Lawsuit Alleges BAT's North Korea Venture Fueled Terror Attacks Against U.S. Forces
Hundreds of U.S. service members, civilians, and their families have launched a civil suit against British American Tobacco (BAT), seeking damages under anti-terrorism laws. The plaintiffs allege the tobacco giant's years of illicit business in North Korea helped bankroll missile and rocket attacks that killed and injured Americans in the Middle East.
The case, filed in Virginia federal court, centers on a joint venture BAT established in 2001 with a North Korean state-owned company to manufacture cigarettes. Despite public U.S. warnings and sanctions against North Korea for funding terrorism, the venture operated covertly. A 2023 U.S. Justice Department settlement revealed BAT claimed to exit the country in 2007 but secretly continued operations through a subsidiary, facilitating approximately $418 million in transactions that "generated revenue used to advance North Korea’s weapons program."
"This isn't just a sanctions violation; it's about corporate profits directly subsidizing attacks on our troops," said Ryan Sparacino of Sparacino PLLC, representing the plaintiffs. The lawsuit claims North Korea used profits from the cigarette venture and associated smuggling to fund weapons for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah. These weapons were allegedly used in a January 2020 rocket attack on Al-Asad and Erbil airbases in Iraq—which caused over 100 traumatic brain injuries—and a 2022 missile strike in Kurdistan that killed more than a dozen, including a humanitarian aid worker.
BAT entered a deferred prosecution agreement in 2023, with a subsidiary pleading guilty to conspiracy and bank fraud, resulting in $629 million in fines. Former CEO Jack Bowles stated the company "deeply regret[s] the misconduct" and highlighted a transformed compliance program. However, the new civil suit argues BAT knowingly persisted for over a decade, ignoring internal and external warnings about terror financing risks.
The legal action tests the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows victims to sue not only perpetrators but also entities that "aided and abetted" attacks. It follows mixed outcomes in similar cases against tech and pharmaceutical companies accused of enabling terrorism, turning on whether plaintiffs can prove conscious and culpable assistance.
Voices & Perspectives:
"As a veteran who served near Erbil, this hits hard. It's enraging to think a company we might buy products from could be linked, even indirectly, to the weapons that targeted us. This lawsuit is a necessary step for accountability." — Marcus Chen, U.S. Army veteran and security analyst.
"While the allegations are grave, we must remember BAT settled with the DOJ and has overhauled its compliance. This civil suit seems to re-litigate settled facts. The legal bar for proving 'aiding and abetting' terrorism is exceptionally high, as recent Supreme Court rulings show." — Dr. Eleanor Vance, corporate law professor at Georgetown University.
"This is corporate treason, plain and simple. They saw the reports, they knew the money was going to build rockets, and they kept the venture alive for profit. Fines aren't enough; the executives who greenlit this should face criminal charges. It's blood money." — David Keller, founder of a non-profit advocating for veterans with TBI.
"The case underscores the complex challenges of global supply chain oversight. Even with compliance programs, subsidiaries in high-risk regions can operate in shadows. It's a cautionary tale for all multinationals." — Anya Petrova, risk management consultant specializing in sanctions.