THE ALEX SAAB MORAN CASE WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT FINANCIAL CRIMINALS CANNOT USE DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS TO EVADE ACCOUNTABILITY

The current Eleventh Circuit interlocutory appeal, by the accused Colombian money launderer ALEX SAAB MORAN, will decide whether financial criminals who fabricate diplomatic immunity can employ it to escape prosecution. The District Court (SDFL) held that Saab was neither acting in a diplomatic capacity, nor duly accredited and qualified under the Vienna Convention. His appeal will result in a definitive decision on the issue which will serve not only as res judicata for US courts, but we hope guide foreign jurisdictions, especially those in the developing world, to ignore bogus diplomatic claims, when made by foreign money launderers and financial criminals when they are detained or arrested.

To be a bona fide diplomat an individual, generally a national of the jurisdiction awarding him the diplomatic passport, must (1) be received, confirmed and accepted by the foreign state where he will be stationed or seconded, (2) have specific duties and responsibilities at a mission, embassy, or consulate where they reside, and (3) be either at their duty station, or directly en route, to achieve immunity from prosecution. Even then, there are notable exceptions, including instances where the country that issues the diplomatic passport, waives or withdraws those rights.

Financial criminals, who often use purchased diplomatic passports to evade customs and immigration examination in the developing world, and where government officials ignorant of the law give them a free pass to the VIP exit and lounge, as they are often intimidated by diplomatic credentials, cannot be permitted carte blanche at international airports and ports of entry. The Saab decision, when it is eventually handed down, should be circulated abroad, as authority for the principle that unqualified diplomatic passports do not protect criminals from being held to account for their actions.