate his assassination.
[41] Dr. Al Jabri explained that as a senior member of the Royal Court, his father received
patronage gifts from the Royal Family as a sign of favour and as a reward for his loyalty. These
included gifts of approximately $14.7M USD in 2015 alone.
[42] Dr. Al Jabri further deposed that that he believes MBS views his father as a threat to U.S.
support for his ascension to the throne due to sensitive information that Dr. Saad has about MBS
VcY ?g, NVVYuh XadhZ i^Zh id i]Z P,N, DciZaa^\ZcXZ Xdbbjcîn,
[43] After Dr. Saad left the KSA for Turkey in May 2017, MBS sent him several text messages,
only days before he ousted MBN, requesting that he return to the KSA. Dr. Al Jabri speculates that
MBS wanted his father to return to the KSA to coincide with his assumption of power as Crown
Kg^cXZ* bZVc^c\ ]^h [Vi]Zg ldjaY WZ hjW_ZXi id H=Nuh Xdcigda, Di lVh VgdjcY i]^h hVbZ i^bZ i]Vi
Dr. Saad received a text message from MBN warning him not to return.
[44] Further, according to texts sent to Dr. Saad, MBS refused to deal with the issue of Sarah
VcY JbVguh gZijgc id i]Z P,N, [dg hX]dda jcaZhh ?g, NVVY gZijgcZY id i]Z FN<, ?g, <a EVWg^ YZedhZY
that Sarah and Omar were being used as bargaining chips to entice his father to return to the KSA.
Page: 9
[45] Dr. Al Jabri excerpted a certain text message sent to his father which threatened legal action
if his father did not return to the KSA:
Doctor, you are involved in many large cases of corruption that have been proven.
You know what they are. There are also other cases. The legal complaint is ready.
There is no state in the world that would refuse to turn you over.
?dcui force me to escalate things and take legal measures, as well as other measures
that would be harmful to you. I am trying to save i]Z hiViZuh reputation, as well as
the reputations of its previous officials, especially insofar as you were among
[MBN] close associates.
You have two choices. The first is to return to the Kingdom, where you will be
placed under house arrest until you answer some questions that relate to issues of
corruption, after which you will be released and will be free to go wherever you
want inside the Kingdom. The other choice is for us to pursue you legally, and by
using all available means. We shall certainly reach you, because justice is with
us. The choice is yours.
I have promised you and offered you something that is unimaginably generous.
Do not waste this opportunity. I am being completely transparent with you. You
have one hour to decide. After that, the official document will be lodged with
Interpol and be communicated to all states of the world.
[46] According to Dr. Al Jabri, his father later learned that Interpol had issued a Red Notice on
January 9, 2018, at the request of the National Central Bureau of Interpol of Saudi Arabia. Dr.
NVVY Veea^ZY id i]Z >dbb^hh^dc [dg i]Z >dcigda d[ DciZgedauh AâZh (r>>As) to have the Red Notice
removed. Ultimately the Red Notice was removed.
[47] Dr. Al Jabri specified that the corruption allegations, reviewed in the CCF decision, bear a
striking resemblance to the allegations in these proceedings:
In Riyadh in 2015-2016, Saad ALJABRI held a position of authority in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, during which he committed an abuse of power,
embezzlement of public funds, and money laundering. He was able to flee the
country prior to his arrest. Investigations into auditing papers related to public
funds revealed strong elements of the involvement of the individual, with a number
of public employees entrusted with public funds, in illegitimate financial gain.
Investigations into these financial transactions show the embezzlement of large
sums of public funds by him with these employees.
[48] In the end, the CCF determined, in a decision released on July 20, 2018, that the Red Notice
be removed. It observed in its findings that anti-corruption proceedings in the KSA had been the
hdjgXZ d[ Xgî^X^hb VcY jhZY rVh eVgi d[ V edaî^XVa higViZ\n Wn H=N id iVg\Zi Vcn ediZci^Va edaî^XVa
g^kVa dg deedhî^dcpVcY [jgi]Zg Xdchda^YViZ ]^h VagZVYn Zm^hi^c\ edaî^XVa VcY ZXdcdb^X edlZg,s
O]Z >>A Vahd gZbVg`ZY dc i]Z gZhig^Xi^kZ bZVhjgZh iV`Zc V\V^chi ?g, NVVYuh [Vbân bZbWZgh*
VhhZgi^c\ i]Vi i]Z XVhZ V\V^chi ?g, NVVY lVh redaî^XVaan bdi^kViZY gVi]Zg i]Vc hig^Xian _jg^Y^XVa,s
Page: 10
[49] Dr. Al Jabri also gave evidence about ongoing safety concerns related to his family. He
deposed that he had been taken aside at Boston Logan International Airport by FBI agents who
warned him of risks to his safety and that of his father and family, related to MBS, and that the
FBI was taking measures to protect his family.
[50] ?g, <a EVWg^ bZci^dcZY i]Z `âa^c\ d[ EVbVa F]Vh]d\\^ dc JXidWZg 0* 0./6* VcY i]Z >D<uh
XdcXajh^dc ^c IdkZbWZg 0./6 i]Vi H=N dgYZgZY F]Vh]d\\ûh VhhVhh^cVi^dc, ?g, NVVY idaY ]^h hdc
that within days of t]Z cZlh d[ F]Vh]d\\ûh bjgYZg* ]Z aZVgcZY i]Vi V\Zcih d[ H=N ]VY WZZc
dispatched to kill him in Canada. The agents were stopped by Canada Border Services Control but
the RCMP is continuing its investigation. Dr. Al Jabri was interviewed as recently as December 1,
2020, by the RCMP about this matter. Dr. Saad has had 24-hour physical security at his home
since July 2020, when he was advised that the threat level to his life remained high.
[51] Di ^h ?g, <a EVWg^ VcY ?g, NVVYuh WZa^Z[ i]Vi JbVg VcY NVgV] VgZ WZ^c\ kept in the KSA to
punish Dr. Saad for refusing to return to the KSA when MBS demanded that he do so.
[52] In August 2020, Dr. Saad commenced a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Columbia
(i]Z r>dbeaV^cis) hZZ`^c\ gZa^Z[ jcYZg i]Z Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort
Statute, alleging that MBS had made death threats against Dr. Saad, unlawfully detained his family
members in the KSA and has dispatched agents to collect information about Dr. Saad in order to
assassinate him.
[53] On October 8, 2020, MBS submitted a request for a Suggestion of Immunity to the
Department of State and on December 7, 2020, MBS filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that the U.S. lacks jurisdiction over him. A hearing date for the Motion to Dismiss has
not yet been set.
[54] Dr. Al Jabri submits that this litigation is not an actual commercial dispute but is simply
Vcdi]Zg d[ H=Nuh ViiZbeih id eZghZXjiZ VcY ejc^h] ]^h eZgXZ^kZY deedcZcih* ^c i]^h XVhZ* ?g, NVVY
and his family. For example, it is important for the court to understand that TIC is wholly owned
by PIF, and PIF is controlled by MBS. Further, the Plaintiff companies were formerly controlled
Wn H=I l]d Y^Y cdi raZVkZ ]^h edhî^dchs ^c 0./5 Vh XaV^bZY Wn i]Z KaV^ci^[[h, MVi]Zg* H=I lVh
forcibly removed from his position in government and as Crown Prince by MBS. He was arrested
by MBS in March 2020 and has not been seen since.
[55] Dr. Al Jabri alleges that the Plaintiffs did not properly explain to the court at the ex-parte
hearing that PIF lVh cdi rigVch[ZggZYs id OD>* î lVh Zmegdeg^ViZY Wn H=N ejghjVci id V MdnVa
Directive. Further, the assertion by the Plaintiffs that PIF is an independent sovereign wealth fund
is simply false. Dr. Al Jabri cites a 2019 report from the German Institute for International and
NZXjgîn <[[V^gh l]^X] hiViZh i]Vi H=N rZmZgih bVhh^kZ ^c[ajZcXZ dc i]Z YVn-to-day business of
i]Z KDAs l]dhZ WdVgY bZbWZgh VgZ Veed^ciZY Wn H=N WVhZY dc ri]Z^g eZghdcVa egdm^bîn id i]Z
Xgdlc eg^cXZ,s
Page: 11
[56] Dr. Al Jabri attempts to clarify in his court material why his father left the KSA and certain
actions he has taken with respect to his property. These actions were not motivated by attempts to
cover up any fraud as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Rather, they were intended by Dr. Saad to protect
himself and his family.
[57] It is not the case, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, that Dr. Saad left the KSA to avoid an
investigation. The court was not provided with the alternative explanation in the Complaint which
is that Dr. Saad fled the KSA for reasons related to his personal safety.
[58] Dr. Saad did not attempt to conceal ownership of the Bridle Path property because it was
purchased with misappropriated funds. The court was not provided with the actual explanation
which was that Dr. Saad put the property in the name of a corporation to avoid detection through
public search again to protect himself and his family from MBS.
[59] Dr. Saad did not become a Maltese citizen in order to evade creditors or relocate as needed,
as alleged by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were obliged to tell the court that many Saudis of high
net worth are Maltese citizens. Malta provides a program whereby citizenship is granted in
exchange for an investment in the jurisdiction. Similar programs exist in other countries in the
wdgaY* ZkZc ^c i]Z Kgdk^cXZ d[ LjZWZX, Dc ?g, NVVYuh XVhZ* î lVh ^bedgiVci [dg ]^b VcY ]^h X]âYgZc
to have alternative travel documents (i.e. a Maltese passport) given the restrictions put on Dr.
NVVYuh [Vbânuh NVjY^ igVkZa YdXjbZcih,
2. The Expert Report of Mr. Mallat
[60] Hg, HVaaVi lVh gZiV^cZY Wn ?g, NVVY VcY egdk^YZY Vc ZmeZgiuh gZedgi Vadc\ lî] i]Z
gZfj^gZY <X`cdlaZY\ZbZci d[ @meZgiuh ?jin, Hg, HVaaVi ^h V aVlnZg VcY aVl egd[Zhhdg l]d ]Vh
taught and practiced Middle Eastern law for 40 years. In preparing his report, Mr. Mallat reviewed
i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu NiViZbZci d[ >aV^b VcY [VXijb YViZY EVcjVgn /6* 0.0/* i]Z V[[^YVkî d[ <WYjaVoô
Alnowaiser sworn January 18, 2021, the expert report of Abdulaziz Hamad Al Fahad dated January
17, 2021, the Orders made on January 22, 2021 and the July 4, 2018 Interpol decision.
[61] Hg, HVaaVi lVh Vh`ZY id YZhXg^WZ H=Nuh gdaZ ^c i]Z FN< \dkZgcbZci, Hg, HVaaVi YZhXg^WZY
H=N Vh i]Z bdhi edlZg[ja bVc ^c i]Z FN< VcY î ^h V rjc^kZghVaan VkZggZY gZVaîn i]Vi H=N gjch
the daily affairs of i]Z F^c\Ydb* ^cXajY^c\ îh ^ciZgcVi^dcVa gZaVi^dch,s CZ ^h i]Z ]ZVY d[ i]Z >djcXâ
d[ @Xdcdb^X VcY ?ZkZadebZci <[[V^gh (r>@?<s) l]^X] ^cXajYZh Vc VhhZbWan d[ dkZg 0.
ministers. CEDA was established by MBS in 2015 by Royal Order.
[62] Mr. Mallat was asked to w]Vi ZmiZci rVci^-Xdggjei^dcs lVh jhZY Vh V XdkZg Wn H=N [dg
politically driven prosecutions. In 2017 a Royal Order appointed MBS as head of the Anti-
Corruption Committee. The Committee was tasked with identifying corruption related violations
and was given significant powers. The Committee began in November 2017 by arresting 160
prominent Saudi citizens, including 11 members of the Royal Family and confining them to the
Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh. Bank accounts were frozen, arrest warrants issued and travel bans
imposed. According to Mr. Mallat, the accused persons were forced into recanting and paying
unknown penalties.
Page: 12
[63] Hg, HVaaVi de^cZY VWdji H=Nuh VeegdVX] id H=I VcY ]^h Vaa^Zh h^cXZ 0./5, Hg, HVaaVi
stated that in his view, MBN was removed from his positions as Crown Prince and Minister of the
Interior. He relied on an article written by David Rundell in the publication Vision or Mirage in
2020, in which the author described that MBN was presented with a letter of resignation to sign
and was then immediately greeted by the new Crown Prince, his replacement. MBN was detained
without charge in March 2020 and has been denied visits by his family or doctor.
[64] In terms of state involvement in PIF, Mr. Mallat explained that PIF must report to CEDA.
MBS is the Chairman of CEDA as well as PIF. Board members of PIF are appointed by Royal
Order. The majority of PIF board members are from the CEDA Board. CEDA exercises the
rWgdVYZhi edlZgh VcY Vji]dgî^Zhs dkZg KDA, Hg, HVaaZii de^cZY i]Vi i]^h bZVch i]Vi Xdcigda Wn
CEDA over PIF may take any form and may concern any matter, including daily operations. In
summary, any decision taken by MBS cannot be opposed by PIF or CEDA, except by way of being
overruled by the King.
[65] Finally, Mr. Mallat stated that it is clear that companies owned by PIF (such as the Group
>dbeVc^Zh) XdjaY cdi Wg^c\ Vc VXi^dc d[ i]^h h^\c^[^XVcXZ ^ch^YZ dg djih^YZ NVjY^ <gVW^V rlî]dji
i]Z VXi^kZ ^ckdakZbZci d[ i]Z >gdlc Kg^cXZ,s
3. The Affidavit of Joseph Black
[66] EdhZe] =aVX` (rHg, =aVX`s) egdk^YZY Vc ZmeZrt opinion by way of an affidavit sworn on
February 1, 2021. He does so based on his expertise as a former CIA officer.
[67] Mr. Black stated that the ascent by MBS to the role of Crown Prince in 2017 has resulted
in KSA becoming subject to one-man rule. SincZ H=Nuh [Vi]Zg ^h ^c eddg ]ZVai]* cdi]^c\ dXXjgh
^c Vcn WgVcX] d[ NVjY^ \dkZgcbZci lî]dji H=Nuh Vji]dgîn, Dc ]^h gdaZ Vh >gdlc Kg^cXZ* ]Z ]Vh
authority over all state-owned entities, including PIF as well as the criminal justice system. As
head of the criminal justice system, he can appoint and remove judges at will, initiate a criminal
investigation into anyone in the KSA and order extra-judicial detention.
[68] Mr. Black worked with MBN and Dr. Saad on joint U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism initiatives.
His opinion is that Dr. Saad was highly regarded in the U.S. as being responsible for thwarting
several terrorist plots in the Middle East and the U.S. This role meant that Dr. Saad had access to
significant security and sensitive information, which made him a target for MBS. MBN is a target
of MBS for similar reasons. Mr. Black was aware of the Interpol Red Notice issued in relation to
Dr. Saad and sent a letter to Interpol in support of its removal.
[69] Like Mr. Mallat, Mr. Black opines that PIF would not make significant decisions without
H=Nuh `cdlaZY\Z VcY i]Vi H=N a^`Zan ]VY Y^gZXi ^ckdakZbZci ^c i]Z XdbbZcXZbZci d[ i]^h
action.
The Position of the Plaintiffs
[70] O]Z Zk^YZcXZ d[ i]Z KaV^ci^[[h XdbZh eg^bVgân [gdb Hg, <WYjaVoô C, <a AV]VY (rHg,
AV]VYs) VcY Hg, <WYjaVoiz Alnowaiser. Hg, AV]VY ^h Vc ZmeZgi gZiV^cZY Wn i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu XdjchZa
for the ex-parte bdi^dc VcY l]d YZa^kZgZY Vc ZmeZgiuh gZedgi YViZY EVcjVgn /5* 0.0/ VcY Vc
Page: 13
V[[^YVkî ^c gZhedchZ id Hg, HVaaViuh gZedgi, Hg, <WYjaVoô <acdlV^hZg ^h i]Z >@J d[ OD>, He
provided an affidavit sworn January 18, 2021 for the ex parte hearing and a supplementary
V[[^YVkî ^c gZhedchZ id i]Z Ed]c GZkZg V[[^YVkî (dc i]Z >VcVY^Vc >dbeVc^Zhu bdi^dc) VcY ^c
gZhedchZ id ?g, <a EVWgûh V[[^YVkî,
[71] The position of the Plaintiffs is that all of the Orders granted on January 22, 2021 should
continue. All material facts and defences were disclosed. The fact remains that there is substantial
evidence of fraud before the court. The political backdrop to this litigation is just that, a part of the
factual matrix but not a basis to set aside the Orders. Dr. Saad has failed to put any real focus on
the merits of the allegations but instead wants the court to focus on a now dated Interpol complaint,
unrelated U.S. litigation and the politically negative aspects of the MBS regime.
[72] The Plaintiffs urge the court to focus on the corporate fraud complaints and to question Dr.
NVVYuh XdbeaV^cih VWdji [ZVg [dg ]^h hV[Zin VcY lZaa-WZ^c\, ?g, NVVYuh [VXijb Xdc[^gbh i]Vi ]Z
currently retains 24/7 private security. Various affidavits from process servers reveal that when
attempting service, the gate at the Bridle Path residence was opened for them and the front door
lVh VchlZgZY, O]Z KaV^ci^[[h Vahd iV`Z ^hhjZ lî] ?g, NVVYuh ^ch^hiZcXZ i]Vi ]^h ]dbZ Vi the Bridle
Path is registered to a corporation in order to disguise his home address when bank records
obtained from TD Bank, Scotiabank and a New York bank clearly show the Bridle Path address
Vh ?g, NVVYuh ]dbZ VYYgZhh,
[73] O]Z KaV^ci^[[hu edhî^dc ^h i]Vi much of ?g, NVVYuh hjeedgi^c\ Zk^YZcXZ ^h bVYZ je d[
newspaper clippings and unreliable experts. It is not a material non-disclosure to omit the fact that
Dr. Saad is allegedly being persecuted by the current Saudi regime. That is a political issue and
not a material fact related to the fraud claims.
[74] O]Z KaV^ci^[[h jg\Z i]Z Xdjgi id gZ_ZXi Hg, =aVXùh Zk^YZcXZ Zci^gZan, CZ aVhi ldg`ZY ^c
^ciZaa^\ZcXZ /5 nZVgh V\d Wji VhhjgZY i]Z Xdjgi i]Vi ]Z t`ZZeh je id YViZ,u Hg, =aVX` YdZh cdi hiViZ
what his expertise is, does not provide a copy of any engagement letter, was not given a copy of
the Deloitte report and was not given any factual assumptions. The sources of much of the
information in his affidavit are simply unknown.
[75] >dcigVgn id ?g, NVVYuh edhî^dc* i]Z court was made aware of both the Interpol Red Notice
and its withdrawal, as well as the U.S. litigation. The Plaintiffs should not be held to a standard
where they are required to engage in a rhetorical discussion of possible defence positions. Further,
the Plaintiffs always made it clear to the court that they do not represent the KSA or MBS. Even
if MBS is the controlling mind of either or both of PIF and TIC, the Plaintiffs query whether this
is legally relevant as they are legitimate businesses in their own right and should not be precluded
from pursuing recovery from frauds perpetrated against them.
[76] O]Z KaV^ci^[[h Vahd jg\Z i]Z Xdjgi id WZ lVgn d[ VXXZei^c\ Hg, HVaaViuh Zk^YZcXZ* l]^X]
i]Zn hjWbî ^h ^c aVg\Z eVgi XdbeâZY [gdb hdjgXZh hjX] Vh i]Z ==>uh website and news articles.
O]Z KaV^ci^[[h Vg\jZ i]Vi Hg, HVaaViuh de^c^dc ^h V edaî^XVa e^ZXZ YgZhhZY je Vh V aZ\Va de^c^dc,
Page: 14
[77] The Plaintiffs remind the court that Dr. Saad continues to avoid dealing with the allegations
against him head-on. Apart from the fact that he has not filed an affidavit, unreasonable restraints
lZgZ eaVXZY dc i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu XdjchZa l]Zc ViiZbei^c\ id ZmVb^cZ ?g, NVVY dc l]Vi i]Z KaV^ci^[[h
YZhXg^WZ Vh r\ZcZg^Xs YZXaVgVi^dch d[ VhhZih l]^X] [Vâ id egdk^YZ i]Z YZiVâ Zck^h^dcZY by the
Mareva Order.
[78] ?g, NVVYuh hjeeaZbZciVgn YZXaVgVi^dc d[ VhhZih lVh YZa^kZgZY V bZgZ 1. b^cjiZh WZ[dgZ ]^h
examination was set to begin. The main admission received during the examination was that Dr.
Saad has gifted hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, bank accounts and shares to his son
Mohammed Al Jabri. Where those assets are is not known. Dr. Saad admitted that he began
transferring assets to Mohammed Al Jabri in 2017 and that, but for the Mareva Order, he would
have continued to transfer assets to his son. Without the continuation of the Mareva Order, the
Plaintiffs argue there is a real risk of further dissipation of assets by Dr. Saad.
[79] Dr. Saad refused to answer any questions about what assets had been transferred to
Mohammed Al Jabri (or Vcn d[ ?g, NVVYuh di]Zg X]âYgZc) dg i]Z X^gXjbhiVcXZh d[ i]dhZ igVch[Zgh*
and would only answer questions related to the assets he owned as of the date he received the
Mareva Order.
[80] As the court was told during the ex-parte hearing, Mohammed Al Jabri was named by his
father as a 50% nominee shareholder of the Plaintiff companies Enma Al Ared and New Dawn
Contracting while he was a student. He received 1% of the annual net profits from those companies
despite having no actual interest in them. Mohammed El Jabri received $3,680,000 USD by way
of those profits. It is not known if he retained those profits or paid them to his father.
[81] Mohammed Al Jabri also manages one of Dr. SaaYuh U.S. corporations which owns five
luxury condominiums in Boston, Massachusetts. It is alleged that that corporation also received
b^hVeegdeg^ViZY [jcYh, O]Z ?ZadîiZ gZedgi* gZ[ZggZY id ZmiZch^kZan ^c i]^h >djgiuh EVcjVgn 05* 0.0/
Reasons, shows transfers from Dr. Saad to Mohammed Al Jabri of $4.8M USD. He has received
ediZci^Vaan Vcdi]Zg $26.H PN? Wn lVn d[ i]Z YZZY d[ \^[i gZkZVaZY Vi ?g, NVVYuh ZmVb^cVi^dc,
Mohammed Al Jabri may be liable for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, fraud and other related
claims if his father has transferred large amounts of misappropriated funds to him as part of the
fraudulent scheme.
[82] The Plaintiffs seek an Order that the Mareva Order apply to Mohammed Al Jabri on the
basis that the Mareva Order specifically includes assets owned by Dr. Saad but which may not be
in his name. Mohammed Al Jabri submits this court has no jurisdiction to make Orders against
him as he does not live in Canada, has no connection to Ontario and has not attorned to the
jurisdiction.
[83] The Plaintiffs seek to continue the current Orders but cannot enforce them outside of
Canada without letters of request to the relevant judicial authorities in other jurisdictions. The
Plaintiffs have provided drafts of those letters of request for consideration by the court.
Page: 15
1. The Evidence of Mr. Fahad
[84] Hg, AV]VY* i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu aZ\Va ZmeZgi Y^Y cdi V\gZZ lî] Hg, HVaaViuh gZedgi, NeZX^[^XVaan*
]Z XdbbZciZY dc Hg, HVaaViuh de^c^dc Vh id i]Z higjXijgZ VcY Xdcigda d[ OD> VcY KDA, Hg, AV]VYuh
evidence was that TIC is the sole shareholder of each of the Group Companies. TIC is governed
by its own board of directors and is the sole shareholder of PIF. Each has a separate legal
personality.
[85] PIF has had a separate legal personality since April 2019 when a Royal Decree removed it
from the control of the Ministry of Finance and granted it independence. PIF is free to invest and
dispose of assets both within and outside the KSA and to enter into contracts in its own name. The
>]V^g d[ KDAuh =dVgY d[ ?^gZXidgh ^h H=N Wji i]Z >]V^g ]as no authority and no casting vote. The
=dVgY d[ ?^gZXidgh d[ KDA ]Vh Vji]dgîn id bVcV\Z KDAuh V[[V^gh lî]dji VeegdkVa [gdb i]Z
government.
[86] Mr. Fahad disagrees with Mr. Mallat on the authority of CEDA with respect to PIF.
According to Mr. Fahad, CEDA has no authority to issue any decisions except in the form of
recommendations to the full Council of Ministers. All such recommendations are subject to the
F^c\uh VeegdkVa, R]âZ î ^h igjZ i]Vi H=N X]V^gh >@?< VcY KDA ]Z ]Vh cd Vji]dgîn id ^bedhZ
decisions on those entities. In summary, CEDA does not exert control of PIF or the companies it
dlch, Hg, HVaaViuh XdcigVgn XdcXajh^dc ^c i]^h gZ\VgY ^h cdi hjeedgiZY Wn i]Z gZaZkVci aVl ^c i]Z
KSA.
Legal Analysis on the Set Aside Motions Brought by Dr. Saad
The Governing Legal Principles
[87] The law is clear that a party who seeks extraordinary relief in the form of an ex parte
injunction (including a Norwich Order) must make full and frank disclosure. The reason for this is
clear. The judge hearing the ex parte motion must have all of the factual and legal contentions
which would be advanced by the opposing party available or an injustice is likely to be done to the
absent party.
[88] As Sharpe J. (as he then was) set out in United States v. Friedland, [1996] O.J. No. 4399
(Gen. Div.), at para. 27 [Friedland]:
pi]Z aVl ^bedhZh Vc ZmXZei^dcVa Yjin dc i]Z eVgin l]d hZZ`h ex parte relief. That
party is not entitled to present only its side of the case in the best possible light, as
it would if the other side were present. Rather, it is incumbent on the moving party
to make a balanced presentation of the facts in law. The moving party must state
its own case fairly and must inform the court of any points of fact or law known to
it which favour the other side. The duty of full and frank disclosure is required to
mitigate the obvious risk of injustice inherent in any situation where a Judge is
asked to grant an order without hearing from the other side.
Page: 16
[89] However, the duty of full and frank disclosure cannot be interpreted in a forced or stilted
manner. In addressing the manner of interpreting the test, Sharpe J. went on in Friedland to say:
The duty of full and frank disclosure is, however, not to be imposed in a formal or
bZX]Vc^XVa bVccZgp < eaV^ci^[[ h]djaY cdi WZ YZeg^kZd of a remedy because there
are mere imperfections in the affidavit or because inconsequential facts have not
been disclosed. There must be some latitude and the defects complained of must be
relevant and material to the discretion to be exercised by the court.
[90] It is also a well-formed part of the law in this area that Dr. Saad and the Canadian
Companies are not required to show that the outcome of the ex parte motion would have been
different if the additional material had been disclosed: see Bennett Estate v. Iran, 2013 ONSC
6832, 368 D.L.R. (4th) 500 [Bennett Estate]. In Bennett Estate, at para. 18, citing Euro United
Corp. (Interim Receiver of) v. Rehani, [2003] O.J. No. 2426 (S.C.), at para. 11, set out the duties
of a moving party on an ex parte motion:
(i) Material facts are those of which the court must be made aware in arriving at a
decision, non-Y^hXadhjgZ d[ l]^X] bVn ]VkZ V[[ZXiZY i]Z Xdjgiuh VeegdVX] id i]Z
motion, made the decision doubtful, or affected the outcome of the motion;
(ii) This duty of a balanced presentation of facts and law extends not only to absent
parties, but also to those who may be affected by the order;
(iii) In making full and frank disclosure of the relevant facts, the plaintiff must include
facts which may explain the defendant's position, if known to the plaintiff. The onus
on the plaintiff to make full and complete disclosure is not discharged by disclosing
only what is the most limited basis of information that may be relevant. Full
disclosure may and often will require a plaintiff to advise the court of matters of
both fact and of law which form the position of the other side;
(iv) It is insufficient for a plaintiff to simply append a document as an exhibit without

highlighting in the body of the affidavit itself any important clauses or portions of
the exhibits;
(v) The test of materiality is an objective one. In the United States of America v.
Friedland the court quoted the following passage from the English text,
Gee, Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Relief (3d Edition 1995 at p. 97):
... The duty extends to placing before the court all matters which are relevant
to the court's assessment of the application, and it is no answer to a
complaint of non-disclosure that if the relevant matters had been placed
before the court, the decision would have been the same. The test as to
materiality is an objective one, and it is not for the applicant or his advisers
to decide the question; hence it is no excuse for the applicant subsequently
to say that he was genuinely unaware, or did not believe, that the facts were
relevant or important. All matters which are relevant to the 'weighing
Page: 17
operation' that the court has to make in deciding whether or not to grant the
order must be disclosed.
(vi) If a finding is made of material misrepresentation or material non-disclosure the

court is not stripped of all of its discretion but, generally speaking, the ex
parte order will be set aside.
Analysis
[91] This court must determine whether, in applying the above principles, the Plaintiffs fairly
presented their case. The fact that they alluded to the U.S. litigation and the Interpol Red Notice is
not enough according Dr. Saad. The Plaintiffs were obliged to highlight that information and
present a balanced case. While I find that the Plaintiffs did not make extensive reference to some
of the documents and areas of complaints referred to by Dr. Saad, the deficiencies are either
immaterial or not sufficient to have breached the requirement of full and frank disclosure.
[92] <YYgZhh^c\ ?g, NVVYuh XdbeaV^cih ^c ijgc* D gZ[ZgZcXZ i]Z [daadl^c\,
1. Alleged Mischaracterization of the Group Companies
[93] Dr. Saad complains that the Plaintiffs have mischaracterized the purpose of the Group
Companies. They were not established to further counterterrorism activities. They were intended
to engage in actual commercial activity as a cover for counterterrorism. This is why the Group
Companies were not owned by the KSA and why funds for the companies were paid to MBN
personally who then paid i]Z Bgdje >dbeVc^Zh, O]ZgZ lVh YZa^WZgViZ rbjg`^cZhhs ^c i]Z [^cVcX^Va
VggVc\ZbZcih d[ i]Z Bgdje >dbeVc^Zh id ZchjgZ XdcXZVabZci d[ i]Z MdnVa AVbânuh ^ckdakZbZci,
[94] For example, the use of nominee shareholders was necessary as Saudi government officials
could not hold roles in the Group Companies without revealing the involvement of the Royal
Family. The top-secret nature of the operations of the Group Companies explained the poor record
keeping practices and the accounting irregularities. The court was not directed to these important
facts as the Plaintiffs failed to highlight that Dr. Saad was not involved in the Group Companies
in a commercial context.
[95] The problem with this position is the evidence provided by the Plaintiffs that some $194M
USD was transferred to Dr. Saad after he left the government in September 2015. Table 5.0 in the
?ZadîiZ gZedgi YViZY EVcjVgn /6* 0.0/ (eV\Z 0/) XaZVgan igVXZh dcan /6.H NVjY^ M^nVa (rN<Ms)
to Dr. Saad while he was working for the Saudi government.
[96] At page 109 of the ?ZadîiZ gZedgi* igVX^c\ d[ ?g, NVVYuh VXXdjci hiViZbZcih Vahd h]dlZY
that he received over 114,000,000 SAR directly from MBN between March and May 2017q
almost two years after he had left the Saudi government and while living in Turkey.
[97] I agree with the PaV^ci^[[hu hjWb^hh^dc i]Vi Vcn Vg\jbZci gZaViZY id bjg`^cZhh dg eddg
record keeping on the part of Dr. Saad is hard to reconcile when a large part of the traced funds
were removed after Dr. Saad was asked to leave his position in the KSA government.
Page: 18
[98] I also agree with the Plaintiffs that the affidavits of Dr. Al Jabri do not adequately explain
any of the alleged fraudulent activities. While not required to respond to the merits of the case, Dr.
NVVY (i]gdj\] ]^h hdcuh V[[^YVkî) ]Vh bZgZan \adhhZY dkZg i]Z ?eloitte report. Without an affidavit
from Dr. Saad, the Plaintiffs were left without a means to fully explore the issues raised by his
counsel.
[99] Ajgi]Zg* VcY XdcigVgn id ?g, NVVYuh VhhZgi^dch* i]Z Xdjgi lVh bVYZ VlVgZ d[ i]Z [VXi i]Vi
the Group Companies were established pursuant to a Royal Instruction and that funds were
allocated to them by the KSA Ministry of the Interior for counterterrorism activities. This is clearly
hZi dji ^c i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu [VXijb l]^X] lVh WZ[dgZ i]Z Xdjgi dc i]Z ex parte motion.
[100] While nominee shareholders may have been necessary to ensure that the Group Companies
lZgZ Y^hiVcXZY [gdb i]Z FN< \dkZgcbZci* î gZbV^ch V fjZhi^dc Vh id l]n ?g, NVVYuh hedjhZ*
children, relatives and friends were named as such nominee shareholders, especially where the
nominee shareholders received profits from the Group Companies without performing any services
for them.
[101] Finally, with respect to the murkiness and poor recording keeping as an explanation for the
secrecy required for the counterterrorism activities, there is a limit to such disorder when dealing
with the large amounts of money that flowed through the Group Companies. For example,
payments made to Dr. Saad, his family and friends from Sakab, totalling over $848M USD, were
accounted for by handwritten notes or undated and unsigned Excel tables without explanations for
i]Z eVnbZcih, rMZlVgYhs [dg WdVgY bZbWZgh d[ <ae]V NiVg* Security Control Company and
Technology Control Company (rO>>s) were recorded in handwritten notes, and profits were paid
oji WVhZY dc rkVajVi^dchs l]^X] VeeZVgZY id WZVg cd gZaVi^dch]ê id gZVaîn dg WVhZY dc i]Z
XdbeVcnuh VXijVa cZi egd[î, O]ZhZ VgZ dcan hdbZ d[ i]Z ZmVbeaZh, HVcn bdgZ VeeZVg ^c i]Z
Deloitte report. Poor record keeping might have been a way of covering up counterterrorism
expenditures while MBN and Dr. Saad were working in the government, but this cannot explain
i]Z aVg\Z Vbdjcih eV^Y dji id i]Zb VcY ?g, NVVYuh [Vbân VcY [g^ZcYh V[iZg i]Zn aZ[i,
2. Failure to Disclose the Expropriation of the Group Companies by PIF
[102] Dr. Saad highlights that the Plaintiffs allege that MBN was a co-conspirator and even that
Dr. Saad was acting on his direction, yet they have not named MBN as a defendant nor sought to
[gZZoZ ]^h WVc` VXXdjcih, <cY [jgi]Zg* i]Vi i]Z rigVch[Zgs d[ i]Z Bgdje >dbeVc^Zh [gdb H=Iuh
control to PIF is simply glossed over by the Plaintiffs and the involvement of the SACC in that
expropriation is not mentioned. Dr. Saad submits that if there was a fraud, which he denies, the
victim of the fraud is the KSA, not the Plaintiffs.
[103] The involvement of MBS with respect to the change of control of the Group Companies
has been overstated in terms of a defence which ought to have been highlighted by the Plaintiffs
in the context of this motion for following reasons:
a. The Zk^YZcXZ d[ Hg, AV]VY* i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu aZ\Va ZmeZgi* Xdc[^gbh i]Z g^\]i d[ i]Z
Plaintiff companies to bring this action, if they allege that they have suffered
Page: 19
damages. The companies allege that they have been defrauded. Neither MBS nor
PIF is making such an allegation.
b. Mr. Black opines that he does not have direct knowledge of the workings of the PIF
but states he is aware that the PIF is controlled by CEDA which is led by MBS. He
then, remarkably, concludes that it would be unlikely that the PIF would make
significant dZX^h^dch lî]dji H=Nuh `cdlaZY\Z, CZ Vahd ^h VWaZ id XdcXajYZ
(without reference to any materials or expertise) that this action could not have been
XdbbZcXZY lî]dji H=Nuh ^ckdakZbZci, D XVccdi \^kZ h^\c^[^XVci lZ^\]i id Hg,
=aVXùh Zk^YZcXZ, CZ Y^Y cdi erovide a statement setting out his actual expertise or
egdk^YZ V egdeZg ZmeZgiuh gZedgi, CZ ]Vh cdi WZZc ldg`^c\ Vi i]Z >D< h^cXZ 0..2
and claims to have gained his knowledge about the contemporary internal workings
of the Saudi government by simply keeping up with the news. I agree with the
Plaintiffs that these facts, and the fact that Mr. Black was apparently not given a
copy of the Deloitte report, seriously detract from any weight this court should give
his evidence.
c. Mg, <acdlV^hZguh V[[^YVkî d[ EVcjVry 18, 2021 clearly sets out that the Group
Companies have been operated by a holding company (TIC) since February 2018
and that he is the CEO of TIC. It was never hidden from the court that TIC was
owned by PIF. Whether PIF is a sovereign wealth fund (as the Plaintiffs contend)
or an entity controlled at the whim of MBS remains in issue. That, however, does
not derogate from the right of the Group Companies to bring an action in their own
right.
d. The Plaintiffs have always made it clear to the court they do not represent either
the KSA or MBS.
3. The Alleged Failure to State Alternative Positions Advanced by Dr. Saad in the U.S.
Litigation
[104] Dr. Saad complains that there was minimal reference to his Complaint in the U.S. litigation.
His Complaint sets out alternative positions on many issues which should have fairly been put
before the court on the ex parte motion.
[105] First, it should be made clear that the U.S. Complaint was adverted to at the ex parte
hearing, as well as allegations that Dr. Saad had been the subject of political persecution, that there
had been an attempt on his life, and that his children Sarah and Omar were detained in the KSA.
[106] With respect to why Dr. Saad left the KSA, he submits that his U.S. Complaint states he
fled the KSA for his own safety, while this court accepted the information given by the Plaintiffs
at the ex parte hearing that he fled the KSA to avoid investigation. Both statements are true. The
texts from MBS produced at the ex parte hearing make it clear that if Dr. Saad had returned to the
KSA when he was in Turkey, he would certainly have become the subject of investigation by MBS
and his government.
Page: 20
[107] Dr. Saad complains that the Plaintiffs told the court that the Bridle Path property was not
put in his name for nefarious reasons and failed to highlight the reasons behind the title holding as
hZi dji ^c ]^h P,N, >dbeaV^ci, O]Z Xdjgi ]VY VXXZeiZY i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu ^c[dgbVi^dc Vh hZi dji ^c i]Z
January 27, 2021 reasons.
[108] A^ghi* i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu [VXijb* l]^X] lVh WZ[dgZ i]Z Xdjgi dc EVcjVgn 22, 2021, simply recites
that the Bridle Path property was purchased by a numbered company for cash. The January 27,
2021 Reasons recite the same facts and go on to find that there were proper grounds for granting
a CPL due to an inference that the property was purchased with misappropriated funds. That is
different from finding that Dr. Saad held title by way of a numbered company for nefarious
reasons.
[109] Dr. Saad submits that the Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Saad obtained Maltese citizenship in
order to hide assets and possibly relocate, if needed. He does not hide this fact in the U.S.
Complaint and provides an explanation that he obtained this citizenship for him and his family due
to arbitrary travel restrictions put on him and his family by the KSA.
[110] Dr. Saad is correct that the court was not provided with this alternate explanation for
Maltese citizenship at the ex parte motion. Dr. Saad is also correct that this fact was presented by
the Plaintiffs in such a way as to infer that Dr. Saad was a flight risk and easily able to move assets
to another country. With respect to his ability to move assets, Dr. Saad already has real property
and investments all over the world. The fact is he could have moved assets anywhere (not just
Malta) at any time. With respect to the possibility of relocation, it is true that a reference to the
U.S. Complaint explanation likely should have been made.
[111] However, as per Friedland, the test of materiality cannot be applied mechanically. There
was a massive amount of information presented to the court on January 22, 2021, over most of a
day. The real reasons for Dr. Saad obtaining Maltese citizenship are not sufficiently material to
reach the threshold of a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure. In any event, Dr. Saad
remains in Canada and has lived here for almost four years. He could have relocated to Malta at
any time during the four years but did not.
4. CNK 0RRKMKJ 5GORZWK YU 3OXIRUXK 8TYKWVUR`X 3KIOXOUT YNGY YNK 2UWWZVYOUT 2NGWMKX
were Politically Motivated
[112] Dr. NVVY ^ch^hih i]Vi i]Z Xdjgiuh ViiZci^dc h]djaY ]VkZ WZZc YgVlc id i]gZZ i]^c\h ^c gZaVi^dc
id i]Z >>Auh YZX^h^dc id gZbdkZ i]Z MZY Idi^XZ8
a. That the charges against Dr. Saad in the CCF decision are strikingly similar to the
allegations made by the Plaintiffs in this case,
b. That the CCF accepted that Dr. Saad was of political interest to MBS, and
c. That the charges against Dr. Saad were politically motivated.

Page: 21
[113] While the CCF decision was contained in the KaV^ci^[[hu Motion Record on January 22,
2021, it was at page 6777 and not drawn to the attention of the court. Dr. Saad submits it was
imperative for the court to be advised that the prosecution was overseen by the SACC and part of
H=Nuh higViZ\n id iVg\Zi Vaa edaî^XVa g^kVah,
[114] It is quite true that there is no reference at all to the Interpol decision in the Reasons dated
January 27, 2021. While it was mentioned at the ex parte hearing, it was a passing reference in the
context of a significant amount of other material. In the end, however, this court fails to see the
significance of the CCF decision with respect to the issues on this motion.
[115] Reports of the political persecution of Dr. Saad were referred to in both the materials and
oral submissions at the ex parte motion. The palace coup in 2017 and subsequent actions of MBS
have been widely reported in the press. However, this is a case about an alleged fraud perpetrated
by Dr. Saad while he was working in the KSA up to 2015 (and an allegation of funds continuing
to be funnelled to him and others until 2017). The Interpol decision related to criminal charges
being pursued against Dr. Saad by the KSA. Further, the CCF did not deal with any evidence but
mentions in passing a reference to there being serious evidence of fraud (paras 60). The conclusion
of the CCF decision is related to the politics behind the Interpol Red Notice, an issue which assists
Dr. Saad.
[116] I agree with the Plaintiffs with respect to the Interpol matter. The court was advised at the
ex parte hearing of the Interpol complaint and the fact that the CCF removed it. The court was
made aware, in general, of the political landscape ^c i]Z FN< VcY ?g, NVVYuh igZVibZci Wn H=N,
While the reasons for the removal were not highlighted to the court, I do not find that to be
objectively material with respect to the test for full and frank disclosure.
5. CNK 0RRKMKJ 5GORZWK YU 3OXIRUXK <1B`X 2UTtrol of this Litigation
[117] Dr. NVVYuh main complaint is that the case was presented to the court on January 22, 2021
as a commercial dispute when in fact the PIF (which owns TIC and indirectly the Group
>dbeVc^Zh) ^h X]V^gZY VcY XdcigdaaZY Wn H=N, H=Nuh ejghjit of Dr. Saad continues with a highly
ejWa^XôZY bdi^dc ^c i]Z P,N, ^c l]^X] ]Z ^h ViiZbei^c\ id Y^hb^hh ?g, NVVYuh >dbeaV^ci, =di] d[
?g, NVVYuh ZmeZgih XdcXajYZ i]Vi î ^h ^cXdcXZ^kVWaZ i]Vi H=N ^h cdi WZ]^cY i]^h aVlhjî,
[118] Hg, HVaaViuh XdcXajh^dc i]Vi H=N gjch i]Z YVân V[[V^gh d[ i]Z FN<* \^kZc i]Z F^c\uh eddg
]ZVai]* i]Z bdkZbZci d[ KDA ^cid H=Nuh Y^gZXi Xdcigda VcY H=Nuh ZmZgX^hZ d[ edaî^XVa Xdcigda d[
his enemies via the SACC, was critical evidence that should have been placed before the court in
the course of the ex parte proceeding.
[119] Dr. Saad submits that the evidence of his experts is unchallenged and must stand. However,
I have already rejected the evidence of Mr. Black as set out above. With respect to Mr. Mallat, he
is clearly not objective about the KSA or MBS. He supports his opinions with excerpts from the
BBC and The New York Times. ?ZheîZ ]^h hdjgXZh* Hg, HVaaViuh XdcXajh^dch VWdji H=Nuh
involvement in the PIF and his overall control of the KSA government may well be true. But even
if they are, what is the consequence in the context of this motion?
Page: 22
[120] The answer lies, in part, with the decision of Penny, J. in Petrochemical Commercial
Company International Ltd. v. Nexus Management Group SDN BHD, 2019 ONSC 1142. In that
case, the court issued an ex parte Mareva Order over the holdings of the corporate Respondents.
On the return motion, the Canadian Respondents attempted to set aside the Order on two grounds,
one of which was the non-disclosure of material facts at the Mareva hearing.
[121] That case also involved an alleged fraud. The Respondents complained that the true nature
of the Applicant company had not been disclosed: the company was actually controlled by the
government of Iran or a clandestine branch of the government which facilitates international
terrorist operations and was on a U.S. sanctions list. The Respondents argued this serious non-
disclosure was sufficient to set aside the Mareva Order.
[122] The court disagreed. It held, at para. 17, that:
Even if PCCI was owned or controlled, or acted for or on behalf of, the Iranian
government, I would not regard this, standing alone, as the omission of a relevant
[VXipAjgi]Zg* \dkZgcbZci dlcZY Zciî^Zh VgZ Vh ZmedhZY id [gVjYjaZci VXi^kîn Vh
non-government entities and, absent other factors, are equally entitled to the
protection of the civil law in the face of such activities.
[123] In this case, neither party disputes that the Group Companies engage in legitimate business
activities (even if a cover for other activities). As Mr. Fahad has stated, they have a right under the
civil law to pursue their claims against Dr. Saad. Whether the Group Companies are controlled by
MBS does not affect that right as per the Petrochemical decision above.
Summary
[124] In summary, I find that Dr. Saad has not proven any non-disclosure that is objectively and
sufficiently material to displace the current Mareva and Norwich Orders as they relate to him.
THE SET ASIDE MOTION OF THE CANADIAN COMPANIES
Background
The Canadian Companies
[125] The Defendant Canadian Companies (CGI, Gryphon and Infosec, referred to in this section
Vh ri]Z >VcVY^Vc >dbeVc^Zhs) hZZ` id hZi Vh^YZ i]Z Norwich Order and the Receivership Order
granted on January 22, 2021 and continued on February 1 and 19, 2021, as wela Vh CV^cZn E,uh
Norwich Order granted in December 2020.
[126] Mr. John Lever (rHg, GZkZgs) egdk^YZY Zk^YZcXZ dc WZ]Va[ d[ i]Z >VcVY^Vc >dbeVc^Zh,
He has been the COO of CGI and Gryphon since 2017 and is familiar with the operations of the
Canadian Companies.
Page: 23
[127] CGD lVh [djcYZY ^c /775 Wn IV\n HdjhiV[V (rHg, HdjhiV[Vs), Di ^h ]ZVYfjVgiZgZY ^c
Toronto. CGI acquires companies in the cybersecurity market, helps them grow and then sells
them. Mr. Moustafa is the CEO and majority shareholder of CGI.
[128] Infosec was founded in 2009 by Mr. Moustafa. It provides its clients with support and
management of their secure communications systems. Gryphon was founded in 2014 and has an
office in Toronto. Gryphon provides hardware for cybersecurity issues in tandem with Infosec.
[129] Mr. LekZguh Zk^YZcXZ ^h i]Vi i]Z >dbeVc^Zh rdeZgViZ ^c bVg`Zih i]Vi ^ckdakZ ]^\]an
confidential and sensitive information concerning cybersecurity solutions and security risks for
Xa^Zcih cVi^dcVaan VcY VgdjcY i]Z ldgaY,s O]Z >dbeVc^Zh ]VkZ kVg^djh hjWh^Y^Vg^Zh which are also
affected by the relevant Orders.
[130] In 2007, the Companies identified international opportunities, including in the Middle East
and Saudi Arabia, for cybersecurity technology. According to Mr. Lever, in 2012 Infosec and TCC
entered into an agreZbZci id egZhZci V W^Y id i]Z FN< H^c^hign d[ i]Z DciZg^dg (rHJDs) [dg l]Vi
became to be known as the Atlas project. That project was intended to result in the building of a
countrywide infrastructure for wireless, voice and radio encrypted transmission. An initial
payment of $300,000 USD was required to be paid to Infosec.
[131] As work continued through 2015, Infosec issued invoices to TCC and was paid. In 2016
O>> hideeZY eVn^c\ Dc[dhZXuh ^ckd^XZh, =n <j\jhi 0./5* Dc[dhZX lVh dlZY $1,6H PN? [dg
invoices rendered and completed work. Infosec commenced a claim in this court which was settled
^c AZWgjVgn 0./6, Dc[dhZXuh XaV^b lVh Y^hXdci^cjZY,
[132] In December 2015, Gryphon entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff company Saudi
H<FN<= CdaY^c\ >d, (rH<FN<=s) id egZeare a bid to the KSA MOI to provide secure mobile
communication infrastructure. Gryphon received funds from MAKSAB for the infrastructure
provided pursuant to their agreement.
[133] In 2016, Gryphon entered into a contract with the Plaintiff company Sky Prime Investment
>dbeVcn (rN`n Kg^bZs) id egdk^YZ XZgiV^c hZXjgZ bdWâZ Xdbbjc^XVi^dch hdaji^dch VcY ^c 0./5*
Gryphon also entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff company Tawari Information
Technology Company for certain products and services. Gryphon rendered invoices and was paid
for its services.
[134] Certain subsidiaries of the Companies also entered into agreements with TCC and received
payments for their services.
QFive
[135] According to Mr. Lever, in August 2013, QFive invested $8M USD into CGI in exchange
for 400,000 shares and a 29% ownership stake. On July 20, 2020, 2767143 Ontario Inc., a company
l]daan dlcZY VcY XdcigdaaZY Wn Hg, HdjhiV[V* ejgX]VhZY LA^kZuh h]VgZh ^c >BD [dg $6H PN?,
Therefore, QFive no longer owns any shares in CGI or any of the Canadian Companies and their
subsidiaries.
Page: 24
[136] In 2017, Dr. Saad, through one of his companies, loaned funds to Gryphon based on what
he saw was good development potential for Gryphon in the KSA. Mohammed Al Jabri was
appointed as Director of Gryphon and Dr. Saad was employed as their Executive Vice-President
of Infosec. Infosec assisted Dr. Saad with his Visa request to Canada under the temporary foreign
worker program. Mohammed Al Jabri resigned as a Director of Gryphon in November 2019 and
the loan to Gryphon is now held by Golden Valley Management Ltd.
CNK ?RGOTYOLLX` 8TIUWWKIY 0RRKMGYOUTX GTJ 2UTLOJKTYOGROY^ 8XXZKX
[137] Mr. Lever deposed that Mr. Alnowaiser, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, is incorrect in his
affidavit when he states that there was no legitimate reason [dg eVnbZcih bVYZ id rXdgedgVi^dch d[
^ciZgZhi,s O]Z >dbeVc^Zh ]VY aZ\î^bViZ XdcigVXih lî] i]Z FN< [dg l]^X] i]Zn lZgZ eV^Y, Hg,
Lever was surprised that Mr. Alnowaiser was not aware of this or the fact that Infosec sued TCC
when he was the General Manager of the Plaintiff companies, which included TCC.
[138] O]Z VaaZ\Vi^dc i]Vi ?g, NVVY ^h rWZ]^cYs i]Z >dbeVc^Zh ^h Vahd [VahZ, <h hiViZY VWdkZ* i]Z
Companies were all founded by Mr. Moustafa and have never been controlled in any way by Dr.
Saad.
[139] The Canadian Companies and their subsidiaries work for large enterprises, including state
governments. Such clients require robust cybersecurity systems to defend against debilitating
attacks on essential services. The disclosure of the names of individuals who do work for the
Companies and have valuable information could pose an unacceptable security and reputational
risk to their government clients. The clients must be able to be assured that their highly confidential
information is kept secure.
[140] The banking records from Canadian and Swiss banks, which are required to be disclosed
pursuant to the Norwich Order dated January 22, 2021, could be used to identify both individuals
and transactions. This will cause national and personal security concerns for the clients of the
Canadian Companies. Further, the disclosure of such information risks reputational damage and
competitive business concerns for the Companies.
The Positions of the Parties
The Canadian Companies
[141] The Canadian Companies seek to set aside the Norwich and Receivership Orders as well
as the Norwich Order granted by Hainey J. on December 18, 2020. Dr. Saad also seeks to set aside
the Receivership Order on the grounds that the relevant shares are no longer held by QFive.
[142] As will be detailed below, the Canadian Companies make two main arguments. The first
is that the disclosure of the significant material covered by the Norwich Order creates significant
security and competitive business concerns.
[143] Second, the Plaintiffs did not fairly disclose all relevant information to the court as they
were required to do. Specifically, it is inconceivable that Mr. Alnowaiser, as the CEO of TIC,
could not have been aware of legitimate, contract-based payments to the Canadian Companies.
Page: 25
Claiming that there was no legitimate reason for such payments is simply disingenuous. This
information should have been disclosed to both Hainey J. and Gilmore J. for their consideration in
relation to the Norwich Order.
[144] It is only in his reply affidavit that Mr. Alnowaiser sets out that he spoke to the current
CEO of TCC and learned about the litigation between TCC and Infosec, invoices from subsidiaries
d[ i]Z >VcVY^Vc >dbeVc^Zh VcY ^ckd^XZh [gdb Bgne]dc id N`n Kg^bZ, ?g, NVVYuh edhî^dc is that
Mr. Alnowaiser was not in a position to swear, as he did in his affidavit of January 18, 2021, at
para 356, that he had made full disclosure when he had failed to make simple enquiries about
transactions between the Canadian Companies and TCC. The non-disclosure is material and
significant. The Norwich Order should be set aside, and the documents disclosed to date returned.
[145] <h lZaa* i]Z >VcVY^Vc >dbeVc^Zh hZZ` V hZVa^c\ JgYZg VcY V Xdc[^YZci^Vaîn dg >djchZahu
Eyes Only Order for the material that has already been disclosed (if not set aside) or the material
that will be disclosed if they are not successful in having the relevant Orders set aside.
[146] The Canadian Companies have serious concerns that disclosed bank records contain
sensitive information that could be used to subvert security measures and could affect fair
competition by the disclosure of customer names and pricing to competitors. They contend that
the requirements under the test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002
SCC 41, [2002] 2 SCR 522, at para. 53, are met and a sealing order should be granted.
[147] O]Z >VcVY^Vc >dbeVc^Zh hjWbî i]Vi V >djchZahu @nZh Jcan dg V >dc[^YZci^Vaîn JgYZg ^h
also required because the Plaintiffs and the Canadian Companies are competitors. According to
the Plaintiffs, the documents are required for tracing purposes, as such there is no need for the
clients to be involved in that exercise. No evidence was produced with respect to why the Plaintiffs
need to see these documents or how such an Order might impair the solicitor-client relationship.
The Plaintiffs
[148] The Plaintiffs submit that the Canadian Companies mischaracterize themselves as innocent
parties caught in the crossfire of this litigation. In fact, the majority of funds invested in the
Canadian Companies came from either Sakab or through a company owned by Dr. Saad.
[149] The relationship between the Canadian Companies, Sakab and QFive bears closer
examination. 90% of the capitalization of CGI came from the $8M share purchase by QFive with
money from Sakab.
[150] QFive no longer owns the shares in CGI because they were transferred to a numbered
company owned by Mr. Moustafa. The purchase agreement relevant to that transaction shows that
the consideration for the transfer was an interest free unsecured promissory note. That is, no actual
funds were transferred to complete the transaction. Mr. Lever, in cross-examination, advised that
no valuation was done in relation to the transaction. Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits the
Receivership Order should not be set aside as the transfer of the shares from QFive to the numbered
company was a sham without consideration.
Page: 26
[151] Mr. Moustafa was the CEO of QFive at the time of transfer of shares to the numbered
company. He then resigned. There are no documents in relation to his resignation nor is there an
affidavit from Mr. Moustafa about any of the transactions.
[152] $10M USD was invested in Gryphon by a company controlled by Dr. Saad. There is a
convertible loan agreement related to this transaction dated, February 13, 2017, which is able to
be converted to a 45% interest in Gryphon. The loan is now held by Golden Valley Management
Ltd., a Cayman Islands company. Dr. Al Jabri is on the board of directors of that company. On his
cross-examination Mr. Lever refused to answer questions about the beneficial ownership of
Golden Valley. In summary, 90% of the funds that went into CGI and 100% of the funds that went
into Gryphon came from Sakab.
[153] It should not be ignored, as well, that Dr. Saad was employed by Infosec who in turn helped
him obtain his Canadian residency.
[154] Dc gZhedchZ id ?g, NVVYuh edhî^dc i]Vi Hg, <acdlV^hZg Y^Y cdi bV`Z [jaa VcY [gVc`
disclosure about payments made by TCC to Infosec, the Plaintiffs submit that the basis for the
Norwich Order against the Canadian Companies was the $8M payment. The Plaintiffs have always
maintained that the Canadian Companies received funds misappropriated from the Plaintiffs.
[155] Finally, Dr. Saad has conflated the required test for a Mareva and a Norwich Orders. The
test for a Norwich Order is less stringent than the test for a Mareva Order.
[156] The Plaintiffs require a continuation of both the Norwich and the Receivership Orders to
fully trace the $8M USD payment. The information which Dr. Saad submits was not disclosed was
neither material nor relevant and should not be used as a basis to set aside the Order.
Analysis
[157] The Canadian Companies seek to set aside the Norwich and Receivership Orders as well
as the Order of Hainey J. from December 2020 on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
make full and frank disclosure relating to the true commercial relationship between the Plaintiffs
and the Canadian Companies.
[158] The main argument put forward by the Canadian Companies is that there were legitimate
contracts between the companies and the Plaintiffs explaining why certain payments were made
id i]Zb, Ajgi]Zg* i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu bV^c V[[^Vci Y^Y cdi gZ[Zg id i]Z XdcigVXih dg i]Z hZiiaement
agreement between TCC and Infosec at the ex-parte motion.
[159] Counsel on behalf of the Canadian Companies submit that Mr. Alnowaiser could have
bVYZ Zcfj^g^Zh ^cid Wdi] i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu YdXjbZcih VcY i]gdj\] i]Z KaV^ci^[[hu ZbeadnZZh Wji [VâZY
to do so. Mr. Alnowaiser admitted to his failure to make such enquiries at his cross-examination,
claiming that the approach taken was a specific one in order to avoid tipping off the Defendants
about the investigation.
Page: 27
[160] The Canadian Companies refer to and rely on the affidavit of Mr. Lever with respect to an
explanation for a legitimate basis for the payments to the companies, the type of work done and
the agreements made in relation to that work and the subsequent payment for the work.
[161] O]ZgZ[dgZ* Hg, <acdlV^hZguh [ailure to make enquiries is fatal and material, as the court
was unable to fairly assess the propriety of the Norwich Orders. As it stands, the Norwich and
Receivership Orders are inappropriately being used to expedite discovery.
[162] Further, the shares of CGI are no longer held by QFive and the Canadian Companies allege
that the Receivership Order is simply being used as a tool to improperly investigate them.
Should the Norwich Order and the Receivership Order Continue to Apply to the Canadian
Companies?
[163] The question this court must ask is whether the Canadian Companies are, as they contend,
innocently caught in the crossfire of litigation that should not involve them or whether there is
some logical and supportable connection to Dr. Saad.
[164] The Deloitte report (page 127, at paragraphs 12.36 and 12.38) clearly traces a payment of
$8M USD from Sakab to QFive which in turn was used to buy the 400,000 shares in CGI. The
$6H PN? eVnbZci lVh i]Z bV_dgîn d[ >BDuh XVeîVaôVi^dc, O]ZgZ ^h cd bZci^dc d[ i]^h ^c i]Z
Canad^Vc >dbeVc^Zhu [VXijb, O]dhZ h]VgZh ]VkZ cdl WZZc igVch[ZggZY id V cjbWZgZY XdbeVcn
for a promissory note without interest, without security and without a valuation.
[165] There is also the $10M USD that was invested in Gryphon, allegedly by Dr. Saad. The
convertible loan in relation to that investment is now held by Golden Valley Management Ltd., a
company on which Al Jabri family members sit on the board of directors.
[166] It is clear that the funds traceable to QFive, CGI and Gryphon are now removed from the
Canadian Companies. As the Plaintiffs suggest, this may well be another manner of subverting
b^hVeegdeg^ViZY [jcYh Wn igVch[Zgg^c\ i]Zb id nZi Vcdi]Zg raVnZgs* Wji i]Vi ^h Vc ^hhjZ [dg i]Z
hearing on the merits.
[167] I find that the Companies have legitimate business and security concerns with respect to
the effects of the Norwich and Receivership Orders on their businesses, as they set out in their
factum and as is summarized above.
[168] With respect to their claims of a breach of a duty of full and frank disclosure, I find that
the while the non-disclosure by Mr. Alnowaiser was not material, it changed the factual landscape.
Given the facts as currently known by the court, the Norwich Order and the Receivership Order
are overly broad and must be refashioned.
Miscellaneous Issues
[169] The Plaintiffs seeks an Order that the deemed undertaking rule not apply to any document
obtained from the Norwich Order. This is a broad and far reaching request. I will, however, grant
the alternative relief sought by the Plaintiffs that the deemed undertaking rule should not apply to
Page: 28
documents obtained through the Norwich Order to pursue recognition and enforcement
proceedings in other jurisdictions. Without such an Order, it will be impossible for the Norwich
Order to be executed outside of Canada.
[170] With respect id Vcn d[ ?g, NVVYuh >VcVY^Vc VhhZih* D Yd cdi hZZ l]n i]Z YZZbZY jcYZgiV`^c\
rule should not apply as there are no special circumstances with respect to those assets.
ORDERS
[171] Given all of the above, I make the following Order:
a. The Mareva Order dated January 22, 2021 as it relates to Dr. Saad shall be
continued until further variation or order of the court.
b. The Norwich Order and the Receivership Order dated January 22, 2021 and the
Norwich Order dated December 18, 2020 shall be set aside as against CGI, Gryphon
and Infosec. Any documents already obtained by the Plaintiffs under the Norwich
or Receivership Order in relation to GCI, Gryphon and Infosec shall be treated as
confidential and shall be returned or destroyed as instructed by counsel for CGI,
Gryphon and Infosec.
c. The court is prepared to entertain a motion on proper notice to extend the Norwich
Order to include Golden Valley Management Ltd. and 2767143 Ontario Inc.
d. The QFive Mareva Order dated January 22, 2021 is maintained as there was no
request made to the court to set it aside or vary it.
e. The Norwich Order dated January 22, 2021 shall be amended to include the
KaV^ci^[[hu g^\]i id igVXZ VcY hZZ` egdYjXi^dc d[ Vcn YdXjbZcih gZaViZY id \^[ih [gdb
Dr. Saad to his son Mohammed Al Jabri by way of Deed of Gift or any other means.
f. In the event the Plaintiffs seek the additional Orders against Mohammed Al Jabri
in their Motion to Vary dated February 16, 2021, a motion on notice with respect
to whether this court has jurisdiction to make those Orders shall be scheduled by
i]Z KaV^ci^[[h ^c XdchjaiVi^dc lî] Hd]VbbZY @a EVWgûh >VcVY^Vc XdjchZa,
g. The CPL Order registered against the Bridle Path property shall remain on title.
h. The letters of request directed to the relevant judicial authorities of the British
Virgin Islands, the United Kingdom and Guernsey for judicial assistance shall
issue.
i. The deemed undertaking rule shall not apply to any documents obtained through
the Norwich Order in foreign jurisdictions.
Page: 29
j. The deemed undertaking rule shall apply to Canadian assets owned by Dr. Saad.
He may apply for further Orders in relation to those assets if required and the Sierra
Club test is met.
k. A Case Conference shall be scheduled to determine next steps in this proceeding.
COSTS
[172] If the parties cannot agree on costs, I will receive written submissions of no more than 10
pages (double spaced) in length, exclusive of any Bill of Costs or Offer to Settle. All case law,
transcript or other references in the submissions must be hyperlinked. Costs submissions are due
on a seven-day turnaround, starting with the Plaintiffs and starting seven days from the release of
this decision. All costs submissions are to be sent electronically to my assistant at
Therese.Navrotski@ontario.ca.
C. Gilmore, J.
Released: March 11, 2021

