United States v. Al Sharaf is a criminal case which was filed by the government on March 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Al Sharaf was a Kuwaiti Financial Attaché assigned to handle the finances of Kuwait Health Office in Washington, D.C. She was charged by the government as she had violated 18 U.S.C § 1956 for conspiring to launder money. Al Sharaf filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction because as per the 22 U.S.C § 254d her actions were immune under the diplomatic immunity that she had. Since it was a criminal case, the prosecution presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that Al Sharaf had engaged in commercial activity and her actions were different from her official functions as a representative of Kuwait, thereby, as per the VCDR art. 31(c) her diplomatic immunity was subject to waiver. The court ruled in prosecution's favor and stated that since the defendant had engaged in commercial activity which was different from her official functions, her diplomatic immunity was subject to waiver and hence the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied.
United States v. Al Sharaf is a criminal case which was filed by the government on March 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Al Sharaf was a Kuwaiti Financial Attaché assigned to handle the finances of Kuwait Health Office in Washington, D.C. She was charged by the government as she had violated 18 U.S.C § 1956 for conspiring to launder money. Al Sharaf filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction because as per the 22 U.S.C § 254d her actions were immune under the diplomatic immunity that she had. Since it was a criminal case, the prosecution presented evidence be,yond a reasonable doubt to prove that Al Sharaf had engaged in commercial activity and her actions were different from her official functions as a representative of Kuwait, thereby, as per the VCDR art. 31(c) her diplomatic immunity was subject to waiver. The court ruled in prosecution's favor and stated that since the defendant had engaged in commercial activity which was different from her official functions her diplomatic immunity was subject to waiver and hence the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied.