Turkiye Halk Bankasi v. United States
The Facts
Halk Bank, a Turkish government-owned bank, was indicted by the Southern District of New York on charges of fraud, money laundering, and sanctions violations related to a scheme to help Iran access oil revenue in violation of U.S. sanctions. The bank claimed immunity as an instrumentality of a foreign sovereign.
The Application
Because Halk Bank faced criminal rather than civil proceedings, the FSIA's immunity provisions did not apply, requiring analysis under common law sovereign immunity principles. The bank's fraud and sanctions-evasion scheme involving money transfers through the U.S. financial system to facilitate Iran transactions constituted commercial activity with direct effects in the United States, conduct that common law principles ordinarily do not shield from prosecution. The Court therefore upheld federal subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded to examine whether any common law immunity might nonetheless apply despite the commercial nature of the defendant's actions.
The Conclusion
**Court ruled 6-3 per Kavanaugh.** Federal courts have jurisdiction. The case was remanded to consider immunity under common law principles; Gorsuch dissented for three justices.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held 6-3 that federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal proceedings against Turkiye Halk Bankasi, a Turkish state-owned bank accused of conspiring to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran, rejecting the bank's claim of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Facts
Halk Bank, a Turkish government-owned bank, was indicted by the Southern District of New York on charges of fraud, money laundering, and sanctions violations related to a scheme to help Iran access oil revenue in violation of U.S. sanctions. The bank claimed immunity as an instrumentality of a foreign sovereign.
Issue
Whether a foreign state-owned bank is immune from federal criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or common law, and whether the FSIA even applies to criminal proceedings.
Rule
The FSIA governs civil actions; its immunity provisions do not apply to criminal proceedings. Common law immunity principles for foreign sovereign instrumentalities require case-by-case analysis, and immunity may be denied when the conduct at issue involves commercial activity that has a direct effect in the United States.
Analysis
Because Halk Bank faced criminal rather than civil proceedings, the FSIA's immunity provisions did not apply, requiring analysis under common law sovereign immunity principles. The bank's fraud and sanctions-evasion scheme. Involving money transfers through the U.S. Financial system to facilitate Iran transactions. Constituted commercial activity with direct effects in the United States, conduct that common law principles ordinarily do not shield from prosecution. The Court therefore upheld federal subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded to examine whether any common law immunity might nonetheless apply despite the commercial nature of the defendant's actions.
Conclusion
**Court ruled 6-3 per Kavanaugh.** Federal courts have jurisdiction. The case was remanded to consider immunity under common law principles; Gorsuch dissented for three justices.
Notes
OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support