incidences [of NCB making loans in the United States] ... do not demonstrate the requisite continuity and degree of permanence necessary to support a finding that NCB is doing business in the United States for purposes of general jurisdiction.” In re Terrorist Attacks IV, 718 F.Supp.2d at 476-78. We find no error&emdash;let alone clear error&emdash;in these factual findings. See Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir.2012). Furthermore, we conclude that the alleged use of correspondent bank accounts and the maintenance of a website that allows account holders to manage their accounts are insufficient to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over NCB. See, e.g., Tamam v. Fransabank SAL, 677 F.Supp.2d 720, 731-32 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>); Northrop Grumman Overseas Serv. Corp. v.
holding that the mere maintenance of a correspondent account in new york is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the united states holding that mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction holding one phone call by itself insufficient to find minimum contacts holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that a correspondent relationship with a florida bank where the bank merely facilitates the international transfer of monies under a letter of credit is insufficient to meet the minimum  contacts requirement