CITATION: Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, 2021 ONSC 1772

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655418-00CL
DATE: 20210311
ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA STAR

AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
>JHK<IS* F<A<u<O =PNDI@NN NJGPODJIN
COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL COMPANY,
ARMOUR SECURITY INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY
& SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL
COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL COMPANY,
NEW DAWN CONTRACTING COMPANY AND SKY
PRIME INVESTMENT COMPANY
Plaintiffs
D and D
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES LTD.,
1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST
804 805 LLC, NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST
DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH
SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID SAAD KHALID
AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF
SAAD KH AL JABRI, SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL
JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD
KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN GROWTH
INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC.,
INFOSEC GLOBAL INC. and QFIVE GLOBAL
INVESTMENT INC.
Defendants
RULING ON SET ASIDE MOTIONS
C. Gilmore, J.
Released: March 11, 2021
Exhibit 2
3/28/2021 Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document
Case Details1-2 Filed 03/29/21
- Massachusetts Trial Court 6 Page 2 of 5
2184CV00688 Sakab Saudi Holding Company vs. AL Jabri, Saad
Case Type:
Business Litigation
Case Status:
Open
File Date
03/24/2021
DCM Track:
Initiating Action:
Fraud, Business Torts, etc.
Status Date:
03/24/2021
Case Judge:
Next Event:
03/29/2021
All Information Party Event Docket Disposition
Party Information
Sakab Saudi Holding Company
- Plaintiff
Alias Party Attorney
Attorney
King, Esq., Denis Michael
Bar Code
555838
Address
Goulston and Storrs
400 Atlantic Ave
Boston, MA 02110-3333
Phone Number
(617)482-1776
Attorney
Zielinski, Esq., Richard M
Bar Code
540060
Address
Goulston and Storrs, P.C.
400 Atlantic Ave
Boston, MA 02110
Phone Number
(617)574-4029
More Party Information
AL Jabri, Saad
- Defendant
AL Jabri, Khalid
- Defendant
New East (Us) Inc.

- Defendant
New East 804 805 Llc

- Defendant
https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/search.page.3?x=FdufhsvvohJmJTPq-1UDk*bC4Q*3igCR1FfrRaf1b1U*qVjgZoe-fMTM8*3mRu6WD*cAkgS7Mc… 1/4
3/28/2021 Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document
New East Back Bay Llc

- Defendant
Al Jabri, Mohammed Saad KH

- Defendant
Events
Date Session Location Type Event Judge Result
03/29/2021 02:00 PM Business Litigation 2 BOS-10th FL, CR 1017 (SC) Hearing on Equity Issue Salinger, Hon. Kenneth W
Docket Information
Docket Docket Text File Ref Image
Date Nbr. Avail.
03/24/2021 Complaint electronically filed. 1 Image
03/24/2021 Civil action cover sheet filed. 2 Image
03/24/2021 Affidavit 3 Image
03/24/2021 Docket Note: 6 Summons mailed to counsel for plaintiff this date
03/24/2021 The following form was generated:
Notice to Appear
Sent On: 03/24/2021 16:03:44
Notice Sent To: Richard M Zielinski, Esq. Goulston and Storrs, P.C. 400 Atlantic Ave, Boston, MA
02110
Notice Sent To: Denis Michael King, Esq. Goulston and Storrs 400 Atlantic Ave, Boston, MA 02110-
3333
03/24/2021 Summons and order of notice issued on a Motion for a Real Estate Attachment , returnable on
03/29/2021 02:00 PM Hearing on Equity Issue.
03/24/2021 Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company's Motion for 4 Image
Short Order of Notice : Motion ALLOWED . Short order of notice to issue returnable Monday March 29,
2021 at 2:00pm via Zoom (dated 3/24/21)
03/24/2021 Exhibits/Appendix Image
Exhibit segment 1 of Alnowaiser Affidavit

03/24/2021 Affidavit Image

Exhibit segment 3A of Alnowaiser Affidavit

Exhibit segment 3B of Alnowaiser Affidavit



3/28/2021 Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document

Date Nbr. Avail.



Exhibit segment 10A of Alnowaiser Affidavit

Exhibit segment 10B of Alnowaiser Affidavit
















3/28/2021 Case 1:21-cv-10529 Document

Date Nbr. Avail.





03/24/2021 Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company's EMERGENCY Motion for 5 Image
a Short Order of Notice and Other Relief
Attachment of Real Property
03/24/2021 Sakab Saudi Holding Company's Memorandum in support of 7 Image
Emergency Motion for Attachment of Real Property
03/24/2021 Proposed Filings/Orders Image
Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens
Emergency Motion for Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens
03/24/2021 Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company's EMERGENCY Motion to 10 Image
Stay Proceedings
Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings
03/24/2021 Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company's Motion to 12 Image
Allow the Appearance of Meaghan Gragg, Neil J. Oxford, Samuel W. Salyer, and William R. Stein Pro
Hac Vice
03/24/2021 Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company's Motion for 13 Image
Appointment of Special Process Server (Beacon Hill Research Inc.)
03/24/2021 Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company's Certificate of 14 Image
Service
Case Disposition
Disposition Date Case Judge
Pending
Exhibit 3
CIVIL ACTION COVER DOCKET NO(S) B.L.S Trial Court Of Massachusetts Superior Court Department County:
SUFFOLK
SHEET
PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)
Sakab Saudi Holding Company (1) Saad Khalid S Al Jabri; (2) Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri;
(3) Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri; (4) New East (US) Inc.;
(5) New East 804 805 LLC; (6) New East Back Bay LLC
ATTORNEY, FIRM NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE Board of Bar Overseers number ATTORNEY (if known)
Richard M. Zielinski (BBO #540060), Denis M. King Unknown

(BBO #555838), Douglas Rosner (BBO#555838), Goulston
& Storrs PC, 400 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110-
3333, (617) 482-1776
Origin Code Original Complaint
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side)
CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?

BE.1 Claims involving breaches of contract or fiduciary, fraud, (B) (X) Yes ( ) No
misrepresentation, business torts or other violations involving
business relationships
The following is a full and detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine eligibility in to The Business Litigation Session.
This case involves a complex, multi-billion dollar fraud scheme, orchestrated by Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”), a
former high-ranking government official in the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”). Through this
scheme, and assisted by members of his immediate family and close friends, Al Jabri defrauded Plaintiff Sakab Saudi
Holding Company (“Sakab”) and other companies of at least 13 billion Saudi riyals (“SAR”) (3.47 billion U.S. Dollars
(“USD”), valued at 3.75 SAR per USD). Al Jabri led this scheme—which the other Defendants and other non-party
conspirators participated in, authorized, had knowledge of or benefited from—to defraud Plaintiff Sakab and other
companies and to move much of the ill-gotten gains to offshore locations in order to enrich Al Jabri, his immediate family
and other close friends and associates (the “Fraudulent Scheme”). Ultimately, after the government of the KSA
reorganized the management of the companies involved and the fraud threatened to come to light, Al Jabri fled to Canada
where he currently resides. Three entities used by Al Jabri to further the Fraudulent Scheme are New East (US) Inc., New
East 804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC. Each owns real estate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
purchased with funds obtained through the Fraudulent Scheme.
* A Special Tracking Order shall be created by the Presiding Justice of the Business Litigation Session at the Rule 16 Conference.
PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND COUNTY, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT.
“I hereby certify that I have complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18) requiring
that I provide my clients with information about court-connected dispute resolution services and discuss with them the advantages and disadvantages of the various
methods.”
Signature of Attorney of Record: /s/ Richard M. Zielinski DATE: March 24, 2021

OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________
Plaintiff,
v.
MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, E-FILED 3/24/2021
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF ABDULAZIZ ALNOWAISER
I, ABDULAZIZ ALNOWAISER, OF THE CITY OF RIYADH, IN THE KINGDOM OF

SAUDI ARABIA, DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY:
1. I am the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Tahakom Investments Company (“TIC”) and
the General Manager of Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Sakab”), as well as of the other Group
Companies (defined below, with the exception of Saudi Technology & Security Comprehensive
Control Company, for which, as described below, I am a board member). As such, I have
knowledge of the facts to which I hereinafter declare. Where I do not have personal knowledge, I
state the source of my information and believe it to be true. Wherever I use the word “I” or “my”
HHR-0001
in this affidavit (other than the section about my personal background) I am referring to myself in
my capacity as the General Manager or board member (as the case may be) of TIC and the Group
Companies, and not in my personal capacity.
2. Additionally, I note that my affidavit and the exhibits to my affidavit refer to the names of
individuals and corporations that have been translated from Arabic to English. The translation of
these names from Arabic may result in minor variations in spelling and naming of certain entities.
3. Throughout my affidavit I refer to an expert report dated January 18, 2021, that was
prepared by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services Limited and Deloitte Professional Services
(DIFC) Limited (collectively, “Deloitte”) and describes the current status of efforts to trace funds
transferred from the Plaintiff Sakab and other related companies (the “Deloitte Report”), attached
hereto as Exhibit 1. The Deloitte Report is produced without exhibits, due to the volume of
documents; the exhibits are available and will be produced to the Court if requested.
4. I make this affidavit in support of a motion by the Plaintiff Sakab for a prejudgment writ
of attachment against real property held in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the
Defendants, Saad bin Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”), Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid Al
Jabri”), Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri (“Mohammed Al Jabri”), New East (US) Inc., New East
804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC.
PART I: MY BACKGROUND
5. I am a resident of Riyadh in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”). A copy of my
curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
6. As outlined in my CV, I have been the CEO of TIC and General Manager of Sakab since
September 2018.
HHR-0002
7. I hold a Masters degree in accounting, which I obtained in the United States at Case
Western Reserve University, in Cleveland, Ohio, and a bachelor’s degree in 1995 from King Saud
University in Riyadh. I passed my Certified Public Accountant (CPA) examination in 2002 in
Arkansas in the United States of America. Between 2002 and 2018, I obtained a number of
professional certifications including, among others, Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Certified
Financial Services Auditor (CFSA), Certified Financial Manager (CFM) and Certified
Management Accountant (CMA).
8. In addition to my work at TIC, I sit on the board of directors and in some cases, the audit
committee, of a number of corporations, including, among others, the Saudi Railway Co. and the
National Water Co.
PART II: BACKGROUND OF TIC AND THE GROUP COMPANIES
9. TIC is a joint stock corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the KSA. A copy of
the Articles of Association, Bylaws and the Commercial Registration Certificate of TIC (in Arabic,
with an English translation) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
10. As described in further detail below, TIC was incorporated on January 3, 2018 to operate
as a holding company for a group of seventeen (17) companies. Those companies (all of which
are limited liability companies and are collectively referred to below as the “Group Companies”)
are as follows:
Name in English CR No. Name in Arabic
Management Support Company (“MSC”) 1010408368 ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻧﺪة اﻹدارة ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Tawari Information Technology Company 1010554670 ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﺔﯿﻨﻘﺘﻟ اﻟﺘﻘﻨﯿﺔ ﺗﻮارى ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
(“Tawari”)
Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Sakab”) 1010249612 ‫اﻟﻘﺎﺑﻀﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ ﺐﻜﺳ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Security Control Company (“SCC”) 1010156413 ‫اﻷﻣﻨﻲ اﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
HHR-0003
Name in English CR No. Name in Arabic
Armour Security Industrial Manufacturing 1010439788 ‫اﻟﺘﺤﻮﯾﻠﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻨﺎﻋﺎت اﻷﻣﻦ درع ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Company (“ASIM”)
Sky Prime Investment Company (“Sky 1010439786 ‫ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎر اﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﺔﻤﻗ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Prime”)
Alpha Star Aviation Services Company 1010277187 ‫اﻟﺠﻮﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺪﻣﺎت أﻟﻔﺎ ﻢﺠﻧ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
(“Alpha Star”)
Alpha Star Support Services Company 1010340053 ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻧﺪة ﻟﻠﺨﺪﻣﺎت أﻟﻔﺎ ﻢﺠﻧ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
(“Alpha Star Support”)
Alpha Star for Travel and Tourism 1010427618 ‫واﻟﺴﯿﺎﺣﺔ ﺮﻔﺴﻠﻟ أﻟﻔﺎ ﻢﺠﻧ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Company (“Alpha Star for Travel”)
Alpha Star Holding Company (“Alpha Star 1010425890 ‫اﻟﻘﺎﺑﻀﺔ أﻟﻔﺎ ﻢﺠﻧ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Holding”)
Infinity Support Services Company 1010331195 ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻧﺪة ﻟﻠﺨﺪﻣﺎت اﻟﻼﻣﺤﺪودة ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬

(“Infinity”)
Technology Control Company (“TCC”) 1010252725 ‫اﻟﺘﻘﻨﯿﺔ ﻢﻜﺤﺗ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Kafa’at Business Solutions Company 1010409127 ‫اﻷﻋﻤﺎل ﺣﻠﻮل ﻛﻔﺎءات ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬

(“Kafa’at”)
Saudi Technology & Security 1010437658 ‫اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﻢﻜﺤﺘﻠﻟ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬

