Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TURKIYE HALK BANKASI A. S., AKA HALKBANK v. 
UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 21–1450.  Argued January 17, 2023—Decided April 19, 2023 

The United States indicted Halkbank, a bank owned by the Republic of 
Turkey, for conspiring to evade U. S. economic sanctions against Iran. 
Halkbank moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that as an 
instrumentality of a foreign state, Halkbank is immune from criminal 
prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.  The 
District Court denied the motion.  The Second Circuit affirmed after 
first  determining  that  the  District  Court  had  subject  matter
jurisdiction  over  Halkbank’s  criminal  prosecution  under  18  U. S. C. 
§3231.  The Second Circuit further held that even assuming the FSIA 
confers  immunity  in  criminal  proceedings,  Halkbank’s  charged 
conduct fell within the FSIA’s exception for commercial activities. 

Held: 

1. The District Court has jurisdiction under §3231 over this criminal 
prosecution of Halkbank.  Section 3231 grants district courts original 
jurisdiction of “all offenses against the laws of the United States,” and
Halkbank does not dispute that §3231’s text as written encompasses 
the  charged  offenses.    Halkbank  instead  argues  that  because  §3231 
does  not  mention  foreign  states  or  their  instrumentalities,  §3231 
implicitly excludes them.  The Court declines to graft such an atextual 
limitation  onto  §3231’s  broad  jurisdictional  grant.    The  scattered 
express references to foreign states and instrumentalities in unrelated
U. S.  Code  provisions  to  which  Halkbank  points  do  not  shrink  the 
textual  scope of  §3231.    And  the  Court’s precedents  interpreting  the 
Judiciary Act of 1789 do not support Halkbank, as the Court has not 
interpreted the jurisdictional provisions in the 1789 Act to contain an
implicit exclusion for foreign state entities.  Pp. 3–5.

2. The FSIA’s comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity