## Facts

- Hanan Al Sharaf served as Financial Attaché at the Kuwait Health Office in Washington, D.C., from about August 2011 to December 2014, entering the United States on A-2 and later A-1 visas for official government activities.
- Her official responsibilities included reviewing medical-provider claims, processing payments, and approving payments for health-care services provided to Kuwaiti nationals in the United States.
- The United States alleged she used her position to facilitate an embezzlement and money-laundering scheme by creating shell entities mimicking medical providers, opening bank accounts, generating fictitious invoices, diverting funds through those accounts, and directing subordinates to manipulate records to conceal the diversion.
- Kuwait terminated her employment.
- The United States filed a criminal complaint charging conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
- Al Sharaf moved to dismiss, asserting residual diplomatic immunity under the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978, 22 U.S.C. § 254d, as incorporated from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

## Issues

1. Whether a former member of a foreign mission is entitled to residual diplomatic immunity for alleged money-laundering conspiracy as “acts performed ... in the exercise of [her] functions as a member of the mission” under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention, as implemented by the Diplomatic Relations Act.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The court held Al Sharaf was not entitled to residual diplomatic immunity because the alleged conduct was not performed in the exercise of official mission functions.
- The court treated the inquiry as focused on the nature of the conduct, not whether it occurred while she held office or used official channels.
- The court found the alleged creation of shell companies, fictitious invoicing, diversion of funds, and concealment measures were outside her legitimate duties of processing and approving medical claims.
- The court noted Kuwait’s denial that the alleged conduct was part of her official duties as supportive, though not dispositive, of the conclusion that the acts were unofficial.

## Legal Principles

- After a diplomat’s posting ends, residual immunity persists only for acts performed in the exercise of official functions as a member of the mission (Vienna Convention art. 39(2)).
- Residual immunity does not extend to private, ultra vires, or criminal conduct, even if carried out using official position, authority, or administrative processes.
- Supervisory or managerial authority within a mission does not transform alleged embezzlement or money laundering into an official-function act for residual-immunity purposes.
- The purpose of residual immunity is to protect the sending state’s official acts, not to provide continuing personal immunity for alleged criminal conduct committed during a diplomat’s tenure.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the prosecution to proceed, concluding that alleged embezzlement and money laundering conducted through an embassy-affiliated office were not acts performed in the exercise of official mission functions and therefore were not protected by residual diplomatic immunity.


United States v. Al Sharaf, 183 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2016)