Comprehensive Control Company ‫اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻞ واﻷﻣﻨﻲ‬
(“STSCCC”)
New Dawn Contracting Company (“New 1010483116 ‫ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎوﻻت اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪ اﻟﻔﺠﺮ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Dawn”)
Beta Moon Company (“Beta Moon”) 1010425945 ‫ﺎﺘﯿﺑ ﺮﻤﻗ ﺔﻛﺮﺷ‬
Enma Al Ared for Investment and Real 1010318739 ‫اﻷرض إﻧﻤﺎء ﺔﻛﺮﺷ اﻟﻌﻘﺎري‬
Estate Development Company (“Enma Al ‫واﻟﺘﻄﻮﯾﺮ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎر‬
Ared”)
11. As described in further detail below, the Group Companies were established between 2008
and 2016 pursuant to the instruction allocating funds from the KSA’s Ministry of Finance as a
HHR-0004
percentage of the annual activities of the KSA’s Ministry of Interior (the “MOI”). The allocated
funds were to be used to invest in the private sector in companies for counter-terrorism activities.
12. Although to my knowledge Al Jabri was not a registered shareholder, officer, director or
employee of any of the Group Companies, it appears from documents that I have reviewed that Al
Jabri was involved in directing the establishment and certain other aspects and actions of the Group
Companies.
13. The ownership of the Group Companies was transferred to TIC between February and May
of 2018, in accordance with a direction from Mohammad Al Al-Sheikh (Supervisor of the Work
of the Teams and the Units), dated December 24, 2017, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 4.
14. TIC is now the sole shareholder of each of the Group Companies.
15. As CEO of TIC, I report directly to the TIC Board of Directors. TIC is wholly owned by
the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia (the “PIF”), an independent sovereign wealth fund.
16. TIC provides support to the Group Companies. I am currently the General Manager of
each of the Group Companies, other than STSCCC. In the case of STSCCC, I am a member of
the board of directors. For each of the Group Companies other than STSCCC, the respective CEO
reports directly to me. The financials of the Group Companies are prepared and audited at the
company level, and then consolidated and audited at the group level.
17. The Group Companies and other entities under the control of TIC operate in the areas of
IT, encryption, cyber security, traffic law enforcement systems, aerospace services, security and
sale of armored cars, computer systems and communication and information services, among other
things.
HHR-0005
PART III: THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION
1. Sakab Saudi Holding Company
18. Sakab was incorporated pursuant to the laws of the KSA in May 2008. A copy of the
Commercial Registration and Articles of Association for Sakab (in Arabic with an English
translation) is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The Articles of Association identify Al Jabri’s close
friend Abdullah Homoud A Alsowailem Alsowailem (“Abdullah Alsowailem”) and Al Jabri’s
nephew Majed Obaid S Almuzaini (“Majed Almuzaini”) as each holding fifty percent (50%) of
the shares of Sakab.
19. A copy of an agreement located in Sakab’s records (in Arabic with an English translation)
confirming that Abdullah Alsowailem and Majed Almuzaini were “nominee shareholders” of
Sakab who held no actual or beneficial ownership in Sakab is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Similar
agreements were located for the majority of the Group Companies.
20. During the relevant period, Sakab distributed funds to the other Group Companies. I am
aware, based on the results of asset tracing performed by Deloitte, that, between July 2008 and
August 2017, at least 30 billion Saudi Riyals (“SAR”) (8 billion U.S. Dollars (“USD”), at a fixed
rate of SAR 3.75 to USD 1) passed through Sakab’s accounts to the other Group Companies, and,
as detailed below, in many instances, to Al Jabri and certain of the Defendants, and/or other third
parties. During this period, Sakab did not have any operating business activities or functions.
21. It now appears from the Deloitte Report and documents that I have reviewed that, from its
inception, the financial transactions through Sakab were recorded primarily “off-book” and were
not reflected in the company’s audited financial statements. Copies of Sakab’s financial
statements for the years 2012 to 2017 (in some instances in Arabic with an English translation) are
HHR-0006
collectively attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Although Sakab was incorporated in 2008, financial
statements were located for the company only from 2012 to 2017.
22. A copy of Amending Articles of Incorporation of Sakab transferring ownership to TIC is
attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
PART IV: THE DEFENDANTS
1. Saad Al Jabri
23. Al Jabri is a former government official of the KSA and previously held the role of Director
of the Department of Officers and Personnel Affairs and Security Advisor in the MOI of the KSA.
In January 2015, Al Jabri was appointed a Minister of State and to the Council of Ministers and
the Council of Political and Security Affairs. Al Jabri held these roles until September 10, 2015
when he was relieved of his titles and position. A copy of an unofficial translation and Arabic
version of Al Jabri’s biography that I obtained at the following website:
https://www.spa.gov.sa/1322338, along with a document obtained from the Public Prosecutor of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the “Public Prosecutor”) outlining the government positions held
by Al Jabri, are attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
24. Since September 2017, to the best of my knowledge, Al Jabri has been resident in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada with his spouse and several members of his family.
2. Al Jabri’s Family Members
25. Mohammed Al Jabri is Al Jabri’s son. Mohammed Al Jabri was installed as a nominee
shareholder for one or more Group Companies. When first appointed as a nominee shareholder,
he was only 21 years old and his occupation was listed on company documents as “student” or
“self-employed.” Mohammed Al Jabri, along with his brother Khalid Al Jabri and his father, Al
HHR-0007
Jabri, has held manager, director and/or authorized signatory roles in U.S. entities that Al Jabri
created to hold real estate investments.
26. Khalid Al Jabri is Al Jabri’s son. He is the registered owner of and has previously
identified as his registered address a property in Canada that was acquired with funds
misappropriated from the Group Companies. Khalid Al Jabri is a director and fifty percent (50%)
shareholder of Jaalik Company Limited (“Jaalik”), a corporation incorporated in the KSA which
received at least SAR 53,737,714 (USD 14,330,057) in improper payments from a Group
Company. Khalid Al Jabri, along with his brother Mohammed Al Jabri and father, Al Jabri, has
held manager, director and/or authorized signatory roles in U.S. entities that were created to hold
real estate investments.
27. In addition to payments to other immediate family members, Deloitte has traced payments
from Al Jabri to eight accounts held by his son Mohammed Al Jabri in KSA. These payments
total SAR 15,568,339 (USD 4,151,557).
28. A document obtained from the Public Prosecutor’s records which confirms the names and
date of birth for each of Al Jabri’s immediate family members is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
3. US Corporate Entities and Related Persons
29. New East (US) Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
The directors of New East (US) Inc. are Khalid Al Jabri, Jonathan Wainwright and Leonhard
Toenz. New East (US) Inc. and New East 804 805 LLC, described below, are the registered
owners of five properties located in the Millennium Place luxury condominium building in Boston,
Massachusetts.
HHR-0008
30. New East 804 805 LLC is a limited liability company established pursuant to the laws of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its current managers are Mohammed Al Jabri, Khalid Al
Jabri and Jonathan Wainwright.
31. New East Back Bay LLC is a limited liability company established pursuant to the laws of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its current managers are Khalid Al Jabri, Jonathan
Wainwright and Leonhard Toenz. New East Back Bay LLC is the registered owner of three
properties in two luxury condominium buildings in Boston, Massachusetts: the Mandarin Oriental
and One Dalton Place (located at the Four Seasons).
32. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (“Cadwalader”) is a law firm with offices in, among
other locations, New York City. Cadwalader’s New York office address is associated with a
number of the properties owned by the New East entities described above. Cadwalader is not a
defendant.
33. Jonathan Wainwright, a lawyer in Cadwalader’s New York office, has been identified as a
manager, director, authorized signatory and/or as holding a governing role in each of the New East
entities described above. Wainwright is not a defendant.
PART V: THE COMPENSATION LETTER
34. As noted above, the Group Companies, including the Plaintiff Sakab, were incorporated
between 2008 and 2016 pursuant to a direction allocating funds from the KSA’s Ministry of
Finance as a percentage of the annual activities of the MOI. The allocation was intended to fund
counter-terrorism activities.
35. Royal Instruction 19134/B dated December 27, 2007, a copy of which (in Arabic, with an
English translation) is attached hereto as Exhibit 11, was signed by King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz
and addressed to the Minister of Interior at that time, Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz (the “Royal
HHR-0009
10
Instruction”). Royal Instruction 19134/B increased the level of funding from 30% of the MOI’s
annual activities to 45%, and expressly stipulated that the increased amount was to be managed by
the MOI Minister Assistant for Security Affairs at that time, Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, to
“fight terrorism activities as the situation and public interest require” and that the funds could be
used to “establish and fund investment intermediaries in the private sector as His Royal Highness
sees to serve the public interest.” For the duration of my affidavit, I refer to the funding established
by this Royal Instruction as the “Allowance” (at times translated in the exhibits attached hereto as
the “Allocation”).
36. The establishment and funding of the Group Companies by the Allowance, along with the
directions to Al Jabri in relation to these endeavors, were contained in a letter dated January 19,
2008 from Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef to Al Jabri and a close business associate of Al Jabri,
Abdullah Alhammad (all three government officials) (the “Compensation Letter”), a copy of which
(in Arabic, with an English translation) is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
37. The Compensation Letter provides that Al Jabri—who did not, to my knowledge, become
an official director, officer or employee of any of the Group Companies (with the possible
exception of Sakab, for which unofficial documents indicate that he may have been a board
member)—and Abdullah Alhammad would each receive five percent (5%) of the net profits of the
Group Companies. This profit share was described therein as compensation for “the administrative
efforts, supervision and follow up.” The Compensation Letter also indicated that, in the event of
future success, Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad may also be entitled to a “rewarding percentage”
in the Group Companies.
38. At some time after the issuance of the Compensation Letter, Al Jabri and Abdullah
Alhammad began establishing a series of corporations for the purpose of establishing private
HHR-0010
11
enterprises furthering the MOI’s counter-terrorism activities in the public interest. It appears,
based on the documents reviewed to date, that Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef delegated this task
exclusively to Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad. However, it also now appears that they both
used substantial sums of funds from Sakab and other Group Companies for their own personal
benefit and for the benefit of their close friends and family members, rather than the best interests
of the plaintiff and the other Group Companies, or for the public interest. A letter dated May 9,
2008 from Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad to Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, a copy of which
(in Arabic, with an English translation) is attached hereto as Exhibit 13, confirms the establishment
of Sakab under the “fictive ownership of Mr. Abdullah Bin Hammud al-Suwaylim [sic] and Mr.
Majid Bin Ubaid al-Muzaini for the investment purpose mentioned in the Royal Direction . . . .”
39. A letter dated October 13, 2015 from Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef to Al Jabri and
Abdullah Alsowailem referencing Royal Instruction 19134/B and a prior discussion on January
19, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit 14 (in Arabic, with an English translation). In that letter,
Mohammed Bin Nayef, states, among other things, “due to the importance of restructuring the
existing companies by keeping some of the activities that security work needs and terminating
what the public good necessitates, we would like you to proceed with this and notify us on a rolling
basis.”
40. As a result of a third-party disclosure order granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
on December 18, 2020, I have obtained access to documents in the possession of the Public
Prosecutor. In light of the volume of these documents (described in paragraph 66 below), they
continue to be reviewed in order to more fully understand the fraudulent scheme and to determine
what Al Jabri and his family and associates have done with the monies taken from the Plaintiff
Sakab and other Group Companies.
HHR-0011
12
41. In addition to receiving payments for which no legal justification appears to exist, certain
of Al Jabri’s close associates, friends and family members appear to have received inflated salaries,
benefits, bonuses and/or the benefits of related-party transactions or contracts to which they were
not entitled, as detailed further below and in the Deloitte Report.
42. Al Jabri was a government employee during much of the period in which the scheme was
carried out (until September 2015).
43. For the period between 2008 to 2017, I am aware, based on the work conducted by Deloitte
to date, that Al Jabri received more than SAR 1.8 billion (USD 480 million) of the funds
misappropriated from Sakab and other Group Companies. These payments were made to Al Jabri
even though he was not officially employed by and did not appear to be an official officer or
director of any of the Group Companies (with the possible exception of Sakab, where he may have
been a board member) based on the Group Companies’ records available to me and as registered
with the department of corporate registrations of the KSA Ministry of Commerce. Rather, as noted
above, Al Jabri was a government official during much of this period.
44. I am aware, as it is a well-known principle, that government officials in the KSA are, absent
an express legally authorized exemption, prohibited by law from accepting employment with
private corporations, establishing private corporations in their name (directly or indirectly) or
accepting any source of income from a private company.
45. I am aware of the expert opinion prepared by Abdulaziz Hamad Al Fahad regarding this
and other matters of KSA law that are relevant to this action, attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
46. Despite the lack of an official position with the Group Companies (with the possible
exception of Sakab, where he may have been a board member), Al Jabri was able to, and did,
exercise control over and direct certain aspects of the Group Companies’ activities, including,
HHR-0012
13
among other things, the receipt and disbursement of funds, the effectuation of “off-book”
transactions, the payment of bonuses and rewards and the establishment of valuations underlying
such bonuses and rewards, and the accounting for certain transactions
PART VI: THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NOMINEE SHAREHOLDERS
47. Although Al Jabri (along with Abdullah Alhammad) directed the acquisition and/or
creation of the Group Companies, as noted above, his name does not appear as an official director,
officer, employee or shareholder of any of the Group Companies. In the case of Sakab, two
unofficial documents (i.e. not registered with the commercial registry), copies of which (in Arabic,
with an English translation) are attached together hereto as Exhibit 16, indicate that he may have
been Vice Chairman of the board of directors.
48. Rather, it appears that following the incorporation of each of the Group Companies, Al
Jabri installed his nephew Majed Almuzaini and his friend and associate Abdullah Alsowailem as
“nominee shareholders” for most of the Group Companies. The agreements located to date
(referred to as the “Nominee Side Agreements” hereafter), including the Sakab agreement attached
hereto as Exhibit 6, described the appointment of Abdullah Alsowailem and Majed Almuzaini as
“nominee shareholders” (with the exception of the Nominee Side Agreements for Enma Al Ared
and New Dawn, in which Abdullah Alsowailem and Al Jabri’s son Mohammed Al Jabri were
appointed), and specifically provided that neither of them actually owned the assets, or had any
right to any of the profits of the company but that all share capital, investments, activities, profits
or losses belonged to the MOI, based on the Allowance allocated by Royal Instruction (with the
exception of the one percent (1%) net profit discussed herein).
49. In the case of the Group Companies for which no agreement has been located to date, I
expect, based on the form of agreements located for the other Group Companies, that an
HHR-0013
14
arrangement similar to the arrangement outlined in the Nominee Side Agreements was likely
implemented.
50. Aside from the exceptions to the identity of the appointed nominees, as outlined above, the
language contained in the Nominee Side Agreements is virtually identical, as was the identity of
the “First Party” to the agreement (as defined therein) who was in all instances Prince Mohammed
Bin Nayef.
51. By way of example, the Nominee Side Agreement for Sakab, attached hereto as Exhibit 6,
was entered into between Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef as the First Party and Abdullah
Alsowailem and Majed Almuzaini as the Second Party. The Nominee Side Agreement, which was
not registered officially with the relevant authority in the KSA, confirms at Article 2 that:
All parties signing this agreement acknowledge that this company’s capital and all
its investments, activities, and profits or losses are wholly owned, connect to, and
revert to the allowance referenced in the aforementioned Royal Direction, and that
Second Party’s ownership of this company is a sham ownership arrangement.
This indicated that the MOI was, in fact, the real beneficial owner of the Group Companies.
52. Article 7 of the same Nominee Side Agreement provided that the Second Party would be
entitled to “compensation estimated by the First Party in consideration of registering the company
in their names and using their names in this joint venture agreement.”
53. The compensation was further described in Article 10, which stated:
His Royal Highness (First Party) has decided to allocate 1% of the annual net
profits to the Second Party for registering the ownership in their names and for
their membership on the Board of Directors, on top of all remunerations and
entitlements Second Party shall receive from the company under a contract
concluded with it.
54. Pursuant to Article 14, Abdullah Alsowailem and Majed Almuzaini agreed to maintain the
confidentiality of the Nominee Side Agreements and agreed not to keep “any original or copy of
the work papers for themselves.”
HHR-0014
15
55. From documents found within the Group Companies’ records, it also appears that many of
the Nominee Side Agreements were sent to Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef for execution
accompanied by a letter from Al Jabri and Abdullah Alhammad. Each of these letters indicates
that the applicable Group Company was registered “under sham ownership” by the nominee
shareholders. Copies of these letters relating to Sakab and other Group Companies Enma Al Ared,
SCC (Al Raqaba), Beta Moon, Alpha Star Holding, Alpha Star, Infinity, Alpha Star Support, Alpha
Star Travel, STSCCC and TCC are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit 17.
PART VII: EY ENGAGED TO PERFORM A DUE DILIGENCE VALUATION
56. In connection with the decision in late 2017 to bring the Group Companies under one
common ownership, the PIF engaged Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”) in August 2017 to perform a
due diligence review and valuation of six of the Group Companies. Specifically, I understand that
EY was engaged to perform due diligence relating to Group Companies STSCCC, Alpha Star,
TCC, Kafa’at, SCC and Infinity.
57. EY identified a number of irregularities in the course of its due diligence review. EY
ultimately reported the irregularities to the PIF on January 28, 2018 (the “EY Report”). A copy of
the EY Report, without exhibits, is attached hereto as Exhibit 18. As is described further below,
the analysis in the EY Report was preliminary in nature and formed the basis for Deloitte’s
subsequent engagement. Among other things, the EY Report stated that:
(a) it appeared the audited companies had paid aggregate dividends to shareholders of
SAR 2.9 billion (USD 773.3 million);
(b) although SCC purported to loan SAR 504.5 million (USD 134.5 million) to
shareholders during 2016, the amount was not reflected on the balance sheet as at
December 2016;
HHR-0015
16
(c) two of Alpha Star’s three operating licenses and 309 of its staff members had been
transferred to Sky Prime; in addition, the number of Alpha Star’s operating aircraft
went from 16 in 2015 to 9 in June 2017, and Alpha Star also transferred aircraft
worth SAR 1.6 billion (USD 426.7 million) to shareholders in 2015, receiving in
exchange aircraft valued at SAR 193.4 million (USD 51.6 million);
(d) all of SCC’s contracts were transferred to ASIM during February 2017;
(e) limited financial records appeared to exist at Alpha Star, Infinity and SCC;
(f) audited financial statements for the companies reviewed by EY did not reconcile
with information received from management;
(g) none of Alpha Star, Infinity nor SCC had appointed a CFO; and
(h) business plans available at STSCCC, TCC and Kafa’at were outdated and
frequently lacked supporting documents necessary to clarify the basis of the
assumptions used to prepare financial projections made therein. In particular,
STSCCC’s financial model contained over 100 errors.
PART VIII: ENGAGEMENT OF DELOITTE FORENSIC TEAM
58. After learning of the irregularities discovered by EY in the course of its due diligence
assignment, the PIF engaged Deloitte to perform a forensic review of the issues identified by EY.
Initially, Deloitte was engaged to review only the six companies in which EY identified
irregularities.
59. In the course of its initial forensic review, Deloitte identified a number of additional issues
that would require further investigation, including transfers to the “nominees” and other parties of
interest, related party and intercompany transactions, and the operation of Sakab as a clearinghouse
for payments. The findings reported by Deloitte to the PIF, as sole shareholder of TIC, were
HHR-0016
17
summarized in a report dated October 31, 2018, a copy of which (without exhibits, due to the
volume of documents) is attached hereto as Exhibit 19. The exhibits are available and will be
produced to the Court if requested. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation
results, the recipients of funds from the Group Companies were referenced by number. A key
identifying the individuals referenced in the report by number is attached hereto as Exhibit 20.
60. In its first report, Deloitte recommended a deep dive into Sakab, because the company
“appeared to be the main conduit for the payments to the parties of interest…” (see page 28 of
Exhibit 19). As a result, TIC engaged Deloitte to perform a broader scope of forensic review of
all of the Group Companies, with a particular focus on Sakab, as recommended. This work
commenced in late January 2019, and Deloitte presented its findings in a draft interim report dated
August 1, 2019 and a report dated December 5, 2019 (the “2019 Deloitte Report”). Copies of the
August 1, 2019 interim report and the 2019 Deloitte Report are attached together hereto (without
exhibits, due to the volume of documents), as Exhibit 21. The exhibits are available and will be
produced to the Court if requested. The number key attached hereto as Exhibit 20 was used to
identify the individuals referenced by number in the 2019 Deloitte Report.
PART IX: DELOITTE CONDUCTS AN ADDITIONAL FORENSIC REVIEW
61. Following the completion of Deloitte’s initial forensic review in December 2019, Deloitte
identified that over SAR 10 billion (USD 2.6 billion) had been transferred from the Group
Companies to, among others, Al Jabri, Abdullah Alhammad, Salem Almuzaini (Al Jabri’s nephew
and son-in-law), Majed Almuzaini, Bejad Alharbi (Al Jabri’s close friend and associate), Abdullah
Alsowailem, Abdulrahman Al Jabri (Al Jabri’s brother) and Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef.
Deloitte also determined that other large amounts of money taken from the Group Companies had
been moved outside the country, frequently to offshore jurisdictions where, in a number of cases,
HHR-0017
18
the money was then used to fund purchases of substantial real estate holdings for the benefit of
these and other individuals. As of December 2019, Deloitte had determined that Al Jabri (directly,
or indirectly through his wholly owned offshore British Virgin Islands company Dreams
International Advisory Services Ltd. (“Dreams International”)) had received at least SAR 887
million (USD 236 million). (Attached as Exhibit 22 is a copy of a document titled “Establishment
of the Beneficial Owner’s Identity” for Dreams International (which was located in the records of
the Group Companies) confirming that Al Jabri is the ultimate beneficial owner of Dreams
International, and enclosing a Certificate of Incorporation for the company.)
62. As it appeared that Al Jabri, along with his close friends and family members, had
embezzled vast amounts from Sakab and other Group Companies and secreted them away, TIC
instructed its legal counsel to engage Deloitte to conduct further analyses and tracing of the funds
to help uncover the fraud and determine the location of its proceeds. Deloitte was so engaged on
September 11, 2020.
63. In connection with the engagement of Deloitte to perform further analyses and tracing,
Sakab brought a motion seeking a disclosure order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Commercial List). On December 18, 2020, the Honourable Justice Glenn A. Hainey granted that
motion, ordering the disclosure to Sakab of certain information pertaining to funds transferred to
Persons of Interest, as defined therein, and specified entities (the “First Norwich Order”). A copy
of the First Norwich Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 23.
64. In accordance with the First Norwich Order, Sakab has obtained copies of records
contained in the files of the Public Prosecutor, which had commenced an investigation into certain
of the Persons of Interest (as defined therein). My letter dated December 19, 2020 providing to
HHR-0018
19
the Public Prosecutor the First Norwich Order granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is
attached hereto (in Arabic, with an English translation) as Exhibit 24.
65. The Public Prosecutor responded by correspondence dated December 24, 2020, advising
of the Public Prosecutor’s agreement to provide access to materials in its file in accordance with
the First Norwich Order. A copy of that correspondence (in Arabic, with an English translation)
is attached hereto as Exhibit 25.
66. There is a substantial amount of information in the files received from the Public
Prosecutor and, as of the date of the signing of this affidavit, neither the Group Companies’
counsel, Deloitte nor I have been able to review all of the information. The review process is
ongoing. Included amongst the Public Prosecutor’s documents are documents enclosing the
detailed banking transactions from bank accounts held in the KSA for a large number of
individuals, to which Deloitte has initially directed its focus. There are also many other documents,
including account information, real estate and property records, corporate records, information
pertaining to investments held by a number of individuals, witness statements and email
communications, most of which are in Arabic and have not been translated yet.
67. In addition to the documents obtained from the files of the Public Prosecutor, Deloitte was
given access to documents obtained at the offices of Sakab in connection with its engagement. I
am advised by Deloitte, and believe it to be the case, that the documents referenced and exhibited
to the Deloitte Report were obtained from the records of Sakab, the other Group Companies during
the Deloitte investigation and pursuant to the First Norwich Order (from the Public Prosecutor).
68. In total, as described in the Deloitte Report dated January 18, 2021, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1, it appears that Al Jabri and the other Defendants and co-conspirators (and third parties
HHR-0019
20
or persons or companies of interest) discussed below have misappropriated more than SAR 13
billion (USD 3.5 billion) from Sakab and other Group Companies.
69. I am not aware of any legitimate basis for the payments received by Al Jabri, directly or
indirectly, or for the payments to the other Defendants, co-conspirators, or persons and companies
of interest discussed in the Deloitte Report.
PART X: FUNDS TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY TO AL JABRI
70. As detailed in the Deloitte Report, as of January 18, 2021, Deloitte had traced payments
totaling approximately SAR 1.1 billion (USD 293.3 million) from Sakab and the other Group
Companies to accounts in the name of Al Jabri directly, or to accounts held in the name of Dreams
International, in the period from January 2, 2013 to May 30, 2017.
71. As of January 18, 2021, Deloitte had traced an additional nearly SAR 700 million (USD
186.7 million) paid to Al Jabri from Bejad Alharbi, Hamad Al Muas, Abdulrahman Al Khelaiwi
and Bin Nayef, presumably out of funds that had been transferred to them from the Group
Companies. Each of these individuals are associates of Al Jabri and/or government officials who
were involved in facilitating self-dealing transactions and other transfers of funds from the Group
Companies to Al Jabri. The forensic investigation is still ongoing.
72. Of the funds referenced in paragraph 70 above totaling approximately SAR 1.1 billion
(USD 293.3 million) taken by Al Jabri that have been identified as of January 18, 2021, at least
SAR 950,891,970 (USD 253,571,192) was transferred from the domestic and international bank
accounts of Sakab. These transfers were all made “off-book,” meaning they were not recorded in
the financial records of Sakab or reported in the audited accounts of Sakab.
73. The funds referenced in paragraph 70 above totaling approximately SAR 1.1 billion (USD
293.3 million) taken by Al Jabri that have been identified as of January 18, 2021, also include
HHR-0020
21
payments to Al Jabri totaling SAR 36,252,527 (USD 9,667,341) and SAR 114,731,000 (USD
30,594,960) that were made from bank accounts belonging to Alpha Star and Enma Al Ared,
respectively.
74. I am aware that during the relevant period, Al Jabri personally held at least 18 bank
accounts in his name in the KSA alone.
“Valuation” Documents Referenced in the Deloitte Report
75. The funds referenced in paragraph 72 above totaling at least SAR 950,891,970 (USD
253,571,192) taken by Al Jabri from Sakab that have been identified as of January 18, 2021
include, among other improper payments, an improper payment referenced in paragraph 5.20 of
the Deloitte Report, made on August 5, 2013 from Sakab to Al Jabri in the amount of SAR 50
million (USD 13.33 million), as well as payments made on the same day by Sakab to five other
conspirators. The Deloitte Report indicates that the payments directed to Al Jabri and others on
that date appear to relate to an undated, handwritten document found in the records of the Group
Companies titled “Summary: Companies’ valuation and Boards of Directors members” (the “2013
Handwritten Estimate”), a copy of which (in Arabic with an English translation) is attached hereto
as Exhibit 26.
76. The 2013 Handwritten Estimate is undated and unclear as to its authorship. The payments
described in paragraph 75 above are referenced in the 2013 Handwritten Estimate as being
“directed” to Al Jabri from Alpha Star (SAR 20 million (USD 5.33 million)), TCC (SAR 20 million
(USD 5.33 million)) and SCC (SAR 10 million (USD 2.67 million)). However, as noted in
paragraph 75 above, the SAR 50 million (USD 13.33 million) was in fact paid to Al Jabri by Sakab.
The 2013 Handwritten Estimate also purports to provide a “net value” figure for each of Alpha
Star, TCC and SCC, upon which the payments to Al Jabri and others were purportedly based,
although no details are provided in the document with respect to how these handwritten
HHR-0021
22
“valuations” were derived. I am not aware of any actual or documented valuation of these entities
having been prepared by any of the Group Companies during this period.
77. The funds referenced in paragraph 72 above totaling at least SAR 950,891,970 (USD
253,571,192) taken by Al Jabri from Sakab that have been identified as of January 18, 2021 also
include, among other improper payments, an improper payment referenced in paragraph 5.31 of
the Deloitte Report in the amount of SAR 148,927,446 (USD 39,713,986) made to Al Jabri on
August 19, 2015 from a domestic Saudi British Bank (“SABB”) bank account in the name of Sakab
(the “Sakab Domestic Account”), which Deloitte suggests at paragraph 5.34.3 of the Deloitte
Report is related to the unsigned, undated document titled “Sakab Saudi Holding Company Board
of Directors” (the “Undated Valuation Document”), attached hereto as Exhibit 27. I am similarly
unaware of any actual or supported valuation of Sakab having been prepared by any of the Group
Companies during this period.
78. In addition to the two handwritten, undated “valuation” documents referenced in
paragraphs 75 through 77 above, the Deloitte Report also references a number of other undated,
unsigned, and in some cases, handwritten documents that purport to value or “allocate” substantial
amounts for payment to Al Jabri. Several examples are described in sub-paragraphs (a) through
(f) below. In all instances referenced below, I am unaware of any support (such as a signed
director’s resolution or company minutes signed by company officials or recorded in the financial
statements) for the purported allocations or valuations described therein, or of who prepared the
document purporting to value or allocate funds. As described in the Deloitte Report, many of these
documents have been linked with what appear to be corresponding payments from the accounts of
Sakab and other Group Companies to Al Jabri and other co-conspirators:
HHR-0022
23
(a) Paragraph 5.48 of the Deloitte Report references an unsigned and undated schedule
located at Sakab’s offices, attached hereto as Exhibit 28, which indicates that a
payment of SAR 38,218,759 (USD 10,191,669) was made to Al Jabri from Sakab,
which purportedly equaled five percent (5%) of Sakab’s net profits for the years
2013 to 2015;
(b) Paragraph 5.51 of the Deloitte Report references the undated and unsigned schedule
titled “Return on the Assets of Enma Al Ared for Investment and Real Estate
Development Company until 11/10/2015.” Similarly, paragraphs 5.70 and 5.84 of
the Deloitte Report reference undated and unsigned schedules which purport to
calculate payments to Al Jabri and other conspirators based on the “Profits” of
Group Companies Alpha Star and TCC. Copies of each of these documents are
attached hereto as Exhibit 29;
(c) Paragraphs 5.115 and 5.116 of the Deloitte Report refer to two undated, unsigned
documents located in the Group Companies’ records, attached hereto as Exhibit 30,
the second of which appears to be a distribution schedule, reproduced here, on
which a handwritten note appears stating “from Tahakom Net Amount
150,000,000” (Tahakom is the abbreviated Arabic name of the Group Company
STSCCC, which is a separate entity from TIC). The amount allocated on the chart
to “Dr. S,” which I understand to be a reference to Al Jabri, is SAR 7.5 million
(USD 2 million), which reflects 5% of SAR 150 million;
HHR-0023
24
(d) Paragraph 5.125 of the Deloitte Report refers to unsigned, undated documents that
appear to have been printed from Excel spreadsheets located in Sakab’s records,
which detail distributions from STSCCC, Kafa’at and SCC that were assigned to
Al Jabri. At paragraph 5.69, Deloitte refers to an undated, unsigned schedule that
appears to detail a distribution of total profits of Alpha Star, Infinity and Alpha Star
Support, and at paragraph 5.202 an undated table, each of which are attached
together hereto as Exhibit 31;
HHR-0024
25
(e) The undated and unsigned schedule referenced at paragraph 5.140 of the Deloitte
Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 32, appears to reference a payment of SAR
36,084,935 (USD 9,622,649) to Al Jabri; and
(f) The undated and unsigned schedule referenced at paragraph 5.141 of the Deloitte
Report allocated a payment of SAR 20 million (USD 5.33 million) to Al Jabri as a
purported “partner’s percentage” from Sky Prime. Similarly, the undated and
unsigned schedule referenced at paragraph 5.202 of the Deloitte Report allocated a
payment of SAR 16,752,750 (USD 4,467,400) to Al Jabri, as well as payments to
other conspirators, based on purported profits generated by STSCCC; Deloitte also
identified a letter signed by the nominee shareholders of Sakab directing SABB to
make transfers to the personal accounts of the nominee shareholders in the amounts
included on this undated, unsigned schedule. Each of these documents are attached
together hereto as Exhibit 33.
79. Based on the information included in the Deloitte Report, I believe that these documents
illustrate efforts made by Al Jabri and his co-conspirators to create a justification or paper trail for
the payments they made from Sakab and other Group Companies to their own bank accounts. I
am not aware of any information supporting the “valuations” or “profits” that these payments were
supposedly based upon, aside from these documents and schedules themselves. I believe, based
on the information included within the Deloitte Report, that in many if not all cases the
“valuations” or “profits” claimed in these documents were far in excess of any reasonable
accounting of the actual valuation of or profits earned by the relevant companies.
HHR-0025
26
PART XI: REAL PROPERTY TIED TO AL JABRI IN THE UNITED STATES
80. It appears that Al Jabri, together with his sons Mohammed Al Jabri and Khalid Al Jabri,
used funds misappropriated from Sakab to purchase substantial real estate located in the United
States and Canada. Al Jabri admitted in a complaint he filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia that “[a]t all relevant times… [he] owned and maintained property or
assets in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in the United States.” A copy of the Amended
Complaint, case number 1:20-cv-02146, dated February 4, 2021 is attached hereto as Exhibit 34.
81. As described below, Al Jabri’s purchases of significant real estate assets in Massachusetts,
which include properties identified to date worth approximately 28 million USD, largely appear
to follow a pattern:
(a) In all instances, Al Jabri establishes companies in the United States (sometimes
using limited liability companies) using some variant of “New East” in the naming
convention. The “New East” companies established by Al Jabri indicate their
business purposes as “real estate.”
(b) Al Jabri establishes himself as manager and/or director in the entities at the time of
their organization, along with his son Khalid Al Jabri and Jonathan Wainwright, an
attorney at the law firm Cadwalader in New York.
(c) After property is purchased by the companies, Al Jabri is replaced as manager
and/or director of the companies by one of his sons, Khalid Al Jabri or Mohammed
Al Jabri, and/or a Swiss lawyer, Leonhard Toenz.
1. Boston Properties Owned by New East (US) and New East 804 805
82. As outlined below, New East (US) Inc. owns three, and New East 804 805 owns two,
properties located in a Boston luxury condominium building developed by Ritz Carlton.
HHR-0026
27
(i) Establishment of New East (US) Inc.
83. On March 14, 2013, New East (US) Inc. (“New East US”) was incorporated pursuant to
the laws of the State of Delaware, where it remains in good standing. New East US was also
registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on March 28, 2013. At the time
of registration in Massachusetts, Al Jabri was identified as the President and a Director and his son
Khalid Al Jabri was identified as the Vice-President, Treasurer and a Director. The business
address for each is listed as the office of Jonathan Wainwright of Cadwalader. Jonathan
Wainwright also appears as the Secretary of the company. A copy of the Certificate of Registration
for New East US is attached hereto as Exhibit 35.
84. The Annual Reports filed in Massachusetts for New East US from 2013 to 2020 confirm
that at some point between filings made on April 6, 2017 and March 7, 2019, Mohammed Al Jabri
(Al Jabri’s son) replaced Al Jabri as President and Director of New East US. Copies of the Annual
Reports for New East US for 2017 and 2019 confirming the removal of Al Jabri and appointment
of Mohammed Al Jabri are attached together hereto as Exhibit 36.
85. At some point between the reporting dates of March 7, 2019 and March 16, 2020, further
changes were made, as reflected in the Business Entity Summary for New East US obtained on
October 29, 2020 and attached hereto as Exhibit 37. Specifically, Mohammed Al Jabri was
replaced as President and Director by his brother Khalid Al Jabri (who lists his address as that of
Cadwalader). Jonathan Wainwright is identified therein as now holding the role of Vice- President
and Director. Leonhard Toenz—who appears to be a lawyer based in Zurich, based on my review
of the law firm biography attached hereto as Exhibit 38—is identified as Secretary and Director.
HHR-0027
28
(ii) Establishment of New East 804 805 LLC
86. On April 30, 2013, New East 804 805 LLC (“New East 804 805”) was established pursuant
to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The office address for New East 804 805 at
which records would be maintained is listed as 580 Washington Street, Penthouse 1, Boston MA
02111 (a property which is owned by New East US, not New East 804 805). At the time of its
establishment, the company’s managers (and the individuals with signing authority) were
identified as Al Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri and Jonathan Wainwright. The registered address for each
was that of Cadwalader’s New York office. A copy of the Certificate of Organization for New
East 804 805 is attached hereto as Exhibit 39.
87. As was the case with New East US, the 2019 Annual Report attached hereto as Exhibit 40
confirms that Al Jabri was replaced as manager and authorized signatory for the company by his
son Mohammed Al Jabri (with the address of Cadwalader listed) (in this case, between the
reporting dates of March 12, 2018 and March 7, 2019). Further changes were made thereafter.
The 2020 Annual Report for New East 804 805, attached hereto as Exhibit 41, identifies the
company’s managers as of that date as Mohammed Al Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri and Jonathan
Wainwright. The address for each is the address for Cadwalader. However, the individuals
identified as having signing authority for the corporation are Khalid Al Jabri, Jonathan Wainwright
and Leonhard Toenz (the Zurich based lawyer described above). The principal office address for
New East 804 805 is listed as 580 Washington Street, Penthouse 1, Boston MA 02111 (a property
which is owned by New East US, not New East 804 805).
(iii) The Properties
88. New East US owns three, and New East 804 805 owns two, properties in Boston,
Massachusetts, all of which were acquired on December 18, 2013 and are located in the same
HHR-0028
29
building at 580 Washington Street (a luxury condominium tower developed by Ritz Carlton,
known as Millennium Place) as follows:
(a) A 2,654 square foot penthouse (PH-01), was acquired by New East US for
approximately USD 3,495,000. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this
unit (Parcel 0304488502), which confirm an assessed value for the property as of
January 1, 2020 of USD 4,051,700 are attached hereto as Exhibit 42. An off-
market assessment from Zillow.com, attached hereto as Exhibit 43, places the
property value at USD 5,229,249. It appears from a listing on “Luxury Boston,”
attached hereto as Exhibit 44, that the rental price for the apartment is USD 14,000
per month and that the property is currently rented.
(b) Unit 805, a 1,166 square foot unit, was acquired by New East 804 805 for
USD 1,040,000. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this unit (Parcel
0304488266) which confirm an assessed value for the property as of January 1,
2020 of USD 1,212,800 are attached hereto as Exhibit 45. An off-market
assessment on Zillow.com, attached hereto as Exhibit 46, indicates a current market
value of USD 1,308,592. The purchase of the property was accompanied by a
parking easement, and the Parking Easement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit
47, was signed by Khalid Al Jabri on behalf of New East 804 805. It appears from
a listing on “Luxury Boston” attached hereto as Exhibit 48 that the rental price for
the apartment is USD 5,800 per month and that the property is currently rented.
(c) Unit 804, a 777 square foot unit, was acquired by New East 804 805 for USD
750,000. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this unit (Parcel
0304488264), which confirms an assessed value for the property as of January 1,
HHR-0029
30
2020 of USD 819,600, are attached hereto as Exhibit 49. An off-market assessment
from Zillow.com, attached hereto as Exhibit 50, places the property value at USD
976,773. The purchase of the property was accompanied by a parking easement,
and the Parking Easement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 51, was signed by
Khalid Al Jabri on behalf of New East 804 805. It appears from a listing on “Luxury
Boston,” attached hereto as Exhibit 52, that the rental price for the apartment is
USD 4,300 per month and that the property is currently rented.
(d) Unit 714, a 799 square foot unit, was acquired by New East US for USD 670,000.
Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this unit (Parcel 0304488242), which
confirm an assessed value for the property as of January 1, 2020 of USD 872,600,
are attached together hereto as Exhibit 53. An off-market assessment from
Zillow.com, attached hereto as Exhibit 54, places the property value at USD
USD 4,000 US per month and that the property is currently rented.
(e) Unit 3E, an 813 square foot unit, was acquired by New East US for USD 715,000
US. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this unit (Parcel 0304488052),
which confirm an assessed value for the property as of January 1, 2020 of USD
879,800, are attached together hereto as Exhibit 57. An off-market assessment on
Zillow.com, attached hereto as Exhibit 58, indicates a current market value of USD
HHR-0030
31
USD 3,900 per month and that the property is currently rented.
89. It appears that these five properties were acquired using funds that Al Jabri transferred to
New East (US) from his account with HSBC Geneva. An email from Allison Overgaard of
Cadwalader to HSBC employees Sobhi Tabbara and Yacine Slimani (HSBC Private Bank
Relationship Manager, Saudi Desk), copying Jonathan Wainwright, dated December 11, 2013, is
attached hereto as Exhibit 61. The email requests that HSBC wire USD 6,075,000 to New East
(US) and references enclosed wire instructions for the company. In response, Yacine Slimani, in
an email first forwarded to an individual named Patricia Panetto (at an HSBC email address), but
addressed to “Dr. Saad,” and ultimately forwarded to Al Jabri, states: “Please find attached the
instruction in order to transfer the required amount to close your real estate acquisition in the USA.
Can you kindly sign the attached document and send it back to us at your earliest convenience to
avoid any delay.”
90. An email from Al Jabri (using the email address aljabri@grc.ae) enclosing a signed letter
of instruction to transfer USD 6,075,000 from an HSBC Geneva account to New East (US) at an
account at HSBC Bank USA bearing account number 0605184364, is attached hereto as Exhibit
62.
91. On December 13, 2013, an HSBC Relationship Manager emailed Abdullah Alsowailem,
enclosing a Transfer Order and requesting him to “kindly ask Dr. Saad to sign the attached
documents where indicated and return them to us by fax.” A note appended to the email, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 63, written in Arabic, appears to have been made by
HHR-0031
32
Abdullah Alsowailem and requests Al Jabri’s signature. Attached to the email (as it was located
in Sakab’s records) is a document that appears to be a fax cover sheet addressed to Yacine Silmani
at HSBC Private Bank and the letter of instruction referenced above from Al Jabri to Sobhi Tabbara
dated December 12, 2013, requesting the transfer of USD 6,075,000 to an account held by New
East (US) Inc. at HSBC Bank USA. The document also attaches what appears to be a fax
confirmation, confirming the transfer instructions signed by Al Jabri were sent to HSBC on
December 12, 2013 at 2:48 PM from a fax machine resident at the offices of Sakab.
92. Additionally, as detailed at paragraph 14.11 and Appendix 2 to the Deloitte Report,
Deloitte has traced several payments from an account held by Al Jabri bearing account number
SA1450000000010374772001 to an account in the name of New East US at HSBC Bank USA
bearing account number 0605184364 totaling SAR 14,995,066 (USD 3,998,684) as follows:
(a) on January 28, 2014, Al Jabri transferred SAR 1,126,560 (USD 300,416);
(b) on February 11, 2014 Al Jabri transferred SAR 150 (USD 40);
(c) on July 22, 2015, Al Jabri transferred SAR 13,192,150 (USD 3,517,907); and
(d) on January 1, 2017, Al Jabri transferred SAR 676,206 (USD 180,322).
93. As detailed at paragraph 14.11 and Appendix 2 to the Deloitte Report, Deloitte has also
traced payments from an account held by Al Jabri bearing account number
SA1450000000010374772001 to an account in the name of New East 804 805 at HSBC Bank
USA bearing account number 0605184356, including payments on the same dates and for the same
amounts as payments made to New East US identified in the previous paragraph. The payments
to New East 804 805 total SAR 1,126,710 (USD 300,456) as follows:
(a) on January 28, 2014, Al Jabri transferred SAR 1,126,560 (USD 300,416); and
(b) on February 11, 2014 Al Jabri transferred SAR 150 (USD 40).
HHR-0032
33
2. Boston Mandarin Oriental and Four Seasons Properties Owned by New East Back
Bay, LLC
94. New East Back Bay LLC (“New East Back Bay”) was established under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to a Certificate of Organization dated June 23, 2015,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 64 (along with a further certification regarding the Certificate
of Organization, dated April 21, 2017). At the time of registration, Al Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri and
Jonathan Wainwright were identified as managers. The registered business address for Al Jabri
and Khalid Al Jabri at that time is listed as 580 Washington Street, Penthouse 1, Boston (a property
that is owned by New East US). Copies of the Annual Reports for New East Back Bay are attached
hereto as Exhibit 65. The Annual Reports reflect that, at some point between the reporting dates
of March 12, 2018 and March 7, 2019, Mohammed Al Jabri was added as a manager.
95. A copy of the Business Entity Summary for New East Back Bay obtained on December
21, 2020, attached hereto as Exhibit 66, identifies the company’s address as 580 Washington
Street, Penthouse 1, Boston (a property that is owned by New East US). It also identifies the
current managers as Al Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Al Jabri and Jonathan Wainwright, with
the same address listed for each of the Al Jabris.
96. However, the Annual Reports for New East Back Bay reflect that, at some point between
the reporting dates of March 7, 2019 and June 23, 2020, Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri ceased
to be managers or authorized signatories of New East Back Bay, and were replaced by the Swiss
lawyer, Leonhard Toenz. The 2020 Annual Report identifies the current managers and signatories
as Khalid Al Jabri, Jonathan Wainwright and Leonhard Toenz. According to the 2020 Annual
Report, the company’s principal office is now Cadwalader’s address in New York. The address
at which the records are maintained is listed in the 2020 Annual Report as 101 Station Drive, Suite
HHR-0033
34
250, Westwood, Massachusetts 02090, which appears to be the office of Walter & Shuffain, P.C.,
an accounting firm.
97. New East Back Bay is the current owner of three properties located in Boston,
Massachusetts, as described below.
98. On April 10, 2017, New East Back Bay acquired a 2,556 square foot property located at
776 Boylston Street, Unit W10-C, a luxury condominium at the Mandarin Oriental in Boston, for
USD 4,300,000. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for the unit (Parcel 0401037856) which
confirm an assessed value for the property as of January 1, 2020 of USD 4,460,520 are attached
together hereto as Exhibit 67. An off-market assessment on Zillow.com, attached hereto as Exhibit
68, indicates a current market value of USD 5,902,203. The property was previously advertised
for rent at a rate of USD 13,568 per month. It is unclear whether the property is currently rented.
The mailing address for the title holder is identified in the Assessment for Parcel 0401037856 as
c/o Jonathan Wainwright, One World Trade Financial Center, New York, New York 10281.
99. As outlined at paragraph 14.11 and Appendix 2 to the Deloitte Report, Deloitte has traced
a payment on February 13, 2017, two months prior to the acquisition of the Mandarin Oriental
property at 776 Boylston Street, of SAR 1,181,880 (USD 315,168) from a KSA account number
SA1450000000010374772001 held by Al Jabri to an account in the name of New East Back Bay
at HSBC Bank USA bearing account number 0605183929.
100. The property located at 776 Boylston Street in the Mandarin Oriental also appears to be
referenced in the amended complaint filed by Al Jabri in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia (the “U.S. Complaint”), attached hereto as Exhibit 34. Specifically, at
paragraphs 87, 242 and 245 of U.S. Complaint, Al Jabri refers to an apartment at the Mandarin
Oriental in Boston as “family owned” and as a “family residence.”
HHR-0034
35
101. On September 10, 2019, New East Back Bay acquired two properties in One Dalton Place,
a luxury condominium building located at the Four Seasons in Boston, Massachusetts:
(a) the first unit, number 5203, is 1,403 square feet and was purchased for USD
4,000,000. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this unit (Parcel
0401149310), which confirm an assessed value for the property as of January 1,
2020 of USD 3,884,700, are attached hereto as Exhibit 69. An off-market
value of USD 1,744,892. It appears from a listing on www.compass.com, attached
hereto as Exhibit 71, that the rental price for the apartment is USD 13,000 per month
and that the property is currently rented.
(b) the second unit, number 5202, is 2,945 square feet and was purchased for USD
9,750,000. Copies of the Unit Deed and Assessment for this unit (Parcel
0401149308) which confirm an assessed value for the property as of January 1,
2020 of USD 8,781,700, are attached hereto as Exhibit 72. An off-market
value of USD 3,520,804. It appears from a listing on www.compass.com, attached
hereto as Exhibit 74, that the rental price for the property is USD 20,000 per month
and that the property is currently rented.
PART XII: AL JABRI’S RELOCATION TO CANADA
102. In or about August 2017, I am aware, based on information that was widely reported in the
KSA, that the KSA commenced an anti-corruption enforcement initiative. Based on statements
made by Al Jabri, including in the U.S. Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit 34, I understand that
he fled the KSA to Turkey on May 17, 2017. Further, based on the U.S. Complaint, I understand
HHR-0035
36
that, on September 12, 2017, Al Jabri departed Turkey for Canada. I understand based on public
statements made by Al Jabri that Al Jabri currently resides in Toronto, Ontario, Canada with his
wife and several of his children.
103. As noted above, following his departure, Al Jabri commenced a claim in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. A copy of a motion to dismiss the U.S. Complaint that
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the defendant
Mohammed Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud dated December 7, 2020 (the “Motion to
Dismiss”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 75.
PART XIII: ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS IN ONTARIO
104. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff Sakab, along with nine of the other Group Companies,
brought an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Ontario
Action”) against nineteen defendants. The Statement of Claim submitted to the Ontario Superior
Court is attached hereto as Exhibit 76.
105. Also on January 22, 2021, the plaintiffs in the Ontario Action made a motion to the Ontario
Superior Court for ex parte relief. The Deloitte Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, was submitted
as evidence in support of that motion.
106. That same day, the Honourable Justice Cory A. Gilmore of the Ontario Superior Court
issued, among other relief, three ex parte orders relevant to this action:
(a) an interim Order in the form of a Mareva injunction (the “Mareva Order”), a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 77, restraining Al Jabri from dissipating his
assets worldwide (including the real property in Massachusetts that is the subject
of the present action), requiring Al Jabri to provide a sworn statement detailing the
nature, value and location of his assets worldwide, and requesting that foreign
HHR-0036
37
courts or tribunals give effect to the injunction and assist the plaintiffs in carrying
out its terms;
(b) a Receivership Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 78, appointing
KSV Restructuring Inc. as receiver and manager over certain assets and properties
of the New East Defendants, including real property in Massachusetts that is the
subject of the present action, as well as other U.S. and Canadian companies; and
(c) a Disclosure (Norwich) Order (the “Second Norwich Order”), a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 79, requiring various Canadian and international
financial institutions, entities and individuals to disclose and produce certain
information to the plaintiffs in the Ontario Action, including records related to
individuals, companies, accounts and transactions that may assist in the effort to
trace the funds stolen from Plaintiff Sakab and the other Group Companies.
107. On January 27, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore released “Reasons on Ex Parte Order,” a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 80, providing the findings upon which she issued the
above mentioned orders.
108. On January 31, 2021, Khalid Al Jabri swore an affidavit, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit 81, in support of a motion by his father, Al Jabri, to set aside or stay the Mareva and
Second Norwich Orders.
109. On February 1, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore issued an Endorsement, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 82, in part denying Al Jabri’s motion to set aside or stay the Mareva and
Second Norwich Orders, and extending the Mareva, Second Norwich and Receivership Orders to
February 19, 2021.
HHR-0037
38
110. On February 5, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore entered an order dated February 1, 2021, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 83, effectuating the extension of the Mareva, Second
Norwich and Receivership Orders.
111. On February 19, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court held a day-long evidentiary hearing on
motions filed by parties to the Ontario Action, including Al Jabri’s motion to set aside the Mareva,
Second Norwich and Receivership Orders, and the plaintiffs’ motion to extend those orders. Both
parties had the opportunity to present their case to the Ontario court including by questioning and
cross-examining witnesses. Defendants had the opportunity but chose not to challenge the Ontario
court’s ex parte orders on the merits; instead, Al Jabri sought to set aside the ex parte orders on
the purported grounds that Plaintiff Sakab and other defrauded affiliated companies failed to
disclose or misled the Ontario court with respect to material facts.
112. On March 11, 2021, Madam Justice Gilmore entered a detailed, 30-page Ruling, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 84, denying Al Jabri’s motion and extending the Mareva,
Second Norwich and Receivership Orders. The Ruling described in detail the evidence and
arguments presented by the parties, the applicable legal standards, and the court’s findings. The
Ruling ordered certain modifications to the Orders, including to exclude certain Canadian
defendant companies from the scope of the Second Norwich and Receivership Orders and to
extend the Second Norwich to include other Canadian companies as well as assets transferred by
Al Jabri to his son Mohammed Al Jabri; however, it did not alter the application of those Orders
to entities or real property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
PART XIV: WRIT OF ATTACHMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
113. I am aware of the value of each of the aforementioned properties in Massachusetts based
on my own research and review of the materials attached as exhibits to this affidavit. I am also
HHR-0038
39
aware of the amount of damages for which Sakab has claims against the Defendants in this action,
based on my review of Sakab’s financial records and the asset tracing performed by Deloitte to
date. Based on this information, I believe that the value of the property sought to be attached is
far less than a reasonable calculation of the judgment that Sakab expects to recover.
114. I am not aware of any applicable liability insurance that would be available to satisfy a
judgment for Sakab against the Defendants in this action.
115. I believe that, if the Defendants’ assets are not attached, there is a real risk that some or all
of the assets will be dissipated (and any proceeds hidden) in order to frustrate any judgment that
may be obtained. My belief in this regard is based on:
(a) the nature of the transfers of assets by the Defendants already identified, which
demonstrate that, as stated by Madam Justice Gilmore in the January 27, 2021
Reasons on Ex Parte Order, “Al Jabri is adept at moving money around the world
including establishing corporations (such as the New East companies) to permit
him to hold property indirectly”;
(b) the fact that the Al Jabri, Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri are not residents
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
(c) the fact that Al Jabri and his family members own and control property and assets
in numerous jurisdictions around the world. As Madam Justice Gilmore noted in
the March 11, 2021 Ruling, “Dr. Saad already has real property and investments all
over the world. The fact is he could have moved assets anywhere . . . at any time.”
PART XV: UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES
116. If the requested equitable relief is granted, the Plaintiff undertakes to abide by any order
concerning damages that this Court may make if it ultimately appears that granting the relief sought
HHR-0039
40
caused damages for which the Plaintiff ought to compensate the Defendants. I have authority to
give that undertaking on behalf of the Plaintiff and I also have authority to grant that undertaking
on behalf of TIC.
Solemnly affirmed and signed this
___ day of March, 2021.
Under penalty of perjury.
ABDULAZIZ ALNOWAISER
100288426 HHR-0040
39
the March 11,2021 Ruling, “Dr. Saad already has real property and investments all
over the world. The fact is he could have moved assets anywhere ... at any time.”
PART XV: UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES
116. If the requested equitable relief is granted, the Plaintiff undertakes to abide by any order
concerning damages that this Court may make if it ultimately appears that granting the relief sought
caused damages for which the Plaintiff ought to compensate the Defendants. I have authority to
give that undertaking on behalf of the Plaintiff and I also have authority to grant that undertaking
on behalf of TIC.
Solemnly affirmed and signed this
20th day of March, 2021.
Under penalty of perjury.
ABDULAZIZ ALNOWAISER
100288426
5
SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF

THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff, E-FILED 3/24/2021

CM
v.

NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

FOR A SHORT ORDER OF NOTICE AND OTHER RELIEF
Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(d), Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company
(“Sakab”) requests that this Court issue a short order of notice (the “Order”) scheduling
an expedited hearing on: (i) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Approval of Real Estate
Attachment, (ii) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Approval of Memorandums of Lis
Pendens and (iii) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings (collectively, the
“Motions”). Sakab requests that the hearing be scheduled at 2:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 29, 2021, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court. Sakab also seeks
authorization from this Court to serve the Order and accompanying papers via electronic
mail on counsel of record for Defendants in two actions pending in foreign jurisdictions,
-1-
one of which is related to this action1: (i) David Pressman and Lindsey Harrison of
Jenner & Block, who represent Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”) in the D.C. Action,
which is unrelated to this case; (ii) Paul Le Vay, Nader Hasan, Stephen Aylward, Luisa
Ritacca of Stockwoods LLP, who represent Al Jabri and Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri
(“Khalid Al Jabri”) in the Ontario Action, which is related to this case; (iii) Harry
Underwood and Andrew Max of Polley Faith LLP, who represent Mohammed Saad Kh
Al Jabri (“Mohammed Al Jabri”) in the related Ontario Action; and (iv) Rachel Rodman
of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, who represents the New East Defendants in
connection with the related Ontario Action (collectively “Defendants’ Foreign Counsel”).
Sakab will seek to effect formal service on Defendants as provided in the applicable
Massachusetts rules and statutes; however, given the emergency nature of the Motions, it
seeks leave to serve the papers in a manner reasonably calculated to provide actual and
timely notice to Defendants.
As grounds for this motion, and as more fully set forth in Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint, the supporting Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser dated March 20, 2021, and
the separate memoranda of law in support of the Motions, Plaintiff states as follows:
1. This case involves an elaborate, complex, multi-billion dollar fraud
scheme, orchestrated by Defendant Al Jabri, a former high-ranking government official
in the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”) (the “Fraudulent Scheme”).
1 All Defendants are named parties in a related action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice entitled
Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, Court File No.: CV-21-00655418-00CL (the “Ontario
Action”) and Defendant Al Jabri is a named plaintiff in an unrelated action against Saudi government
officials in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Action”) with a
case number 1:20-cv-02146-TJK.
-2-
Through the Fraudulent Scheme, and assisted by members of his immediate family and
close friends, Al Jabri defrauded Plaintiff and other companies of at least 13 billion Saudi
riyals (“SAR”) (3.47 billion U.S. dollars (“USD”)). Al Jabri’s sons, Defendants Khalid
Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri (collectively with Al Jabri, the “Al Jabri Family
Defendants”), actively participated in the Fraudulent Scheme, including in the laundering
of proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme. Through their involvement with alter ego
companies beneficially owned or controlled by Al Jabri and his co-conspirators,
including the three entities named as Defendants in the present action, New East (US)
Inc., New East 804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC (collectively the “New East
Defendants”), Al Jabri and his co-conspirators wrongfully acquired the properties located
in Boston and described in the Motions, worth approximately USD 29 million (the
“Properties”).
2. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff Sakab and nine other affiliated companies
brought the related Ontario Action—which includes claims based on the same Fraudulent
Scheme that gives rise to the present action—against Al Jabri and a number of his co-
conspirators, including all Defendants to the present action. That same day, the Ontario
Superior Court issued, among other forms of relief, three orders relevant to this action:
(i) an Interim Order in the form of a Mareva injunction (the “Mareva Order”) freezing Al
Jabri’s assets worldwide, including the Properties, (ii) a Receivership Order (the
“Receivership Order”) appointing a receiver in Canada over the Properties and (iii) a
Disclosure (Norwich) Order (the “Norwich Order”) requiring various Canadian and
international financial institutions, entities and individuals to disclose and produce certain
-3-
information (collectively, the “Ontario Orders”).2 On February 1, 2021, the Ontario
Superior Court issued an Endorsement extending the Ontario Orders to February 19,
2021. On February 5, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court entered an Order giving effect to
its rulings in the Endorsement. On February 19, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court held a
day-long evidentiary hearing on various motions, including Defendant Al Jabri’s motion
to set aside the Ontario Orders and Plaintiff Sakab’s motion to extend the Ontario Orders.
On March 11, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court denied Al Jabri’s set-aside motion and
extended the Ontario Orders.
3. In aid of the Ontario Action and the Ontario Orders, Plaintiff Sakab seeks
a writ of attachment in the amount of USD 253 million over all real property in
Massachusetts owned by Defendants, including the Properties, to secure those assets
pending a final judgment in the Ontario Action.
4. Plaintiff Sakab also seeks approval of memorandums of lis pendens
against the Properties, which are nominally owned by the New East Defendants. The
New East Defendants were incorporated by, are controlled by and continue to serve as
the alter ego companies of the Al Jabri Family Defendants. As such, assets held by the
New East Defendants are the assets of, and available to satisfy judgments against, the Al
Jabri Family Defendants. In addition, the Properties were purchased with
misappropriated funds, and Sakab seeks the imposition of a constructive trust on the
Properties. As such, this action involves a claim of a right to title to real property or the
2 The terms “Mareva” used in connection with the order described in clause (i), and “Norwich” used in
connection with the order described in clause (iii), infra, reference Canadian legal decisions permitting
the relief afforded in the orders described.
-4-
use and occupation thereof, within the meaning of chapter 184, § 15(a) of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
5. Plaintiff also seeks a stay of the instant proceedings pending the ultimate
resolution of the Ontario Action.
6. Plaintiff requires the Court’s expedited attention to the Motions due to the
real risk that, without attachment and lis pendens, some or all of the Properties will be
transferred (and any proceeds hidden) in order to frustrate any judgment that may be
obtained in the Ontario Action. In fact, the Ontario Superior Court found based on the
substantial record before it that “Al Jabri is adept at moving money around the world
including establishing corporations (such as the New East [Defendants]) to permit him to
hold property indirectly,” and that “Al Jabri has been bold in his schemes including
transferring large amounts of money to himself and other Persons of Interest even after he
was relieved of his duties with the government of the [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia].” The
Ontario Superior Court therefore concluded that “the risk of removal or dissipation [of
assets] may be established by inference given Al Jabri’s sophisticated, international, and
multi-layered means of moving money and assets.” Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 107, Ex. 80
(“Reasons on Ex Parte Orders”).
7. This Court has discretion to permit Sakab to serve the Order granting this
motion, as well as other process related to the present action, in any manner “reasonably
calculated to give actual notice.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A § 6. Massachusetts Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(e)(5) similarly authorizes the Court to enter an order directing the
manner of service to be made upon a party located outside of the Commonwealth.
8. Al Jabri is a plaintiff in the unrelated D.C. Action asserting claims against
Saudi government officials not directly related to the claims at issue in this case and the
-5-
Ontario Action. Although that case is not related to the present action or the Ontario
Action, it seems appropriate to give notice to his counsel of record in that case, since they
are Al Jabri’s only U.S. counsel of which we are aware.
9. This Court should authorize initial service of the Short Order of Notice
and accompanying papers on Defendant’s Foreign Counsel (i.e., Defendants’ counsel of
record in the related Ontario Action and the unrelated D.C. Action). Such service is
reasonably calculated to give Al Jabri and the other Defendants actual notice of these
proceedings in time to appear, or secure counsel to appear, at the hearing and, if they
elect to do so, oppose the Motions.3 As noted, the Ontario Actions are related, so notice
to the Al Jabri Family Defendants’ counsel in that case is virtually assured to give them
actual notice of this case.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sakab respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Issue a short order of notice scheduling an expedited hearing at 2:00 p.m.
Monday, March 29, 2021, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court, on:
(i) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Approval of Real Estate Attachment, (ii) Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens and (iii) Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings and;
2. Authorize Plaintiff Sakab to serve the Order and accompanying papers via
electronic mail on Defendant’s Foreign Counsel, counsel of record for Defendants in the
related Ontario Action and unrelated D.C. Action.
3 Alternatively, chapter 223A § 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws and Massachussetts Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(e)(2) allow for service to be made under the law of the place in which the service is to be
made. Under applicable procedural rules governing both the Ontario Action and the D.C. Action,
service upon counsel of record via email or other electronic communication is permissible.
-6-
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
William R. Stein
Samuel Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
March 24, 2021
-7-
I certify that on March 24, 2021, I served a true and accurate copy of this
document on counsel of record for each of the parties in this case by electronic mail.
-8-
99809447
6

OF THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688
CIVIL ACTION NO. ________________
Plaintiff,
E-FILED 3/24/2021
v.
CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ATTACHMENT OF REAL PROPERTY
Pursuant to Rule 4.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and Superior Court
Rule 9A(d)(1), Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company hereby moves this Court for approval of
the attachment up to the amount of $253 million of all right, title and interest of Defendants Saad
Khalid Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”), Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri, Mohammed Saad Khalid Al Jabri
(collectively, the “Al Jabri Family Defendants”) by or through their alter egos Defendants New
East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC (collectively, the “New
East Defendants”) in any and all real property located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
including the following real property located in Suffolk County (the “Properties”):
2
1. Millennium Place Boston Penthouse PH-01 (parcel 0304488502), 580
Washington Street, Boston MA 02111, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, valued in the amount of approximately $5,229,249;
2. Millennium Place Boston Unit 804 (parcel 0304488264), 580 Washington Street,
Boston MA 02111, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
valued in the amount of approximately $976,773;
valued in the amount of approximately $1,308,592;
5. Millennium Place Boston Unit 3E (parcel 0304488052), 580 Washington Street,
6. Mandarin Oriental Boston Unit W10-C (parcel 0401037856), 776 Boylston
Street, Boston MA 02199, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, valued in the amount of approximately $5,902,203;
7. One Dalton Boston Unit 5202 (parcel 0401149310), 1 Dalton Street, Boston MA
02115, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, valued in the
amount of approximately $9,750,000; and

3
amount of approximately $4,000,000.
As the grounds therefore, Plaintiff states that this action for fraudulent transfer, breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, conversion, conspiracy,
aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and to pierce the corporate veil of the Al Jabri Family
Defendants’ alter egos, the New East Defendants, is brought in support of a parallel action
already underway in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, entitled Sakab Saudi Holding Co., et al. v. Saad
Khalid S Al Jabri, et al., No. CV-21-00655418-00CL (Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Commercial List)) (the “Ontario Action”). The purpose of this action is to give effect to orders
issued by the Ontario Superior Court in the Ontario Action freezing and appointing a receiver
over the Properties, which the Al Jabri Family Defendants, acting through their alter ego
companies, the New East Defendants, wrongfully acquired with the proceeds of a multi-billion
dollar, international fraud scheme orchestrated by Defendant Al Jabri.
As explained more fully in the memorandum of law filed herewith, there is a reasonable
likelihood that Plaintiff will recover judgment against Defendants on the foregoing claims in an
amount of at least $253 million. There is no liability insurance known or reasonably believed to
be available to Defendants that will satisfy the judgment Plaintiff expects to receive. The facts
set forth in the Verified Complaint and the Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser dated March 20,
2021 and exhibits attached thereto fully support the relief requested.
Plaintiff’s counsel did not confer with counsel for Defendants under Superior Court Rule
9A(d)(1), as this motion is filed simultaneously with the filing of the Verified Complaint and the
identity of counsel for Defendants in the present action is not yet known. However, Plaintiff has
4
knowledge that Defendants are represented by counsel in the Ontario Action and in an unrelated
action that Al Jabri filed last year in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In a good faith effort to comply with Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1), Plaintiff is requesting, as
part of its Motion for Short Order Notice, authority to serve this motion and the related pleadings
on the other counsel known to Plaintiff by electronic mail in order to notify them of this present
action and the request for preliminary relief and allow such counsel an opportunity to notify the
Defendants they represent and secure representation for the hearing on this motion.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in this motion, the accompanying
memorandum of law and the Verified Complaint, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding
Company respectfully requests that the Court grant its Emergency Motion for Attachment
of Real Property, and grant such other and further relief in Plaintiff’s favor as this Court
deems just and proper.
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
5
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000

6
I certify that on March 24, 2021, I served a true and accurate copy of this document on
counsel of record for each of the parties in this case by electronic mail.
99806919
7

OF THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688
CIVIL ACTION NO. __________________
Plaintiff,
v. E-FILED 3/24/2021
CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR ATTACHMENT OF REAL PROPERTY
Pursuant to Rule 4.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and Superior Court
Rule 9A(d)(1), Plaintiff Sakab Holding Company (“Sakab”) submits this memorandum of law in
support of its emergency motion (the “Attachment Motion”) for approval of attachment in an
amount of $253 million of all right, title and interest of Defendants Saad Khalid Al Jabri (“Al
Jabri”), Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid Al Jabri”), Mohammed Saad Khalid Al Jabri
(“Mohammed Al Jabri”) (collectively, the “Al Jabri Family Defendants”) by or through their
alter egos Defendants New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC
(collectively, the “New East Defendants”) in any and all real property located in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including the real property specifically described in the
Attachment Motion (collectively referred to herein as the “Properties”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Sakab brings this action for fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, conversion, conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
unjust enrichment, and to pierce the corporate veil of the Al Jabri Family Defendants’ alter egos,
the New East Defendants, to give effect to orders issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(the “Ontario Orders”) freezing and appointing a receiver over the Properties in a parallel action
(Commercial List)) (the “Ontario Action”). In issuing the Ontario Orders, the Ontario Superior
Court requested the aid and recognition of foreign courts, including in the United States, in
giving effect to its orders.
The present action, like the Ontario Action, involves an elaborate, multi-billion dollar,
international fraud scheme, orchestrated by Defendant Al Jabri, a former high-ranking
government official in the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”) (the
“Fraudulent Scheme”). Through this scheme, and assisted by members of his immediate family
and close friends, Defendant Al Jabri defrauded Plaintiff Sakab and its affiliated companies of at
least 13 billion Saudi Riyals (“SAR”) (3.47 billion U.S. Dollars (“USD”), valued at 3.75 SAR
per USD). Al Jabri and his sons and co-conspirators Defendants Khalid Al Jabri and
Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri, acting through their alter ego companies the New East
Defendants, wrongfully acquired the Properties worth approximately $29 million USD with the
proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme. Plaintiff Sakab seeks a number of remedies against
Defendants, including confirmation that Defendants hold the Properties—all of which were
acquired by Defendants using funds they fraudulently obtained from Plaintiff Sakab and
-2-
fraudulently transferred to the New East Defendants—in a constructive trust for the benefit of
Sakab.
The Ontario Orders, which were issued on a voluminous record, provide for certain
preliminary and prejudgment relief to prevent the dissipation of assets as the Ontario Action
proceeds. The Ontario court recognized that the proceedings in that court to date represent just
“one initial step in what will likely be lengthy and complex litigation.” Plaintiff Sakab does not
wish to burden this Court with a lawsuit that is duplicative of the complex Ontario Action, which
is well along and involves a broader set of parties and claims. Rather, in bringing the present
action, the Plaintiff seeks to obtain relief necessary to preserve the Properties from dissipation,
and then to have these proceedings stayed in deference to the Ontario proceedings.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Ontario Superior Court initially issued the Ontario Orders on an ex parte basis,
finding that Plaintiff Sakab and other defrauded affiliated companies presented the Ontario court
with “overwhelming evidence of fraud” by Defendant Al Jabri and his co-conspirators.
Defendants then had the opportunity to challenge the Ontario court’s ex parte orders on the
merits through briefing and affidavits and at an evidentiary hearing, but chose not to; instead, Al
Jabri sought to set aside the ex parte orders on the purported grounds that Plaintiff Sakab and
other plaintiffs failed to make “full and frank” disclosure of material facts and defenses (a
requirement under Ontario law for ex parte relief). After a full-day evidentiary hearing held on
February 19, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court denied the set aside motion and extended the
Ontario Orders (subject to certain modifications not relevant to this proceeding), characterizing
the motions to set aside and extend those orders as “but one initial step in what will likely be
lengthy and complex litigation.”
-3-
The purpose of the present action is to maintain the status quo—that is, to preserve the
fruit of the Fraudulent Scheme now located in Massachusetts that is subject to the Ontario
Orders. Accordingly, in addition to this Attachment Motion, Plaintiff Sakab has also
simultaneously filed Emergency Motions for Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens and to
Stay Proceedings pending the ultimate adjudication of the Ontario Action. Plaintiff Sakab
expects that, should the Court grant the requested emergency relief, it will come again before this
Court upon the conclusion of proceedings in Canada, either to enforce a final judgment against
Defendants or to dissolve the attachment and lis pendens.
Like the Ontario Action, the present action results from detailed, substantial and
comprehensive forensic investigative efforts performed by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services
Limited (“Deloitte”) (which are still ongoing and may uncover additional wrongdoing). As
described in the Verified Complaint and below, those efforts have to date identified
approximately $850 million in funds misappropriated by Al Jabri and his co-conspirators from
Plaintiff in the course of the Fraudulent Scheme—over $250 million of which Al Jabri (without
authorization and unlawfully) had transferred from Plaintiff’s bank accounts to himself.1 The
damages Plaintiff expects to recover therefore far exceed the total value of the Properties
(approximately $29 million), and Plaintiff is not aware of any liability insurance that would be
available to satisfy the judgment. Accordingly, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s Attachment
Motion and approve attachment of all right, title and interest of Defendants in the Properties and
in any other real property located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
1 As a result of the Fraudulent Scheme that he engineered, Al Jabri collected nearly $500 million: over $250
million directly from Plaintiff; another approximately $50 million indirectly from Plaintiff through funds that he
funneled first from Plaintiff to other Group Companies and that were then misappropriated by Al Jabri from
those Group Companies; and approximately $186 million in “kick-back” payments paid to Al Jabri from
misappropriated funds that he had directed to co-conspirators. Al Jabri separately directed another
approximately $14 million in misappropriated funds from a Group Company to a company that he owned with
his son, Defendant Khalid Al Jabri.
-4-
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Verified Complaint and the Affidavit of Abdulazziz Alnowaiser dated March 20,
2021 (the “Alnowaiser Affidavit”) submitted herewith establish, inter alia, the following facts:
Plaintiff and sixteen other companies (“the Group Companies”) were established
pursuant to a 2007 Royal Instruction issued by King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz for the purpose of
performing anti-terrorism activities in the public interest. The Group Companies were funded by
an increase in the level of funding from the Ministry of Finance to be used by the KSA Ministry
of the Interior (“MOI”) for counter-terrorism activities from thirty percent (30%) of the MOI’s
operational funds to forty-five percent (45%) (the “Allowance”). Verif. Compl. ¶ 17, 40;
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 34-35.
During the relevant time, Defendant Al Jabri was a high-ranking KSA official who had
the authority to manage the Allowance. He also controlled and dominated Plaintiff and other
Group Companies, including by appointing his friends and family members as nominee
shareholders and directors. Al Jabri effectuated the Fraudulent Scheme through his authority to
manage the Allowance and ability to control Plaintiff and the other Group Companies. Among
other things, Al Jabri himself had the ability to effect the disbursement of funds from Plaintiff
and the other Group Companies, including in unlawful, unauthorized and “off-the-book”
transactions, to himself and his friends, business associates and family members. Verif. Compl.
¶ 42, 46-47, 56-60; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 21, 36-38, 46-48.
Al Jabri was stripped of his formal positions by KSA authorities in 2015, but continued to
exert control over Plaintiff and the other Group Companies and to direct the Fraudulent Scheme.
In 2017, ownership of Plaintiff and the other Group Companies was transferred from the MOI to
an entity wholly owned by the independent sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, which
-5-
undertook an inquiry into the finances of the Group Companies. Verif. Compl. ¶ 24-25;
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 13, 23, 56.
Following a years-long forensic accounting investigation and asset tracing efforts,
Deloitte determined that, as part of the Fraudulent Scheme, Al Jabri and his co-conspirators,
among other fraudulent and unlawful acts, caused Plaintiff to make improper transfers totaling
almost $850 million to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators—at least $253 million of which went
directly from Plaintiff to Al Jabri. Verif. Compl. ¶ 21; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 20-21, 43, 70-73, Ex. 1
(“Deloitte Report”), at 21 (“Table 5.0”). Al Jabri used a portion of the misappropriated funds he
had obtained to acquire the Properties, but tried to conceal the assets by using his alter ego New
East Defendants to make the acquisitions. Verified Compl. ¶ 72-73; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 80-81.
Defendants Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri are Al Jabri’s sons. They
participated in the Fraudulent Scheme, including by assisting Al Jabri in concealing
misappropriated funds by investing those funds in the Properties through the New East
Defendants. Verif. Compl. ¶ 29-30; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 25-26.
The Al Jabri Family Defendants are the ultimate beneficial owners of the New East
Defendants, which Al Jabri established for the purpose of concealing the proceeds of the
Fraudulent Scheme. Verif. Compl. ¶ 31-36; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 29-31. The Al Jabri Family
Defendants fraudulently transferred funds that were misappropriated from Plaintiff and other
Group Companies to the New East Defendants. The New East Defendants used those funds to
purchase the Properties. Verif. Compl. ¶ 72-73, 80-85, 88-92; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 88-93, 98-99,
101. By purchasing the Properties and holding them through the New East Defendants, rather
than directly in Al Jabri’s name, the Al Jabri Family Defendants sought to conceal their ill-gotten
proceeds obtained from the Fraudulent Scheme, and to prevent Plaintiff and other Group
Companies—victims of the Al Jabri Family’s fraud and self-dealing—from recovering their
-6-
assets. Verif. Compl. ¶ 72-73. The Properties held by the New East Defendants also generate
substantial monthly rents, allowing Defendants to continue to profit from the Fraudulent Scheme.
Verif. Compl. ¶ 83, 91; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 88, 98, 101.
After details of the Fraudulent Scheme threatened to come to light, Al Jabri fled to
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where he and members of his family currently reside. Verif. Compl.
¶ 28; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 102.
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff and nine of the other Group Companies brought the
Ontario Action against Al Jabri and a number of his co-conspirators, including all the Defendants
to the present action. Verif. Compl. ¶ 7; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 104, Ex. 76. All of the facts alleged
in the present action are alleged in the Ontario Action, and the claims brought in the present
action arise out of the same Fraudulent Scheme that gives rise to the Ontario Action.
That same day, based on the substantial record put before the court,2 the Ontario
Superior Court issued, among other relief, three orders relevant to this action:
i. an Interim Order in the form of a Mareva injunction (the “Mareva Order”)
freezing Al Jabri’s assets worldwide, including the Properties;
ii. a Receivership Order appointing a receiver in Canada over certain assets and
properties of the New East Defendants, including the Properties; and
iii. a Disclosure (Norwich) Order (the “Norwich Order”) requiring various Canadian
and international financial institutions, entities and individuals to disclose and
produce certain information, including records related to individuals, companies,
2 The record before the Ontario Superior Court included, among other evidence: (i) the Deloitte Report (defined
herein); (ii) a detailed Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser, the current General Manager of Plaintiff and General
Manager or board chairman of the other Group Companies, who is overseeing the forensic investigations, each
of which appended hundreds of exhibits; and (iii) an expert report on Saudi law prepared by a Saudi lawyer.
Much of this evidence has been submitted to this Court in support of this Attachment Motion and Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens.
-7-
accounts and transactions that may assist in the effort to trace the funds stolen
from Plaintiff and other defrauded Group Companies.
Verif. Compl. ¶ 9; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 106, Ex. 77-79.
In issuing the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders, the Ontario Superior Court
found, based on the substantial record before it, that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in
the Ontario Action “demonstrate[s] that Al Jabri used fraudulent means to divert funds that
rightfully belonged to the Plaintiffs,” and that “Al Jabri was in a position of trust and confidence
in relation to the Plaintiffs. He breached his duties to the Plaintiffs by preferring his own
interests and those of his family, friends and co-conspirators over those of the Plaintiffs.” Verif.
Compl. ¶ 10; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 107, Ex. 80.
The Ontario Superior Court also found that “Al Jabri is adept at moving money around
the world including establishing corporations (such as the New East [Defendants]) to permit him
to hold property indirectly,” and that “Al Jabri has been bold in his schemes including
transferring large amounts of money to himself and other Persons of Interest even after he was
relieved of his duties with the government of the KSA.” The Ontario Superior Court therefore
concluded that “the risk of removal or dissipation [of assets] may be established by inference
given Al Jabri’s sophisticated, international, and multi-layered means of moving money and
assets.” Verif. Compl. ¶ 11; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 107, Ex. 80.
effect to its orders. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 106, Ex. 77 (“Mareva Order”), at 6-7 (specifically
requesting that courts in the United States and other jurisdictions “make such orders and [ ]
provide such assistance to the Plaintiffs as may be necessary or desirable to give effect to this
-8-
Order”); Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 106, Ex. 78 (“Receivership Order”), at 12-13 (similar); Alnowaiser
Aff. ¶ 106, Ex. 79 (“Norwich Order”), at 20 (similar).
On February 1, 2021, after Al Jabri appeared in the Ontario Action, the Ontario Superior
Court extended the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders to February 19, 2021. In an
Endorsement denying Al Jabri’s initial motion to set aside or stay those orders, the court found
that “[t]here is overwhelming evidence of fraud that has been presented to court,” and rejected
Khalid Al Jabri’s affidavit in support of his father’s motion, which the court characterized as
“more of a political treatise than any concrete response to the serious allegations raised [by the
Plaintiffs].” Verif. Compl. ¶ 13-14; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 109, Ex. 82. On February 5, 2021, the
Ontario Superior Court entered an Order giving effect to its rulings in the Endorsement. Verif.
On February 19, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court held a day-long evidentiary hearing
on motions filed by parties to the Ontario Action, including Al Jabri’s motion to set aside the
Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders, and the plaintiffs’ motion to extend those orders.
opportunity to challenge the Ontario court’s ex parte orders on the merits, but chose not to do so;
instead, Al Jabri sought to set aside the ex parte orders on the purported grounds that Plaintiff
Sakab and other defrauded affiliated companies failed to disclose or misled the Ontario court
with respect to material facts. Verif. Compl. ¶ 15; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 111.
On March 11, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court issued a thorough, 30-page Ruling,
denying Al Jabri’s set-aside motion and extending the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich
Orders. (While the Ontario court modified the Norwich and Receivership Orders as to certain
Canadian defendant companies and assets transferred by Al Jabri to his son Mohammed Al Jabri,
-9-
it did not alter the application of the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders as to entities or
real property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) Verif. Compl. ¶ 16; Alnowaiser Aff.
¶ 112, Ex. 84. The Ruling described in detail the evidence and arguments presented by the
parties, the applicable legal standards, and the court’s findings. The thrust of Al Jabri’s position
in seeking to set aside the Ontario Orders was that the Ontario Action purportedly is not a
commercial dispute, but rather a political attack. However, the Ontario Superior Court rejected
that contention, finding that the political issues asserted by Al Jabri are irrelevant and that the
plaintiffs in the Ontario Action (including Sakab) “engage in legitimate business activities” and
have “a right under civil law to pursue their claims against [Al Jabri].” Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 112,
Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 123.
As stated above, the purpose of the present action is to give effect to and carry out the
remedies granted by the Ontario Superior Court against Defendants’ assets in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintain the status quo and preserve the Properties, which
Defendants wrongfully acquired with the proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme.
ARGUMENT
“All real and personal property liable to be taken on execution . . . may be attached upon
a writ of attachment in any action in which the debt or damages are recoverable[.]” Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 223, § 42; Solans v. McMenimen, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 178, 181, 951 N.E.2d 999, 1002
n.7 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). Real property subject to execution includes “[a]ll the land of a debtor
in possession.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 236, § 1.
Under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(c), which governs prejudgment
attachment, Plaintiff must demonstrate “that there is a reasonable likelihood that [it] will recover
judgment, including interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the
attachment over and above any liability insurance shown by [Defendants] to be available to
-10-
satisfy the judgment.” Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c); see also Global Naps Inc. v. Verizon New
England, Inc., No. 02-12489-RWZ, 2006 WL 2632804, at *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2006).
In moving for an order of attachment, the plaintiff must submit affidavits setting forth
“specific facts sufficient to warrant the required findings based upon the affiant’s own
knowledge, information or belief.” See Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bos. Reg’l Physical
Therapy, Inc., 550 F. Supp. 2d 199, 201–02 (D. Mass. 2008) (quoting Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c),
(h)) (denying defendant’s motion to dissolve or modify attachment).
Plaintiff has met its burden under Rule 4.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure
through its Verified Complaint and the Alnowaiser Affidavit (which includes as Ex. 1 a 156-
page expert report prepared by Deloitte (the “Deloitte Report”) describing the current status of
efforts to trace funds transferred from the Plaintiff Sakab and other related companies).
I. PLAINTIFF IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO RECOVER A JUDGMENT

GREATER THAN $253 MILLION
The Verified Complaint, Alnowaiser Affidavit and Deloitte Report establish the elements
of each of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants arising from the Fraudulent Scheme. In the
Ontario Action, the Ontario Superior Court has already concluded more than twice that—based
on the same substantial evidence before this Court—Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to
establish a strong prima facie case of fraud. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 107, Ex. 80; Alnowaiser Aff.
¶ 109, Ex. 82.
The Verified Complaint, Alnowaiser Affidavit and Deloitte Report describe the detailed,
substantial and comprehensive investigative and financial tracing efforts performed by Deloitte,
which reveal the flow of almost $850 million in misappropriated funds from Plaintiff directly to
Al Jabri and his co-conspirators, including at least $253 million in direct payments from Plaintiff
-11-
to Al Jabri. Verif. Compl. ¶ 21; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 72, Ex. 1 (“Deloitte Report”), at 21 (“Table
5.0”).
Based on that evidence, Plaintiff reasonably expects to recover a judgment against
Defendants awarding Plaintiff monetary damages of at least approximately $850 million, for the
damages Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer as a result of the Fraudulent Scheme
perpetrated by Defendants, plus a considerable amount of interest. In the alternative, Plaintiff
reasonably expects to recover a judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff monetary
damages of at least $253 million (plus interest), for the funds improperly and unlawfully
transferred from Plaintiff directly to Al Jabri.
The Verified Complaint and Alnowaiser Affidavit allege that Defendants acquired the
Properties by using proceeds derived from the Fraudulent Scheme. Verif. Compl. ¶ 31-36;
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 80-81. The Ontario Superior Court found that the evidence submitted
“demonstrate[s] that Al Jabri used fraudulent means to divert funds that rightfully belonged to
the Plaintiffs.” Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 107, Ex. 80. Al Jabri directed hundreds of millions of dollars
in funds to be improperly transferred from Plaintiff to his accounts. Verif. Compl. ¶ 21;
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 70, 72. He directed Plaintiff to make payments to himself and his co-
conspirators that were described as “rewards” based on the “valuation” of Group Companies;
however, these valuations were absurdly inflated, based on no apparent analysis, and did not
reflect a plausible true value of the companies. Verif. Compl. ¶ 61-62; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 75-79.
Similarly, he directed Plaintiff to pay “profit distributions” to himself and his co-conspirators
based on the purported profits of Group Companies; however, these payments bore no
relationship to the actual profits of the Group Companies and were paid two or even three times
on the same purported profits of a particular Group Company for the same year. Verif. Compl.
¶ 63-66; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 75-79.
-12-
Al Jabri received much of these funds after he left his KSA government position in
September 2015. Asset tracing by Deloitte has, to date, identified more than SAR 725 million
(over USD 193 million) that was paid by Plaintiff directly to Al Jabri after he left his government
position. See Alnowaiser Aff., Ex. 1 (“Deloitte Report”), at 21 (“Table 5.0”). The Ontario court
cited this fact in rejecting Al Jabri’s argument that the Plaintiff’s poor record-keeping and use of
nominee shareholders was by design, finding that “any argument related to murkiness or poor
record keeping on the part of [Al Jabri] is hard to reconcile when a large part of the traced funds
were removed after [Al Jabri] was asked to leave his position in the KSA government.”
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 112, Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 97. The Ontario court also noted that Al Jabri did
not explain why funds would have been paid to his family and friends after he left the KSA
government. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 112, Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 101.
Defendants began purchasing luxury real estate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
as well as in other jurisdictions around the world, following Al Jabri’s unlawful receipt of huge
sums from Plaintiff. In 2013, Al Jabri used a fax machine located in Plaintiff’s offices to
authorize a transfer of more than $6 million from a Swiss bank account to an account in the
United States to fund the purchase of five of the Properties. Verif. Compl. ¶ 80-82; Alnowaiser
Aff. ¶ 89-91. But Al Jabri was not done: in 2017 and 2019, acting through Defendant New East
Back Bay, he purchased three additional properties in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for
more than $18 million. Verif. Compl. ¶ 88-92; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 97-101.
The aggregate value of the Properties is far less than the amount of the judgment Plaintiff
reasonably expects to recover against Defendants, even when the highest available valuations for
each of the Properties is used. The Alnowaiser Affidavit itemizes and attaches evidence of the
value of each of the Properties. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 88, 98, 101. The highest valuations for each
of the Properties—$5,229,249; $976,773; $1,308,592; $972,768; $972,579; $5,902,203;
-13-
$9,750,000; and $4,000,000, respectively—total approximately $29 million ($29,112,118), far
less than $850 million (or $253 million). Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 88, 98, 101, 113.
The Alnowaiser Affidavit also details why, without an attachment, there is a real risk that
some or all of the assets will be dissipated (and any proceeds hidden) in order to frustrate any
judgment that may be obtained. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 115. In fact, the Ontario Superior Court
found based on the substantial record before it that “Al Jabri is adept at moving money around
assets.” Verif. Compl. ¶ 88-92; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 107, Ex. 80.
The Al Jabri Family Defendants established the New East Defendants for the purpose of
purchasing and holding the Properties indirectly. The New East Defendants serve as the alter
ego companies of the Al Jabri Family Defendants, and are completely dominated and controlled
by them. Verif. Compl. ¶ 32, 34, 36, 82, 89. Al Jabri transferred funds that he fraudulently
obtained from Plaintiff to the New East Defendants for the purpose of purchasing the Properties;
as such, the Defendants hold the Properties in constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiff.
Moreover, as the New East Defendants are alter egos of the Al Jabri Family Defendants, assets
held by the New East Defendants (such as the Properties) are assets of the Al Jabri Family
Defendants and available to satisfy judgments against them.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing a reasonable
likelihood of recovering a judgment equal to or greater than the amount of the attachment.
-14-
II. THE AMOUNT PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO RECOVER IS OVER AND

ABOVE ANY LIABILITY INSURANCE AVAILABLE TO SATISFY THE
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff is not aware of any applicable liability insurance coverage that would be available
to satisfy a judgment for the amount Plaintiff is likely to recover against Defendants. Defendants
have the burden to prove the availability of liability insurance to satisfy the judgment.
Greenbriar Companies, Inc. v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 477 F. Supp. 2d 314, 318 (D. Mass.
2007) (citing Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, 164 F.R.D. 306 at
306–07; Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c)).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant its motion for approval
of attachment in the amount of $253 million of all right, title and interest of Defendants to or in
any and all real property located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including in the
Properties, and grant such other and further relief in Plaintiff’s favor as the Court deems just and
proper.
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
-15-
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112

-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
-16-

Richard M. Zielinski
-17-

OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
[PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER FOR ATTACHMENT OF REAL PROPERTY
This cause came to be heard, after notice and opportunity to be heard, upon a motion for
an order for approval of attachment of real estate, and upon consideration thereof the Court
hereby finds that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will recover judgment,
including interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the attachment
approved herein over and above any liability insurance shown by the defendants to be available
to satisfy the judgment.
WHEREUPON, the Court hereby approves attachment in favor of the plaintiff in the
amount of $253 million of any and all real estate owned, in whole or in part, by (1) Saad Khalid
S Al Jabri, (2) Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri, (3) Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri, (4) New East
(US) Inc., (5) New East 804 805 LLC and (6) New East Back Bay LLC, and located in any
2
County of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including, without limitation, the following real
estate located in Suffolk County:
of Massachusetts, valued in the amount of approximately $5,229,249;
valued in the amount of approximately $1,308,592;
Massachusetts, valued in the amount of approximately $5,902,203;
amount of approximately $9,750,000; and
4850-5300-0930, v. 1
3
amount of approximately $4,000,000.
Justice of the Superior Court
4850-5300-0930, v. 1
8

OF THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688 BLS2
CIVIL ACTION NO. ________________
Plaintiff,
E-FILED 3/24/2021
v.
CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

MEMORANDUMS OF LIS PENDENS
Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 15(b) and Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1), Plaintiff
Sakab Saudi Holding Company hereby moves this Court for approval of memorandums of lis
pendens with respect to real property fraudulently purchased by Defendants Saad Khalid S Al
Jabri (“Al Jabri”), Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri (collectively,
the “Al Jabri Family Defendants”) by or through their alter egos Defendants New East (US) Inc.,
New East 804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC (collectively, the “New East Defendants”)
located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Properties”):
of Massachusetts, owned by Defendant New East US;

owned by Defendant New East 804 805;
owned by Defendant New East 804 805;
owned by Defendant New East US;
owned by Defendant New East US;
Massachusetts, owned by Defendant New East Back Bay;
02115, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, owned by
Defendant New East Back Bay; and
02115, in the County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, owned by
Defendant New East Back Bay.
As grounds therefore, Plaintiff states that this action for fraudulent transfer, breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, conversion, conspiracy,
2
aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, and to pierce the corporate veil of the Al Jabri Family
Defendants’ alter egos, the New East Defendants, is brought in support of a parallel action
(Commercial List)) (the “Ontario Action”). The purpose of this action is to give effect to orders
issued by the Ontario Superior Court in the Ontario Action freezing and appointing a receiver
over the Properties, which the Al Jabri Family Defendants, acting through their alter ego
companies, the New East Defendants, wrongfully acquired with the proceeds of a multi-billion
dollar, international fraud scheme orchestrated by Defendant Al Jabri.
As explained more fully in the memorandum of law filed herewith, one aspect of this
fraudulent scheme involved the acquisition by the Defendants of the Properties using funds
misappropriated from Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks a number of remedies against Defendants
including the imposition of constructive trusts on the Properties, all of which were acquired by
Defendants using funds they fraudulently obtained from Plaintiff and fraudulently transferred to
the New East Defendants for the purpose of acquiring the Properties. The existence of
constructive trusts on the Properties for the benefit of Plaintiff creates a claim of a right to title to
such real property, or the use and occupation thereof. The facts set forth in the Verified
Complaint and Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser dated March 20, 2021 and exhibits attached
thereto fully support the relief requested. Thus, this Court should endorse the proposed
memorandums of lis pendens on the Properties in substantially the same forms as are attached
hereto as Exhibits A through H.
3
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in this motion, the accompanying memorandum
of law and the Verified Complaint, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company respectfully requests
that the Court endorse the memorandums of lis pendens attached hereto as Exhibits A-H, and
grant such other and further relief in Plaintiff’s favor as this Court deems just and proper.
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
4
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
5
6
EXHIBIT A
Memorandum of Lis Pendens
(Millennium Avery Condominium, 580 Washington Street, Unit # PH 01)
THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LIS PENDENS
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the terms of M.G.L. c. 184, § 15, the Plaintiff
Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Plaintiff”) commenced an action to record this document at the
Suffolk County Registry of Deeds and elsewhere providing notice that there is presently pending
in the Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session, Suffolk County, docketed as Civil
Action No. _________________, an action styled:
SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY v. SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, et al.
in which New East (US) Inc. is a named Defendant. The civil action constitutes a claim of a right
to title to real property having a street address of Millennium Avery Condominium, 580
Washington Street, Unit # PH 01, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 02111, and more
particularly described as follows:
8
Unit # PH 01 of Millennium Avery Condominium (the "Condominium") created

by Master Deed of Millennium Avery Condominium, dated as of October 7, 2013,
recorded in the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds (the "Registry") on October 8,
2013 in Book 52213, Page 106, as amended by a First Amendment to Master
Deed of Millennium Avery Condominium, dated as of October 7, 2013, recorded
in the Registry on October 8, 2013 in Book 52213, Page 185, as the same has been
amended of record in the Registry to date. Declaration of Trust of Millennium
Avery Condominium Trust, dated as of October 7, 2013, recorded in the Registry
on October 8, 2013 Book 52213, Page 198, as the same has been amended of
record in the Registry to date.
The Unit is conveyed together with:
1. Its undivided Percentage Interest in the General Common

Elements;
2. Its undivided interest in the Residential Limited Common
Elements as set forth herein and in Exhibit B to the Master
Deed;
3. Its beneficial interest in the Millennium Avery
Condominium Trust established by the Declaration of Trust;
4. Its appurtenant right to the Appurtenant Parking Privileges
set forth above; and
5. Its Appurtenant Interests as more particularly described in
the Master Deed and Declaration of Trust.
The Unit and the Condominium are subject to the provisions of Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 183A, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Master Deed.
The Condominium created by the Master Deed is a mixed use condominium

consisting of 256 residential units and one (1) commercial unit. The Unit is
shown on the Plans of the Condominium (the "Plans") recorded in the
Registry simultaneously with and as part of the Master Deed. A verified
statement of a registered architect in the form required by Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 183A, Section 8 is affixed to the Plans.
The Unit is conveyed subject to and with the benefit of:
9
1. The provisions of the Master Deed, the Plans, the

Declaration of Trust (including the by-laws therein
and the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board
of Trustees of the Millennium Avery Condominium
Trust and recorded at the Registry as Schedule 1 to
the Declaration of Trust), as all of the same may be
amended from time to time, which provisions,
together with any amendments thereto, shall
constitute covenants running with the land and shall
bind any person having at any time any interest in
the Unit, his or her family, invitees, servants,
visitors, tenants and occupants, as though such
provisions were recited and stipulated at length
herein.
2. Easements and all other matters appearing of record
at the Registry.
3. The Unit is intended to be used solely for
residential purposes subject to the restrictions
and provisions of the Master Deed and
Declaration of Trust, including without
limitation, the restrictions set forth in Section 7
of the Master Deed.
Appurtenant to the Unit is the right to park the number of automobiles

specified in that certain Parking Easement Agreement between New
Commonwealth Commercial Holding Co LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and Grantee, dated and recorded in the Registry of even date
herewith, in the commercial parking garage located at 6 Avery Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, which constitutes the Parking Unit of Millennium
Place Commercial Condominium and which is owned by New
Commonwealth Commercial Holding Co LLC pursuant to that certain
Condominium Units Deed and Assignment of Declarant's Rights and
Obligations, dated as of May 6, 2005 and recorded in the Registry on May
10, 2005 in Book 37042, Page 83.
Percentage Interest in the General Common Elements appurtenant to Unit:

0.9492%
Residential Limited Common Percentage Interest appurtenant to Unit: 0.9618%
Appurtenant Parking Rights: The right to have two (2) automobiles parked in
the parking garage in the Building as more particularly described in the Master
Deed.
10
Said action constitutes a claim of a right to title to real property or the use and occupation
thereof or the buildings thereon within the meaning of G.L. c. 184, § 15(b).
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
Dated: March __, 2021
ENDORSEMENT OF THE COURT
The Court hereby endorses this Memorandum of Lis Pendens with respect to the property
owned by Defendant New East (US) Inc. because it has found that the subject matter of the
above-captioned action constitutes a claim of right to title to the real property described therein
and the use and occupation thereof.
__________________________________
Associate Justice of the Superior Court
2
EXHIBIT B
(Millennium Avery Condominium, 580 Washington Street, Unit # 3E)
THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
Washington Street, Unit # 3E, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 02111, and more
2
Unit # 3E of Millennium Avery Condominium (the "Condominium") created by

Master Deed of Millennium Avery Condominium, dated as of October 7, 2013,

Elements;
Deed;
and
in the Master Deed.

3

herein.
at the Registry.
of the Master Deed.

10, 2005 in Book 37042, Page 83.

0.2170%
Appurtenant Parking Rights: See Parking Easement Agreement referenced

above
4
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
__________________________________
2
EXHIBIT C
(Millennium Avery Condominium, 580 Washington Street, Unit # 714)

THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
Washington Street, Unit # 714, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 02111, and more

2
Unit # 714 of Millennium Avery Condominium (the "Condominium") created by


Elements;
Deed;
and
in the Master Deed.

3

herein.
at the Registry.
of the Master Deed.

10, 2005 in Book 37042, Page 83.

0.2000%

above
4
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
__________________________________
2
EXHIBIT D

THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
in which New East 804 805 LLC is a named Defendant. The civil action constitutes a claim of a
right to title to real property having a street address of Millennium Avery Condominium, 580

2


Elements;
Deed;
and
in the Master Deed.

3

herein.
at the Registry.
of the Master Deed.

10, 2005 in Book 37042, Page 83.

0.2356%

above
4
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 299-6000

owned by Defendant New East 804 805 LLC because it has found that the subject matter of the
__________________________________
2
EXHIBIT E

THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
in which New East 804 805 LLC is a named Defendant. The civil action constitutes a claim of a
right to title to real property having a street address of Millennium Avery Condominium, 580

2


Elements;
Deed;
and
in the Master Deed.

