Editing Diplomatic immunity (section)

===Financial abuse===

Historically, large debts run up by diplomats have caused many problems. Some financial institutions do not extend credit to diplomats because they have no legal means of ensuring the money be repaid. Local citizens and businesses are often at a disadvantage when filing civil claims against a diplomat, especially in cases of unpaid rent, alimony, and child support.

====Rents====

{{globalize|date=May 2017}}

The bulk of diplomatic debt lies in the rental of office space and living quarters. Individual debts can range from a few thousand dollars to $1 million in back rent. A group of diplomats and the office space in which they work are referred to as a [[diplomatic mission]]. Creditors cannot sue missions individually to collect money they owe. Landlords and creditors have found that the only thing they can do is contact a city agency to see if they can try to get some money back. They cannot enter the offices or apartments of diplomats to evict them because the [[Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act]] says that "the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from [[Attachment (law)|attachment]], arrest and execution" ({{UnitedStatesCode|28|1609}}). This has led creditors who are owed money by diplomats to become more cautious about their renters and to change their rental or payment policies.

In one case, for example, officials from Zaire stopped paying rent to their private landlord and ran up $400,000 in debt. When the landlord sued, the US State Department defended the Zaireans on the basis of diplomatic immunity, and a circuit court agreed. When the landlord finally cut off the utilities, the officials fled without paying their back rent. The landlords reportedly later reached an "amicable agreement" with the Zairean government.<ref name="Reader's Digest"/>

====Alimony and child support====

The issue of abusing diplomatic immunity in family relations, especially [[alimony]] and [[child support]], has become so widespread that it prompted discussion at the 1995 UN Fourth World Conference on Women, in [[Beijing]]. Historically, the [[United Nations]] has not become involved with family disputes and has refused to garnish the wages of diplomats who owe money for child support, citing [[sovereign immunity]].{{citation needed|date=September 2018}} However, in September 1995, the incumbent head of [[Legal Affairs]] for the [[United Nations]] acknowledged there was a moral and legal obligation to take at least a partial responsibility in family disputes. Fathers working as diplomats who refused to fulfill their family-related financial duties were increasing in numbers in the [[United Nations]]: several men who had left their wives and children were still claiming UN dependency, travel, and education allowances for their families, though they are no longer supporting those families.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lehman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Phelps |first2=Shirelle |title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 3 |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson/Gale |location=Detroit |isbn=9780787663681 |edition=2}}</ref>

====Taxes and fees====

Diplomats are exempt from most taxes, but not from "charges levied for specific services rendered". In certain cases, whether a payment is or is not considered a tax may be disputed, such as [[central London]]'s [[congestion charge]]. It was reported in 2006 that the UAE embassy had agreed to pay their own accumulated charges of nearly £100,000.<ref>{{cite news | title = Embassy to pay congestion charge | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4881442.stm | work = BBC News | date = 6 April 2006 | access-date = 28 March 2007 }}</ref>

There is an obligation for the receiving state not to "discriminate as between states"; in other words, any such fees should be payable by all accredited diplomats equally. This may allow the [[diplomatic corps]] to negotiate as a group with the authorities of the receiving country.

Diplomats are exempt from [[import duty]] and [[tariffs]] for items for their personal use. In some countries, this has led to charges that diplomatic agents are profiting personally from resale of "tax free" goods. The receiving state may choose to impose restrictions on what may reasonably constitute personal use (for example, only a certain quantity of [[cigarette]]s per day). When enacted, such restrictions are generally quite generous so as to avoid [[Tit for tat|tit-for-tat]] responses.

==== Money laundering ====

''[[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 with violating 18 U.S.C § 1956, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=United States v. Al Sharaf, 183 F. Supp. 3d 45 |website=Casetext Search + Citator|url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-al-sharaf-3|access-date=2020-11-07}}</ref>