United States v. Al Sharaf
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
183 F. Supp. 3d 45 (2016)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Hanan Al Sharaf (defendant) was a financial attaché for the Kuwait Health Office of the Kuwait Embassy in Washington, D.C. The office was tasked with paying healthcare costs incurred by Kuwaiti nationals in the United States. Al Sharaf managed a staff of employees and had full diplomatic immunity as part of her position. Al Sharaf engaged in a money-laundering scheme using her resources at the embassy. Al Sharaf attempted to incorporate shell companies in several states, open bank accounts for those companies, and create fake bills from the companies for the Health Office to pay. Al Sharaf then intended to collect the embezzled funds. Al Sharaf’s subordinates were involved in the scheme and executed her orders. Al Sharaf was terminated from her position and was later charged by federal prosecutors (plaintiffs) for conspiracy under a money-laundering statute. Al Sharaf moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that she was protected by residual diplomatic immunity. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge for a recommendation, and the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. The district court addressed the judge’s recommendation and whether Al Sharaf was protected by diplomatic immunity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Howell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.