3

herein.
at the Registry.
of the Master Deed.

10, 2005 in Book 37042, Page 83.

0.3458%

above
4
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg

Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000

owned by Defendant New East 804 805 LLC because it has found that the subject matter of the
__________________________________
2
EXHIBIT F
(The 776 Boylston Residences Secondary Condominium, 776 Boylston Street, Unit No. W10-C,
Boston, MA 02199)
3

THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
in which New East Back Bay LLC is a named Defendant. The civil action constitutes a claim of
a right to title to real property having a street address of The 776 Boylston Residences Secondary
Condominium, 776 Boylston Street, Unit No. W10-C, Boston, MA 02199, and more particularly
described as follows:
4
Unit No. W 10-C of The 776 Boylston Residences Secondary Condominium

created by Master Deed dated August 5, 2008 and recorded on August 8, 2008
in the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds in Book 43904, Page 58, as amended.
The unit is shown on the floor plan recorded with the Master Deed, to which is
affixed a verified statement in the form provided by G.L. c. 183A s.8, and is
conveyed subject to and with the benefit of the obligations, restrictions, rights
and liabilities contained in G.L.c. 183A, the Master Deed, and the Declaration of
Trust, as amended.
Each of the units in the Condominium is intended for residential purposes and
such other uses as are set forth in the Master Deed, as amended.
The unit is also conveyed with the right and easement to the exclusive use of
parking spaces G13 and G18-V and storage space P300-S as set forth in the
Master Deed and shown on the plans recorded with the Master Deed, as
amended of record.
Undivided percentage interest of the unit in the common areas and facilities:
1.5590%.
5
Said action constitutes a claim of a right to title to real property or the use and occupation thereof or the
buildings thereon within the meaning of G.L. c. 184, § 15(b).
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg

Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
owned by Defendant New East Back Bay LLC because it has found that the subject matter of the
__________________________________
2
EXHIBIT G
(Private Residences at One Dalton Condominium, One Dalton
Street, Unit No. 5202, Boston, MA 02115)

THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Plaintiff”) commenced an action to record this document at
the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds and elsewhere providing notice that there is presently
pending in the Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session, Suffolk County, docketed
as Civil Action No. _________________, an action styled:
in which New East Back Bay LLC is a named Defendant. The civil action constitutes a
claim of a right to title to real property having a street address of Private Residences at One
Dalton Condominium, One Dalton Street, Unit No. 5202, Boston, MA 02115, and more

2
Unit No. 5202 of the Private Residences at One Dalton Condominium (the
"Condominium"), created by Master Deed dated May 9, 2019 (the "Master
Deed") and recorded with the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds (the
"Registry of Deeds") on May 9, 2019 in Book 61087, Page 117 and
shown on a plan recorded in said Registry of Deeds therewith, said
Condominium being a secondary condominium within the One Dalton
Primary Condominium (the "Primary Condominium"), created by Master
Deed dated May 9, 2019 (the "Primary Master Deed") and recorded with
the Registry of Deeds on May 9, 2019 in Book 61086, Page 190. The
organization of unit owners of the Primary Condominium is governed by
the By-Laws of the Primary Condominium (the "Primary By-Laws")
dated May 9, 2019 and recorded with the Registry of Deeds on May 9,
2019 in Book 61086, Page 240.
The unit is shown on the floor plans recorded with the Master Deed, to
which is affixed a verified statement in the form provided by G.L. c.
183A, § 8, and is conveyed subject to and with the benefit of the
obligations, restrictions, rights and liabilities contained in G.L. c. 183A,
the Primary Master Deed, the Primary By-Laws, the Master Deed, and
the By-Laws of the Condominium dated May 9, 2019 and recorded with
the Registry of Deeds on May 9, 2019 in Book 61087, Page 181.
The Unit is conveyed together with the right and easement to have two
(2) vehicles valet parked in the "Parking Garages" (as defined in the
Master Deed) as shown on the plans filed with the Primary Master Deed
in the Parking Garages (as defined in the Master Deed), pursuant and
subject to that certain Primary Residential Unit Restated Parking
Easement Agreement dated May 9, 2019 and recorded with the Registry
of Deeds in Book 61087, Page 49, between Seller and the Trustees of
Church Realty Trust.
The Unit is conveyed together with the exclusive right and easement to
use Storage Area No. S-128 on Level B-1 in the Residential Storage
Area (as defined in the Master Deed) as set forth in the Master Deed and
as designated and shown on the plans recorded therewith.
Each of the units in the Condominium is intended for residential

purposes and such other uses as are set forth in the Master Deed.
Undivided percentage interest of the unit in the common areas and facilities
of the Condominium and in the association of unit owners of the
Condominium: 0.87608%.
3
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg

Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
__________________________________
2
EXHIBIT H
(Private Residences at One Dalton Condominium, One Dalton
Street, Unit No. 5203, Boston, MA 02115)

THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Plaintiff”) commenced an action to record this document at
the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds and elsewhere providing notice that there is presently
pending in the Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session, Suffolk County, docketed
as Civil Action No. _________________, an action styled:
in which New East Back Bay LLC is a named Defendant. The civil action constitutes a
claim of a right to title to real property having a street address of Private Residences at One
Dalton Condominium, One Dalton Street, Unit No. 5203, Boston, MA 02115, and more
2
Unit No. 5203 of the Private Residences at One Dalton Condominium

(the "Condominium"), created by Master Deed dated May 9, 2019 (the "Master
Deed") and recorded with the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds (the "Registry
of Deeds") on May 9, 2019 in Book 61087, Page 117 and shown on a plan
recorded in said Registry of Deeds therewith, said Condominium being a
secondary condominium within the One Dalton Primary Condominium (the
"Primary Condominium"), created by Master Deed dated May 9, 2019 (the
"Primary Master Deed") and recorded with the Registry of Deeds on May 9, 2019
in Book 61086, Page 190. The organization of unit owners of the Primary
Condominium is governed by the By-Laws of the Primary Condominium (the
"Primary By-Laws") dated May 9, 2019 and recorded with the Registry of Deeds
on May 9, 2019 in Book 61086, Page 240.
The unit is shown on the floor plans recorded with the Master Deed, to
which is affixed a verified statement in the form provided by G.L. c. 183A, § 8,
and is conveyed subject to and with the benefit of the obligations, restrictions,
rights and liabilities contained in G.L. c. 183A, the Primary Master Deed, the
Primary By-Laws, the Master Deed, and the By-Laws of the Condominium dated
May 9, 2019 and recorded with the Registry of Deeds on May 9, 2019 in Book
61087, Page 181.
The Unit is conveyed together with the right and easement to have one
vehicle valet parked in the "Parking Garages" (as defined in the Master Deed)
as shown on the plans filed with the Primary Master Deed in the Parking
Garages (as defined in the Master Deed), pursuant and subject to that certain
Primary Residential Unit Restated Parking Easement Agreement dated May 9,
2019 and recorded with the Registry of Deeds in Book 61087, Page 49,
between Seller and the Trustees of Church Realty Trust.
Each of the units in the Condominium is intended for residential

purposes and such other uses as are set forth in the Master Deed.
Undivided percentage interest of the unit in the common areas and

facilities of the Condominium and in the association of unit owners of the
Condominium: 0.36441%.
3
By its attorneys,
_____________________________
400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
__________________________________
2
9

OF THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688 BLS2
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
E-FILED 3/24/2021
v.
KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION

FOR APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF LIS PENDENS
Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 15(b) and Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1), Plaintiff
Sakab Holding Company (“Plaintiff”) submits this memorandum of law in support of its
emergency motion (the “Lis Pendens Motion”) for approval of memorandums of lis pendens
with respect to real properties fraudulently purchased by Defendants Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al
Jabri”), Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid Al Jabri”) and/or Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri
(“Mohammed Al Jabri”) (collectively, the “Al Jabri Family Defendants”) by or through their
alter egos New East (US) Inc. (“New East US”), New East 804 805 LLC (“New East 804 805”)
and New East Back Bay LLC (“New East Back Bay”) (collectively, the “New East Defendants”)
located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk, described in the Lis Pendens
Motion (collectively referred to herein as the “Properties”).
(the “Ontario Orders”) freezing and appointing a receiver over the Properties in a parallel action
(Commercial List)) (the “Ontario Action”). In issuing the Ontario Orders, the Ontario Superior
Court requested the aid and recognition of foreign courts, including in the United States, in
giving effect to its orders.
Mohammed Al Jabri, acting through their alter ego companies the New East Defendants,
wrongfully acquired the Properties worth approximately $29 million USD with the proceeds of
the Fraudulent Scheme. Plaintiff Sakab seeks a number of remedies against Defendants,
-2-
including confirmation that Defendants hold the Properties—all of which were acquired by
Defendants using funds they fraudulently obtained from Plaintiff Sakab and fraudulently
transferred to the New East Defendants—in a constructive trust for the benefit of Sakab.
-3-
Orders. Accordingly, in addition to this Lis Pendens Motion, Plaintiff Sakab has also
simultaneously filed Emergency Motions for Attachment of Real Property and to Stay
Proceedings pending the ultimate adjudication of the Ontario Action. Plaintiff Sakab expects
that, should the Court grant the requested emergency relief, it will come again before this Court
upon the conclusion of proceedings in Canada, either to enforce a final judgment against
Defendants or to dissolve the attachment and lis pendens.
Like the Ontario Action, the present action results from detailed, substantial and
comprehensive forensic investigative efforts performed by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services
Limited (“Deloitte”) (which are still ongoing and may uncover additional wrongdoing). As
described in the Verified Complaint and below, those efforts have to date identified
approximately $850 million in funds misappropriated by Al Jabri and his co-conspirators from
Plaintiff in the course of the Fraudulent Scheme—over $250 million of which Al Jabri (without
authorization and unlawfully) had transferred from Plaintiff’s bank accounts to himself.1 As
Plaintiff has sought remedies including the imposition of constructive trusts on the Properties,
the existence of which creates a claim of a right to title to such real property or the use and
1 As a result of the Fraudulent Scheme that he engineered, Al Jabri collected nearly $500 million: over $250
million directly from Plaintiff; another approximately $50 million indirectly from Plaintiff through funds that he
funneled first from Plaintiff to other Group Companies and that were then misappropriated by Al Jabri from
those Group Companies; and approximately $186 million in “kick-back” payments paid to Al Jabri from
misappropriated funds that he had directed to co-conspirators. Al Jabri separately directed another
approximately $14 million in misappropriated funds from a Group Company to a company that he owned with
his son, Defendant Khalid Al Jabri.
-4-
occupation thereof, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s memorandums of lis pendens on the
Properties.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and sixteen other companies (“the Group Companies”) were established
pursuant to a 2007 Royal Instruction issued by King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz for the purpose of
performing anti-terrorism activities in the public interest. The Group Companies were funded by
an increase in the level of funding from the Ministry of Finance to be used by the KSA Ministry
of the Interior (“MOI”) for counter-terrorism activities from thirty percent (30%) of the MOI’s
operational funds to forty-five percent (45%) (the “Allowance”). Verif. Compl. ¶ 17, 40;
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 34-35.
During the relevant time, Defendant Al Jabri was a high-ranking KSA official who had
the authority to manage the Allowance. He also controlled and dominated Plaintiff and other
Group Companies, including by appointing his friends and family members as nominee
shareholders and directors. Al Jabri effectuated the Fraudulent Scheme through his authority to
manage the Allowance and ability to control Plaintiff and the other Group Companies. Among
other things, Al Jabri himself had the ability to effect the disbursement of funds from Plaintiff
and the other Group Companies, including in unlawful, unauthorized and “off-the-book”
transactions, to himself and his friends, business associates and family members. Verif. Compl.
¶ 42, 46-47, 56-60; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 21, 36-38, 46-48.
Al Jabri was stripped of his formal positions by KSA authorities in 2015, but continued to
exert control over Plaintiff and the other Group Companies and to direct the Fraudulent Scheme.
-5-
In 2017, ownership of Plaintiff and the other Group Companies was transferred from the MOI to
an entity wholly owned by the independent sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, which
undertook an inquiry into the finances of the Group Companies. Verif. Compl. ¶ 24-25;
Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 13, 23, 56.
Following a years-long forensic accounting investigation and asset tracing efforts,
Deloitte determined that, as part of the Fraudulent Scheme, Al Jabri and his co-conspirators,
among other fraudulent and unlawful acts, caused Plaintiff to make improper transfers totaling
almost $850 million to Al Jabri and his co-conspirators—at least $253 million of which went
directly from Plaintiff to Al Jabri. Verif. Compl. ¶ 21; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 20-21, 43, 70-73, Ex. 1
(“Deloitte Report”), at 21 (“Table 5.0”). Al Jabri used a portion of the misappropriated funds he
had obtained to acquire the Properties, but tried to conceal the assets by using his alter ego New
East Defendants to make the acquisitions. Verified Compl. ¶ 72-73; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 80-81.
Defendants Khalid Al Jabri and Mohammed Al Jabri are Al Jabri’s sons. They
participated in the Fraudulent Scheme, including by assisting Al Jabri in concealing
misappropriated funds by investing those funds in the Properties through the New East
Defendants. Verif. Compl. ¶ 29-30; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 25-26.
The Al Jabri Family Defendants are the ultimate beneficial owners of New East
Defendants, which Al Jabri established for the purpose of concealing the proceeds of the
Fraudulent Scheme. Verif. Compl. ¶ 31-36; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 29-31. The Al Jabri Family
Defendants fraudulently transferred funds that were misappropriated from Plaintiff and other
Group Companies to the New East Defendants. The New East Defendants used those funds to
purchase the Properties. Verif. Compl. ¶ 72-73, 80-85, 88-92; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 88-93, 98-99,
101. By purchasing the Properties and holding them through the New East Defendants, rather
-6-
than directly in Al Jabri’s name, the Al Jabri Family Defendants sought to conceal their ill-gotten
proceeds obtained from the Fraudulent Scheme, and to prevent Plaintiff and other Group
Companies—victims of the Al Jabri Family’s fraud and self-dealing—from recovering their
assets. Verif. Compl. ¶ 72-73. The Properties held by the New East Defendants also generate
substantial monthly rents, allowing Defendants to continue to profit from the Fraudulent Scheme.
Verif. Compl. ¶ 83, 91; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 88, 98, 101.
After details of the Fraudulent Scheme threatened to come to light, Al Jabri fled to
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where he and members of his family currently reside. Verif. Compl.
¶ 28; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 102.
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff and nine of the other Group Companies brought the
Ontario Action against Al Jabri and a number of his co-conspirators, including all the Defendants
to the present action. Verif. Compl. ¶ 7; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 104, Ex. 76. All of the facts alleged
in the present action are alleged in the Ontario Action, and the claims brought in the present
action arise out of the same fraudulent scheme that gives rise to the Ontario Action.
That same day, based on the substantial record put before the court,2 the Ontario
Superior Court issued, among other relief, three orders relevant to this action:
freezing Al Jabri’s assets worldwide, including the Properties;
properties of the New East Defendants, including the Properties; and
2 The record before the Ontario Superior Court included, among other evidence: (i) a 156-page expert report
prepared by Deloitte describing the current status of efforts to trace funds transferred from the Plaintiff Sakab
and other related companies; (ii) a detailed Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser, the current General Manager of
Plaintiff and General Manager or board chairman of the other Group Companies, who is overseeing the forensic
investigations, each of which appended hundreds of exhibits; and (iii) an expert report on Saudi law prepared by
a Saudi lawyer. Much of this evidence has been submitted to this Court in support of this Lis Pendens Motion
and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Attachment of Real Property.
-7-
-8-
On February 1, 2021, after Al Jabri had appeared in the Ontario Action, the Ontario
Superior Court extended the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders to February 19, 2021. In
an Endorsement denying Al Jabri’s initial motion to set aside or stay those orders, the court
found that “[t]here is overwhelming evidence of fraud that has been presented to court,” and
rejected Khalid Al Jabri’s affidavit in support of his father’s motion, which the court
characterized as “more of a political treatise than any concrete response to the serious allegations
raised [by the Plaintiffs].” Verif. Compl. ¶ 13-14; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 109, Ex. 82. On February
5, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court entered an Order giving effect to those rulings. Verif.
opportunity to challenge the Ontario court’s ex parte orders on the merits, but chose not to do so;
-9-
¶ 112, Ex. 84 (“Ruling”). The Ruling described in detail the evidence and arguments presented
by the parties, the applicable legal standards, and the court’s findings. The thrust of Al Jabri’s
position in seeking to set aside the Ontario Orders was that the Ontario Action purportedly is not
a commercial dispute, but rather a political attack. However, the Ontario Superior Court rejected
Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 123.
The Ontario court also rejected Al Jabri’s argument that the Plaintiff’s poor record-
keeping and use of nominee shareholders was by design, pointing to the fact that asset tracing by
Deloitte has, to date, identified more than SAR 725 million (over USD 193 million) that was
paid by Plaintiff directly to Al Jabri after he left his government position in September 2015. See
Alnowaiser Aff., Ex. 1 (“Deloitte Report”), at 21 (“Table 5.0”). Thus, the Ontario court found
that “any argument related to murkiness or poor record keeping on the part of [Al Jabri] is hard
to reconcile when a large part of the traced funds were removed after [Al Jabri] was asked to
leave his position in the KSA government.” Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 112, Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 95-97.
The Ontario court also noted that Al Jabri did not explain why funds would have been paid to his
-10-
family and friends after he left the KSA government. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 112, Ex. 84 (“Ruling”)
¶ 101.
As stated above, the purpose of the present action is to give effect to and carry out the
remedies granted by the Ontario Superior Court against Defendants’ assets in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintain the status quo and preserve the Properties, which
Defendants wrongfully acquired with the proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme.
ARGUMENT
Massachusetts law provides for lis pendens “if the subject matter of [an] action constitutes
a claim of right to title to real property or the use and occupation thereof or the buildings
thereon.” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184 § 15(b). The statute “does not purport to create a new
right, interest, or remedy in the litigant filing the memorandum of lis pendens.” Debral Realty,
Inc. v. DiChiara, 383 Mass. 559, 561, 420 N.E.2d 343, 346 (1981). Rather, a memorandum of lis
pendens puts “anyone interested in real estate that is in dispute on notice of the dispute,” thereby
“ensur[ing] that a prospective third-party transferee can, with the exercise of reasonable prudence,
acquire information relevant to a decision whether to consummate the transaction.” Id. at 561-62;
see also Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 Mass. 699, 706, 802 N.E.2d 64, 69 (2004).
The question in deciding whether a memorandum of lis pendens should be approved is
“the nature of a claim, not its merits.” See RFF Family P’ship, LC v. Link Dev., LLC, 849 F.
Supp. 2d 131, 137 (D. Mass. 2012) (allowing lis pendens in wrongful foreclosure counterclaim).
A court need not determine that the complaint would survive a motion to dismiss to issue a lis
pendens. See Sutherland v. Aolean Dev. Corp., 399 Mass. 36, 40-41, 502 N.E.2d 528, 531
(1987); DeCroteau v. DeCroteau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 903, 905, 65 N.E.3d 1217, 1220 (2016)
(citing Sutherland). When “[p]resented with a statutorily compliant verified complaint in which
-11-
the ‘subject matter of the action constitutes a claim of a right to title to real property or the use
and occupation thereof,’ the [court] ‘shall’ make a finding to that effect and endorse the lis
pendens.” Ferguson v. Maxim, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 388, 135 N.E.3d 746, 750 (2019) (quoting
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184 § 15(b)).
This action—which seeks lis pendens based on the substantial evidence already assembled
to date, as detailed in the Verified Complaint and Alnowaiser Affidavit—easily clears this bar.
A claim that “affect[s] title” is “a claim brought on a plaintiff’s own behalf to enforce
some interest in the real estate.” Wolfe, 440 Mass. at 706 (quotation and citation omitted). Here,
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants hold real property in constructive trust for Plaintiff—
in effect, that Plaintiff has a beneficial interest in the Properties.
“Under Massachusetts law, a court will declare a party a constructive trustee of property
for the benefit of another if [such party] acquired the property through fraud, mistake, breach of
duty, or in other circumstances indicating that [such party] would be unjustly enriched.” Fortin v.
Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, 416 Mass. 781, 789, 625 N.E.2d 1352, 1358 (1994); see
also, e.g., Nessralla v. Peck, 403 Mass. 757, 762, 532 N.E.2d 685, 689 (1989) (a court in equity
generally “may impose a constructive trust in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of one party at
the expense of the other where the legal title to the property was obtained by fraud or in violation
of a fiduciary relation” (quotation and citation omitted)). “Where a person holding title to
property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that [the person]
would be unjustly enriched if [the person] were permitted to retain it, a constructive trust arises.”
Restatement (First) of Restitution, § 160 (1937). It is a virtually uniform rule that an innocent
party, pursuing a conscious wrongdoer who uses misappropriated or fraudulently obtained funds
to buy property, can choose either to enforce a lien on the property for the value of the
-12-
misappropriated funds or to enforce a constructive trust on the property. See, e.g., Provencher v.
Berman, 699 F.2d 568, 570 (1st Cir. 1983) (and the cases cited therein).
The Verified Complaint and Alnowaiser Affidavit set forth in detail ample support to
establish a constructive trust on behalf of Plaintiff with respect to the fraudulently acquired
Properties. Defendants misappropriated and fraudulently obtained funds that belonged to
Plaintiff, acquired in violation of Defendant Al Jabri’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, and then
fraudulently transferred those funds to the New East Defendants in order to acquire the Properties.
Having fraudulently used Plaintiff’s money to acquire title to the Properties, Defendants have an
equitable duty to convey the Properties to Plaintiff. If Defendants were permitted to retain the
Properties, they would be unjustly enriched. Thus, a constructive trust arises.
When the need for a constructive trust arises, the beneficiaries of the trust have a claim of
a right to title to the property held in constructive trust. See Provencher, 699 F.2d at 570-71
(where holder used estate funds in part to purchase property, the property was found to be held in
constructive trust and the bankruptcy trustee became a beneficiary entitled to a proportionate
undivided interest in the trust property); Crosslight Organization, Inc. v. Kristen B. Williams, No.
BRCV2000-01135, 2001 WL 35993596 (Mass. Super. Ct. July 30, 2001) (where company’s
accountant misappropriated funds and later died, company, as beneficiary of a constructive trust,
held an undivided interest in a proportionate share of the commingled property of the deceased’s
estate); see also In re Hang, No. 05–30655, 2007 WL 2344958, at *7 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Aug. 16,
2007) (when property is improperly used, the innocent party can enforce a constructive trust and
the holders of the property have an equitable duty to convey it, relying on Provencher); In re
Telemark Mgmt. Co., Inc., 47 B.R. 1013, 1018 (W.D. Wis. 1985) (where corporation funded
improvements to the property, the corporation became a beneficiary of a constructive trust entitled
-13-
to an undivided interest in the property equivalent to the proportion which its funds bore to the
total funds expended to acquire or improve the property, relying on Provencher).
By recognizing that a plaintiff holds an undivided interest in real property held by the
defendant as constructive trustee, the court is also recognizing a property interest. See
Provencher, 699 F.2d at 570. A claim brought to enforce “some interest in the real estate” is a
claim that “affects title” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, §15(b). See Wolfe, 440 Mass. at 705-07
(although interpreting an earlier version of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, §15, the relevant language
remains the same regarding when a lis pendens is appropriate: “if the subject matter of the action
constitutes a claim of a right to title to real property”).
Once a court determines that the subject matter of the action concerns an interest in real
estate, the language of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, §15 is mandatory and a request for lis pendens
must be allowed. See DeCroteau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. at 905 (citing Sutherland). In DeCroteau,
the court held that “because the verified complaint includes a claim for the creation of a ‘resulting
trust/equitable title,’ the nature of which constitutes a claim of right to title of real property, the
merits of the underlying claims were immaterial to the request for a lis pendens.” Id. at 906.
Here, Plaintiff seeks the creation or imposition of a constructive trust on the Properties, all of
which were acquired using funds of Plaintiff that were misappropriated by Defendants in breach
of Defendant Al Jabri’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff.
By its nature, the constructive trust creates a property interest for Plaintiff’s benefit. In
order to ensure that prospective good faith transferees are on notice that Defendants’ fee interest
in the Properties is in dispute, this Court should allow Plaintiff’s motion for lis pendens with
respect to each of the Properties.
-14-
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant its motion for approval
of memorandums of lis pendens, enter an order approving a memorandum of lis pendens for each
of the Properties and grant such other and further relief in Plaintiff’s favor as the Court deems
just and proper.
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-15-
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
-16-
-17-
10

OF THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________

v. CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 5, the Court’s inherent powers to control its
docket and principles of international comity, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company hereby
moves this Court, once it has granted the pre-judgment relief sought by Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motions for Attachment and Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens and allowed time for
service of process and due process with respect to relief granted on an expedited basis, to stay
proceedings in this action pending the ultimate resolution of a parallel action already underway
before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
entitled Sakab Saudi Holding Co., et al. v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, et al., No. CV-21-00655418-
00CL (Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List)) (the “Ontario Action”).
As the grounds therefore, Plaintiff states that this action was brought to give effect to
orders issued by the Ontario Superior Court in the Ontario Action freezing and appointing a
receiver over luxury real property located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that
Defendant Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”) and his sons and co-conspirators Khalid Saad
Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid Al Jabri”) and Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri, acting through their alter
ego companies Defendants New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, and New East Back
Bay LLC, wrongfully acquired with the proceeds of a multi-billion dollar, international
fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Al Jabri.
Plaintiff seeks to maintain the status quo—that is, to preserve the fruit of the fraudulent
scheme now located in Massachusetts that is subject to the Ontario Superior Court’s orders.
Plaintiff requests that the Court (1) grant its Emergency Motions for Attachment of Real
Property and Approval of Memorandum of Lis Pendens filed concurrently herewith; (2) allow
time for service of process and due process with respect to relief granted on an expedited basis;
and (3) grant this Motion to stay the present action pending the ultimate adjudication of the
Ontario Action.
As explained more fully in the memorandum of law filed herewith, granting the stay is
within the Court’s inherent powers, is expressly authorized by Massachusetts statute, and would
serve the interests of judicial efficiency by avoiding parallel and piecemeal litigation and
allowing all relevant claims to be heard in the most convenient forum with the broadest
jurisdiction. Defendants Al Jabri and Khalid Al Jabri reside in Toronto and are subject to the
general in personam jurisdiction of that court for all claims relating to a globe-encircling
fraudulent scheme. The Ontario Action is already underway, the parties have engaged counsel
and many have appeared before the Ontario Superior Court, and that court has reviewed a
2
voluminous record, held an evidentiary hearing and issued several orders. All of the parties to
the present action are also parties to the Ontario Action and all of the facts alleged in the present
action are alleged in the Ontario Action. The claims brought in the present action arise out of the
same fraudulent scheme that gives rise to the Ontario Action. Judicial efficiency favors staying
this action pending the resolution of the Ontario Action as the Ontario court has already held
evidentiary hearings and issued several orders relevant to the underlying dispute.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company respectfully requests that the
Court, after granting Plaintiff’s Emergency Motions for Attachment and Approval of
Memorandums of Lis Pendens and allowing time for service of process and due process with
respect to relief granted on an expedited basis, grant its motion to stay these proceedings pending
the ultimate resolution of the parallel Ontario Action already underway in Toronto, and grant
such other and further relief in Plaintiff’s favor as the Court deems just and proper.
3
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
4
5
11

OF THE TRIAL COURT
2184CV00688 BLS2
CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
Plaintiff,
v. E-FILED 3/24/2021
KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 5, the Court’s inherent powers to control its
docket, and principles of international comity, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company
(“Sakab”) submits this memorandum of law in support of its emergency motion (the “Motion to
Stay”) requesting that the Court, once it has granted the pre-judgment relief sought by Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motions for Attachment and Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens and allowed
time for service of process and due process with respect to relief granted on an expedited basis,
stay these proceedings pending the ultimate resolution of a parallel action already underway
before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
entitled Sakab Saudi Holding Co., et al. v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, et al., No. CV-21-00655418-
00CL (Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List)) (the “Ontario Action”).
(the “Ontario Orders”) freezing and appointing a receiver over luxury real property located in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts that Defendant Saad Khalid S Al Jabri (“Al Jabri”) and his
sons and co-conspirators Khalid Saad Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid Al Jabri”) and Mohammed Saad
Kh Al Jabri (collectively the “Al Jabri Family Defendants”), acting through their alter ego
companies New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, and New East Back Bay LLC
(collectively the “New East Defendants”), wrongfully acquired with the proceeds of a multi-
billion dollar, international fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Al Jabri. In issuing the Ontario
Orders, the Ontario Superior Court requested the aid and recognition of foreign courts, including
in the United States, in giving effect to its orders.
Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri, acting through their alter ego companies the New East
Defendants, wrongfully acquired the Properties worth approximately $29 million USD with the
-2-
proceeds of the Fraudulent Scheme. Plaintiff Sakab seeks a number of remedies against
Defendants, including confirmation that Defendants hold the Properties—all of which were
acquired by Defendants using funds they fraudulently obtained from Plaintiff Sakab and
fraudulently transferred to the New East Defendants—in a constructive trust for the benefit of
Sakab.
-3-
Orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff Sakab requests that the Court (1) grant its Emergency Motions for
Attachment of Real Property and Approval of Memorandum of Lis Pendens filed concurrently
herewith; (2) allow time for service of process and due process with respect to relief granted on
an expedited basis; and (3) grant this Motion to Stay the present action pending the ultimate
adjudication of the Ontario Action. Granting the stay is within the Court’s inherent powers, is
expressly authorized by Massachusetts statute, and would serve the interests of judicial
efficiency by avoiding parallel and piecemeal litigation and allowing all relevant claims to be
heard in the most convenient forum with the broadest jurisdiction. Plaintiff expects that, should
the Court grant the requested relief, it will come again before this Court upon the conclusion of
proceedings in Canada, either to enforce a final judgment against Defendants or to dissolve the
attachment and lis pendens.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff and nine other affiliated companies (the “Group
Companies”) brought the Ontario Action against Al Jabri and a number of his co-conspirators,
including all the Defendants to the present action. Verif. Compl. ¶ 7; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 104, Ex.
76. All of the facts alleged in the present action are alleged in the Ontario Action, and the claims
-4-
brought in the present action arise out of the same Fraudulent Scheme that gives rise to the
Ontario Action.
That same day, based on the substantial record put before the court,1 the Ontario Superior
Court issued, among other relief, three orders relevant to this action:
freezing Al Jabri’s assets worldwide, including real property in Massachusetts
held by the Al Jabri Family Defendants through their alter ego companies the
New East Defendants, i.e., the property that is the subject of Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motions for Attachment of Real Property and Approval of
Memorandums of Lis Pendens in the present action;
properties, including real property in Massachusetts that is the subject of the
present action; and
1 The record before the Ontario Superior Court included, among other evidence: (i) a 156-page expert report
prepared by Deloitte describing the current status of efforts to trace funds transferred from the Plaintiff Sakab
and other related companies; (ii) a detailed Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser, the current General Manager of
Plaintiff and General Manager or board chairman of the other Group Companies, who is overseeing the forensic
investigations, each of which appended hundreds of exhibits; and (iii) an expert report on Saudi law prepared by
a Saudi lawyer. Much of this evidence has been submitted to this Court in support of Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motions for Attachment of Real Property and Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens.
-5-
-6-
On February 1, 2021, after Al Jabri appeared in the Ontario Action, the Ontario Superior
Court extended the Mareva, Receivership and Norwich Orders to February 19, 2021. In an
Endorsement denying Al Jabri’s initial motion to set aside or stay those orders, the court found
that “[t]here is overwhelming evidence of fraud that has been presented to court,” and rejected
Khalid Al Jabri’s affidavit in support of his father’s motion, which the court characterized as
“more of a political treatise than any concrete response to the serious allegations raised [by the
Plaintiffs].” Verif. Compl. ¶ 13-14; Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 109, Ex. 82. On February 5, 2021, the
Ontario Superior Court entered an Order giving effect to its rulings in the Endorsement. Verif.
opportunity to challenge the Ontario court’s ex parte orders on the merits but chose not to do so;
-7-
¶ 112, Ex. 84. The Ruling described in detail the evidence and arguments presented by the
parties, the applicable legal standards, and the court’s findings. The thrust of Al Jabri’s position
in seeking to set aside the Ontario Orders was that the Ontario Action purportedly is not a
commercial dispute, but rather a political attack. However, the Ontario Superior Court rejected
Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 123.
The Ontario court also rejected Al Jabri’s argument that the Plaintiff’s poor record-
keeping and use of nominee shareholders was by design, pointing to the Deloitte Report to find
that “any argument related to murkiness or poor record keeping on the part of [Al Jabri] is hard
to reconcile when a large part of the traced funds were removed after [Al Jabri] was asked to
leave his position in the KSA government” in September 2015. Alnowaiser Aff. ¶ 112, Ex. 84
(“Ruling”) ¶ 95-97. The Ontario court also noted that Al Jabri did not explain why funds would
have been paid to his family and friends after he left the KSA government. Alnowaiser Aff.
¶ 112, Ex. 84 (“Ruling”) ¶ 101.
ARGUMENT
Chapter 223A, Section 5 of the Massachusetts General Laws codifies the common-law
doctrine of forum non conveniens, providing that, “when a court finds that in the interest of
substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the
action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 5.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has held that this “statutory formulation of forum non
-8-
conveniens mirrors the common-law doctrine . . . .” Oxford Glob. Res., LLC v. Hernandez, 480
Mass. 462, 473, 106 N.E.3d 556, 567 (2018).
The determination of whether and how the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies
“involves the discretion of the motion judge, cannot be made by applying a universal formula,
and depends greatly on the specific facts of the proceeding before the court.” W.R. Grace & Co.
v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 407 Mass. 572, 577, 555 N.E.2d 214, 217 (1990). To evaluate a
forum non conveniens motion, courts look to “whether there is an alternative forum in which
justice may be had, and if the balance of private and public concerns strongly favor the [ ]
motion.” Oxford Global Res., LLC, 480 Mass. at 473, 106 N.E.3d at 567 (quoting Gianocostas
v. Interface Grp.-Massachusetts, Inc., 450 Mass. 715, 723, 881 N.E.2d 134, 140 (2008)) (internal
quotations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff brings the present action, which is ancillary to the principal Ontario
Action, for the limited purpose of giving effect to orders of the Ontario Superior Court freezing
and appointing a receiver over real property in Massachusetts that Defendants acquired as part of
the fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Al Jabri. Plaintiff simply seeks to preserve the status quo
by in effect preventing Defendants from alienating, dissipating or mortgaging the properties
pending resolution of parallel proceedings already underway in Ontario Superior Court.
The Ontario Action presents an adequate alternative forum in which the parties may
advance their claims. Private concerns strongly favor the Ontario Superior Court as the most
convenient forum. Defendants Al Jabri and Khalid Al Jabri reside in Toronto and are subject to
the general in personam jurisdiction of that court for all claims relating to a globe-encircling
fraudulent scheme. The Ontario Action is already underway, the parties have engaged counsel
and many have appeared before the Ontario Superior Court, and that court has reviewed a
-9-
voluminous record, held an evidentiary hearing and issued several Orders. All of the parties to
the present action are also parties to the Ontario Action and all of the facts alleged in the present
action are alleged in the Ontario Action. The claims brought in the present action arise out of the
same fraudulent scheme that gives rise to the Ontario Action. Plaintiff, along with the other
plaintiffs in the Ontario Action, chose to bring its principal action in the Ontario Superior
Court—within whose jurisdiction the principal Defendant resides—a choice that the Court
should accord deference. See Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. v. Peerless Ins. Co., 383 Mass.
162, 169, 418 N.E.2d 580, 584 (1981) (“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed”) (quoting New Amsterdam
Cas. Co. v. Estes, 353 Mass. 90, 95, 228 N.E.2d 440, 444 (1967)).
Public concerns, including the promotion of judicial efficiency, deference and
international comity, also strongly cut in favor of the Court staying this action pending the
resolution of the Ontario Action. Historically, courts in the United States have exercised a
particular degree of deference and comity towards Canadian proceedings. As the District Court
for the Northern District of Texas observed: “American courts have consistently deferred to
Canadian courts under the principle of comity because Canada is a sister common-law
jurisdiction. . . . Certainly, if this Court cannot extend comity to Canada, the comity principle has
little vitality in our jurisprudence. Indeed, the Court is aware of no case in which an American
court has refused to defer to Canada.” See Fleeger v. Clarkson Co., 86 F.R.D. 388, 392-93 (N.D.
Tex. 1980). See also Brinco Mining Ltd. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 552 F. Supp. 1233, 1240 (D.D.C.
1982) (affording equal deference to ongoing proceedings in Ontario court as it would to
proceedings in another federal court); Feldman v. KPMG LLP, 438 S.W.3d 678, 684 (Tex. App.
2014) (citing Fleeger).
-10-
There is precedent for this Court to impose a stay at Plaintiff’s request after granting an
attachment in support of a foreign proceeding. For example, in Barclays Bank, S.A. v. Tsakos,
543 A.2d 802 (D.C. 1988), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia had discretion to maintain a pre-judgment attachment of the
defendants’ property in the District of Columbia and then stay proceedings there pending the
outcome of litigation in Europe. As in the present action, the plaintiff in Barclays brought the
District of Columbia action “simply to preserve the status quo of the attachment lien pending
[the] outcome” of the European litigation. Barclays Bank, S.A., 543 A.2d at 805. See also
Boston Edison Co. v. Brookline Realty & Inv. Corp., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 63, 68, 405 N.E.2d 995,
999 (1980) (“[W]here an attachment exists or is indicated to preserve the rights of the plaintiff . .
. a stay of proceedings, rather than a dismissal, should be ordered pending completion of
administrative proceedings.”); Fortune Laurel, LLC v. High Liner Foods (USA), Inc., 173 N.H.
240, 246-50, 238 A.3d 1113, 1119-22 (N.H. Sup. Ct. 2020) (affirming the attachment of funds of
a foreign defendant pending resolution of litigation in Massachusetts state court).
A stay is warranted here. The substantive claims at issue are already pending before a
competent court in a more convenient forum. Like the plaintiff in Barclays, Plaintiff brings this
action simply to preserve the status quo and ensure its ability to recover on a foreign judgment,
here by obtaining attachment and recording lis pendens of real property in Massachusetts that
Defendants purchased using funds obtained through the multi-billion dollar international
fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Al Jabri. The Massachusetts General Laws specifically
authorize the Court to stay this action, and courts in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions have
stayed proceedings where, as here, an attachment is necessary to preserve the status quo pending
-11-
the outcome of a foreign proceeding. Granting the stay will allow the case to proceed in a more
convenient forum and avoid duplicative and wasteful parallel litigation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court, after granting Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motions for Attachment and Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens and
allowing time for service of process and due process with respect to relief granted on an
expedited basis, grant its motion to stay these proceedings pending the ultimate resolution of the
parallel Ontario Action already underway in Toronto, and grant such other and further relief in
Plaintiff’s favor as the Court deems just and proper.
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
-and-
-12-
William R. Stein
Samuel W. Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
-and-
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
-13-
-14-
12

OF THE TRIAL COURT BLS2
2184CV00688
CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.
CM
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
MOTION TO ALLOW THE APPEARANCE OF

MEAGHAN GRAGG, NEIL J. OXFORD, SAMUEL W. SALYER, and WILLIAM R.
STEIN PRO HAC VICE
In accordance with Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:15, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding
Company (“Sakab”) requests that Meaghan Gragg, Neil J. Oxford, Samuel W. Salyer, and
William R. Stein of the law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP be admitted pro hac vice as
counsel for Sakab in this case. Attorneys Gragg, Oxford, Salyer, and Stein serve as counsel
for Sakab along with Richard M. Zielinski, Douglas B. Rosner, and Denis M. King of
Goulston & Storrs PC, who have entered their appearance on behalf of Sakab.
In support of this motion, Goulston & Storrs PC states as follows:
1. Attorneys Gragg, Oxford, Salyer, and Stein are attorneys in good standing in each
of the jurisdictions in which they are admitted to practice, and each of them have completed the
Board of Bar Overseers registration process for attorneys seeking to be admitted pro hac vice in
4815-4803-5548, v. 2
4815-4803-5548.2
this Court. Each of them has, moreover, paid the applicable registration fee required by Rule
3:15.
2. The Board of Bar Overseers’ acknowledgements with respect to the

applications filed and payments made by Attorneys Gragg, Oxford, Salyer, and Stein are
appended to this motion as Addenda A, B, and C and D.
3. The public policy in favor of allowing clients to be represented by counsel of their
choice supports the allowance of this motion, and there is no good reason to deny it.
WHEREFORE, Sakab respectfully requests that this motion be allowed and the Court order
that Attorneys Gragg, Oxford, Salyer, and Stein be allowed to appear pro hac vice as counsel for
Sakab in this case.
By its attorneys,

Richard M. Zielinski (BBO# 540060)
400 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-
3333 Telephone: (617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
4815-4803-5548, v. 2
4815-4803-5548.2
Richard M. Zielinski
4815-4803-5548.2
ADDENDA A
Please note that ONLY THIS FORM, FILLED OUT ON THE WEBSITE. WILL BE ACCEPTED. Handwritten, annotated, copied, scanned or modified forms will be returned.
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS
REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEYS
Attorney name (first MI last, suffix): Meaghan Gragg, Esq.

Email address: ineaghan.gragg@hugheshbbard.com
Complete Business/Mailing Address:
Board of Bar Overseers
Meaghan Gragg, Esq. Administrative Use Only
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
One Battery Park Place
New York, NY 10004-1482
Date Received:^J^*'^"^'=^j/
Amount Paid;
Date confirmation mailed:d-.'d'-Ai

Business phone: (212)837-6101
Court in which pro hac vice admission is sought: Suffolk Superior Court, Business Litigatio^Session^^
tsininsf! sns
Contact number for court: (617)788-8175 "'fil
j J 'l U■■ W
■ ' H-
Party to be represented: f MAR B 2021
JflftSSACHUSCTT? BOARli Bf BAfl OVERSKRS
Docket number of case (if available): available 1 itHllSTRfl.Tffl?! DCPAPTMERT
Jurisdictions to which you have been admitted: (Use second page for additional jurisdictions.)
Type Jurisdiction License number
Federal United States District Court for the Southern District of New York MG1135
Federal United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York MG9760
Federal United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit N/A
State California 264179
State Florida 33607
State New York 4695763
I certify that(check one);(("") the party I am representing in the case for which I am seeking pro hac vice admission is an indigent client, and I
understand that no pro hac vice fee is due, or ([7") I have included the required pro hac vice fee.
Further, 1 certify, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that 1 am admitted to practice and in good standing in every jurisdiction where I am
admitted, and 1 acknowledge that I am subject to discipline by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Bar Overeeers. I
understand 1 am limited in my legal practice in Massachusetts to the case identified above.
1 certify the information 1 have supplied the Board of Bar Overseers is true and complete.
Signature (Please sign inside box move.) Date: 03/02/2021

Sign, print and mail original form to: Board of Bar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
Page 2
Jurisdictions continued:
Meaghan Gragg,Esq.
Type Jurisdiction
License number
Please remember to sign and date first page and mail original form to: Board of Bar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
ADDENDA B
Please note that ONLY THIS FORM. FILLED OUT ON THE WEBSITE. WILL BE ACCEPTED. Handwritten, annotated, copied, scanned or modified forms will be returned.
Attorney name (first Ml last, suffix): Neil J. Oxford, Esq.

Email address: neil.oxford@hugheshubbard.coni
Nell J. Oxford, Esq. Administrative Use Only
Date Received:
New York. NY 10004-1482
Amount Paid:
Date confirmation mailedN^*'^

Court in which pro hac vice admission is sought: Suffolk Superior Court, Business L^ w
d ^
Contact number for court: 788-8175
I MAR 0' 2021
Party to be represented: ^^kab Saudi Holding Company
Docket number of case (if available): available

Federal United States District Court for the Southern District of New York NO7065
Federal United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit N/A
I certify that(check one):(|~)the party I am representing in the case for which T am seeking pro hac vice admission is an indigent client, and I
understand that no pro hac vice fee is due, or(17)1 have included the required pro hac vice fee.
Further, I certify, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I am admitted to practice and in good standing in every Jurisdiction where I am
admitted, and I acknowledge that I am subject to discipline by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Bar Overseers. I
I certify the information I have supplied the Board of Bar Overseers is true and complete.
/ r
Signature (Please sign Inside box above.) Date: 03/02/2021
Sign, print and mall original form to: Board of Bar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
Page.2
Neil J. Oxford,Esq.
Type Jurisdiction
License number
Please remember to sign and date first page and mail original form to: Board ofBar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
ADDENDA C
Please note that ONLY THIS FORM. FILLED OUT ON THE WEBSITE. WILL BE ACCEPTED. Handwritten, annotated, copied, scanned or modified forms will be returned.
Attorney name (first MI last, suffix): Samuel W.Saiyer, Esq.

Email address: samuel.salyer@hugheshubbard.com
Samuel W.Saiyer, Esq. Administrative Use Only
1775 I St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-2401 Date ReceivedS^^
Amount Paid:^^.^'^
Date confirmation mailed>^^^ /
Business phone: (202) 721-4653
Court in which pro hac vice admission is sought: Superior Court, Business Litigation Session
Contact number for court: 788-8175
Party to be represented: Holding Company

Docket number ofcase (if available): available
Jurisdictions to which you have been admitted; (Use second page for additional jurisdictions.)

Federal U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1017434
State District of Columbia 1017434

ii] II ig [§ 0 W 0
Jul MAR0 2021
StPPTMEBT
I certify that(check one):([")the party I am representing in the case for which I am seeking pro hac vice admission is an indigent client, and I
understand that no pro hac vice fee is due, or([7) I have included the required pro hac vice fee.
Further, I certify, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I am admitted to practice and in good standing in every jurisdiction where I am
admitted, and I acknowledge that I am subject to discipline by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Bar Overeeers. I
Signature (Please sign inside box above.) Date: 03/02/2021

Sign, print and mail original form to: Board of Bar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
Page 2
Samuel W.Salyer, Esq.

Type Jurisdiction
License number
Please remember to sign and date first page and mail original form to: Board of Bar Overseers, 99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
ADDENDA D
Please note that ONLY THIS FORM. FILLED OUT ON THH WLBSI TE, WILL BE ACCEPTED. Handwritten, annotated, copied, scanned or modified forms will be returned.
REGISTRATION STATEMENT ÔKPROHAC F/CE ATTORNEYS
Attorney name (first MI last, suffix): William R. Stein, Esq.

Email address: william.stein@hugheshubbard.com
William R. Stein, Esq.
Administrative Use Only
1775 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-2401
Date Received^'** I
Amount CTD
Date confirmation mailed:
Court in which pro hac vice admission is sought: Superior Court,Busês^Lxt^^tw

[jj 1^ UW
Contact number for court: (617)788-8175 • =- '
MAR 0 2021
Party to be represented; Holding Company
I fiWÂCfaiSETTS BOasOOFBABOvifSJtRS
Docket number of case (if available): y®' available
Federal Supreme Court of the United States 148177
Federal U.S. Courts of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit 29496

Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 90-164
Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit N/A

Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit N/A
Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit N/A
Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 90-0196
Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit N/A
Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 211341272
1 certify that(check one):({~)the party I am representing in the case for which 1 am seeking pro hac vice admission is an indigent client, and I
understand that no pro hac vice fee is due, or (fT") I have included the required pro hac vice fee.
Further, 1 certify, under the pains and penalties of peijury, that I am admitted to practice and in good standing in every jurisdiction where 1 am
admitted, and 1 acknowledge that 1 am subject to discipline by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Bar Overseers. I
understand I am limited in my legal practice in Massachusetts to the case identified above.
Signature (Please sign Inside box above.) Date: 03/02/2021

Sign, print and mail original form to: Board of Bar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 021 10-2320
Page 2
William R. Stein, Esq.

Type Jurisdiction
License number
Federal U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 304048
Federal U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York WS5544
Federal U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 10570
State District of Columbia 304048
Federal U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit N/A
Please remember to sign and date first page and mail original form to: Board of Bar Overseers,99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320
13

OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2184CV00688
Plaintiff,
E-FILED 3/24/2021
v. CM

NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER
Pursuant to Rule 4(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Sakab
Saudi Holding Company hereby request an order appointing Beacon Hill Research, Inc., 25
Walnut Street, Suite 205, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, to be a special process server for
purposes of this action. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states that Beacon Hill Research, Inc.
is qualified, employs agents over the age of 18 for purposes of making service, is knowledgeable
about service of process and has long experience in the field, and is not a party to this action.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Sakab Saudi Holding Company respectfully requests
that its motion be granted.

By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3333 Telephone:
(617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
William R. Stein
Samuel Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
March 24, 2021 (Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Forthcoming)
2
4835-5113-3915, v. 1
3
4835-5113-3915, v. 1

OF THE TRIAL COURT
Plaintiff,
E-FILED 3/24/2021
v.
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, CM

NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
I, Richard M. Zielinski, hereby certify that on this 24th day of March 2021, I caused to be
served copies of the following documents, by electronic mail, upon all the parties listed on the
attached Master Service List:
Document List
1. BLS Cover Sheet;

2. Verified Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury;
3. Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser;
4. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Short Order Notice Regarding Motion for Real
Estate Attachment, Motion for Approval of Memorandum of Lis Pendens, Motion
to Stay Proceedings; Motion for Real Estate Attachment;
5. Memorandum of Order in Support of Motion for Real Estate Attachment;
6. [Proposed] Order for Real Estate Attachment;
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Memorandums of Lis Pendens;
8. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Memorandums
of Lis Pendens;
9. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings;
10. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings;
1
11. Motion to Allow the Appearances of Neil Oxford, Meaghan Gragg

and William R. Stein Pro Hac Vice; and
12. Motion for Special Process Server.
By its attorneys,

400 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3333 Telephone:
(617) 482-1776
Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
William R. Stein
Samuel Salyer
1775 I St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 721-4600
Facsimile: (202) 721-4646
2
4835-5113-3915, v. 1
Neil J. Oxford
Meaghan Gragg
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 299-6000
March 24, 2021 (Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Forthcoming)
3
4835-5113-3915, v. 1
Master Service List
I. STOCKWOODS LLP
(Defendants, Saad Khalid S Aljabri and Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri)
a. Paul Le Vay (28314E)

paullv@stockwoods.ca
b. Luisa J. Ritacca (44214H)

luisar@stockwoods.ca
c. Nader R. Hasan (54693W)

naderh@stockwoods.ca
d. Stephen Aylward (66556E)

stephena@stockwoods.ca
II. LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP

(Defendants Canadian Growth Investments Limited, Gryphon Secure Inc.
and Infosec Global Inc.)
a. J Thomas Curry
tcurry@litigate.com
b. Andrew Moeser
amoeser@litigate.com
c. Scott Azzopardi
sazzopardi@litigate.com
d. Saher Talebi
stalebi@litigate.com
III. JENNER & BLOCK LLP (Dr. Saad AlJabri)
a. David Pressman
dpressman@jenner.com
b. Lindsay Harrison
IV. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP

(New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC and New East Back Bay LLC
(collectively, the “New East Entities”))
a. Rachel Rodman
rachel.rodman@cwt.com
V. POLLEY FAITH LLP (Counsel for Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri)
a. Harry Underwood
hunderwood@polleyfaith.com
b. Andrew Max
amax@polleyfaith.com
2
Exhibits 4-16
These exhibits constitute the Exhibits to the Affidavit of Abdulaziz Alnowaiser (Suffolk Superior
Court Doc. No. 3). These exhibits are already part of the Suffolk Superior Court record and
reflected on the docket, and accordingly are not reproduced here.
Exhibit 17


Case No. ____________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI’S NOTICE OF CONSENT TO

REMOVAL FROM STATE COURT
Defendant Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri, hereby gives notice of his consent to the removal
of Civil Action No. 2184-cv-00688 from the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, Suffolk
County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts pursuant to the Notice of Removal from State Court filed by Defendants Saad
Khalid S Aljabri and Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.
Defendant Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri expressly reserves all of his defenses. By
consenting to the removal of this Action to this Court, Defendant does not waive any rights or
defenses available under federal or state law. Defendant expressly reserves the right to move for
dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing
1
in this Notice of Removal should be taken as an admission that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over Defendant, that venue is proper, that Defendant was properly served in the Action, or that
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim or have any substantive merit, nor does
Defendant waive any rights to raise such challenges in this proceeding. See Morris & Co. v.
Skandinavia Ins. Co., 279 U.S. 405, 409 (1929) (“Petitioner suggests that, by removal of the case
to the federal court, objection to jurisdiction over the person of respondent was waived. Our
decisions are to the contrary.”); In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 245 F. Supp. 2d 280,
302 (D. Mass. 2003) (removal from state to federal court does not waive the right to object to a
lack of personal jurisdiction) (citing Nationwide Engineering & Control Systems, Inc. v. Thomas,
837 F.2d 345, 347–348 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Dated: March 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
Mohammed Saad Kh Al Jabri,
2
Exhibit 18


Case No. ____________________
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, AND NEW EAST
BACK BAY LLC’S NOTICE OF CONSENT TO REMOVAL FROM STATE COURT
Defendants New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, and New East Back Bay LLC, by
and through their undersigned counsel, hereby give notice of their consent to the removal of Civil
Action No. 2184-cv-00688 from the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, Suffolk County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts pursuant to the Notice of Removal from State Court filed by Defendants Saad Khalid
S Aljabri and Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
Defendants expressly reserve all of their defenses. By consenting to the removal of this
Action to this Court, Defendants do not waive any rights or defenses available under federal or state
law. Defendants expressly reserve the right to move for dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule
1
12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing in this Notice of Removal should be taken as
an admission that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, that venue is proper, that
Defendants were properly served in the Action, or that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state
a claim or have any substantive merit, nor do Defendants waive any rights to raise such challenges
in this proceeding. See Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia Ins. Co., 279 U.S. 405, 409 (1929) (“Petitioner
suggests that, by removal of the case to the federal court, objection to jurisdiction over the person
of respondent was waived. Our decisions are to the contrary.”); In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 245 F. Supp. 2d 280, 302 (D. Mass. 2003) (removal from state to federal court does
not waive the right to object to a lack of personal jurisdiction) (citing Nationwide Engineering &
Control Systems, Inc. v. Thomas, 837 F.2d 345, 347–348 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Dated: New York, NY Respectfully submitted,

March 29, 2021
SELENDY & GAY PLLC
By: /s/ Faith Gay

Faith Gay (pro hac vice will be submitted)
Caitlin Halligan (pro hac vice will be submitted)
Josh Margolin (pro hac vice will be submitted)
SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Tel: 212-390-9000
fgay@selendygay.com
challigan@selendygay.com
jmargolin@selendygay.com
/s/ Jaime A. Santos ____

Jaime A. Santos (BBO # 689946)
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: (202) 346-4000
jsantos@goodwinlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW

EAST 804 805 LLC, and NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC
2
Exhibit 19

OF THE TRIAL COURT

Plaintiff,
v.
MOHAMMED SAAD HK AL JABRI,
NEW EAST (US) INC.,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 29, 2021, Defendants Saad Khalid S Aljabri
and Khalid Saad Khalid Aljabri filed a notice of removal regarding the above-captioned action in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), this action shall proceed no further in Superior Court
“unless and until the case is remanded.”
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Defendants’ Notice of Removal.
1
SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI and

By their attorneys,
/s/ Scott C. Ford

R. Robert Popeo (BBO # 403360)
Scott C. Ford (BBO # 629280)
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY
AND POPEO, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
617.542.6000 (telephone)
617.542.2241 (fax)
rrpopeo@mintz.com
scford@mintz.com
/s/ Lindsay C. Harrison

Lindsay C. Harrison (pro hac vice application
forthcoming)
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Phone: (202) 639-6865
Fax: (202) 639-6066
I, Scott C. Ford, hereby certify that I caused a true copy of the above document to be served upon
the attorney of record for each party by e-mail on March 29, 2021.
/s/ Scott C. Ford

Scott C. Ford

Saad Al-Jabri Response To Sakab Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Saad Al-Jabri Response To Sakab Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2184CV00688

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY,

SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI,

KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI,

MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI,

NEW EAST (US) INC.,

NEW EAST 804 805 LLC,

NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC,

Action is attached as Exhibit 2.

1. This Action purports to be brought by Sakab Saudi Holding Company (“Plaintiff”

in the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi (Feb. 11, 2021), available at

2. Plaintiff Sakab is a company created in 2008 by the former Crown Prince

through Sakab with the support of Dr. Saad.4

3. Sakab is an instrumentality of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It

is now controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

4. What Plaintiff describes in the Complaint as Defendants’ “fraudulent activity”

Arabia, at times in partnership with the United States.

as Chairman of Saudi Arabia’s so-called “Supreme Anti-Corruption Committee,” issued a “top

(Nov. 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/middleeast/ritz-carlton-riyadh-saudi-

7. This Action purports to reflect a continuation of bin Salman’s so-called

operations, and an examination of Sakab’s finances necessarily requires examining those

Department of Defense. As such, Plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent activity at Sakab require

Government, raising disputed and substantial federal issues in this case.

foreign policy interests of the United States Government.

and other related companies.

“shared counterterrorism efforts” that contributed to “keeping our citizens safe.”11

Leonhard Toenz (an attorney based in Zurich, Switzerland).

Kingdom. He is a cardiologist who lives in exile as a resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Kingdom. He lives in exile as a resident of the United Kingdom.12

(“Complaint”) in Suffolk Superior Court on March 24, 2021. (Ex. 1).

Massachusetts with the proceeds of business activities that Plaintiff mischaracterizes as a

“fraudulent scheme.” (Ex. 1 ¶ 2).

by the Kingdom’s Ministry of Finance.” (See Ex. 1 ¶ 17).

managed by the [Ministry of Interior’s] then-Assistant-Minister for Security Affairs Prince

25. Plaintiff alleges that, instead of “fund[ing] counter-terrorism activities” in Saudi

including aviation, security and technology.” (Ex. 1 ¶ 55).

Defendants in that action been presented to the Ontario court.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, an order of attachment of the assets held by Defendants in the

(Ex. 1, pp. 43–46).

II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

A. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over This Action.

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Present a Substantial Federal Question.

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

significance . . . for the Federal Government.’” Municipality of Mayaguez v. Corporacion Para el

3547706, at *3 (D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2010).

First Nat’l City Bank, 353 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1965)).

instead constituted fraudulent activity. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 23).

direction of the then-leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

officials held official roles recorded in the corporate records.

cooperation with the United States Government. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 2).

its affiliated entities.

activities. (See Ex. 1 ¶ 43).

conduct undertaken pursuant to Sakab’s original purpose—clandestine counterterrorism and

1189, 1201 (M.D. Fla. 2006).

C. The Notice of Removal Is Timely.

D. Defendants Have Satisfied All Other Requirements for Removal.

Court. (Ex. 2).

48. Attachment of Pleadings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendants have

50. Notice to State Court/Plaintiff. A copy of the Notice of Filing of Notice of

Removal. (Exhibits 17 & 18).

837 F.2d 345, 347–348 (8th Cir. 1988)).

Dated: March 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted,