An 80-page objection was received from the prosecutor’s office, days before the appeal application of Halkbank’s trial in the USA was to be heard at the Constitutional Court. The prosecution argued that a decision in favor of Halkbank would affect the US’s fight against Iran.
Prior to Halkbank’s appeal hearing at the US Constitutional Court on January 17, the prosecutor’s office responded to six petitions submitted by the bank’s lawyers with two different applications. Emphasizing the importance of the US Constitutional Court’s decision in the Halkbank case, the prosecution argued that “the acceptance of Halkbank’s appeal may disrupt the US fight against Iran on a global scale so far”. .
According to the news of VOA Turkish’s Can Kamiloğlu, the prosecutor’s office stated that a possible favorable decision in the Halkbank case in the Constitutional Court “could significantly adversely affect the ability of the United States to impose economic sanctions on Iran.” It was stated that such a decision would negatively affect the US’s fight against Iran, which is among the most important foreign security problems.
‘THE BANK’S JUSTICE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED’
It was reminded that Halkbank, a commercial bank, was accused of “unlawfully laundering approximately $20 billion worth of Iranian funds, at least 1 billion of which through the American financial system, by concealing its illegal practices from the US Department of the Treasury”. It has been noted that it is “unacceptable” for Halkbank to claim that it cannot be prosecuted in the United States, on the grounds that Turkey now owns the majority of its shares, despite violating US sanctions.
The Prosecutor’s Office stated that the allegations in the defense’s petition that an “international nightmare” could occur are unrealistic, that the US and its allies have been harmed by Iran’s hostile attitude, that “Iran has recently escalated the use of deadly weapons, terrorized the region with drones, and invaded Ukraine. He also stated that he continues to support Russia unconditionally.
‘DIPLOMATIC NIGHTMARE’ DEFENSE FROM HALKBANK
Last November, it was claimed that if Halkbank’s appeal was not accepted and tried in the USA, it could lead to “international outrage and a diplomatic nightmare in the international community”. It was stated that 87 percent of the bank’s shares belong to the Republic of Turkey Wealth Fund, and it was argued that the bank had immunity from prosecution.
Halkbank’s lawyers also added the views of Azerbaijan, Qatar and Pakistan in the same direction to the petition. Halkbank added the statements of Turkish public institutions such as the Banks Association of Turkey, the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey, and the Turkish Red Crescent, stating their views in their favor, to the defense petition.
THE ATTORNEY ATTORNEY SAID ‘THEY CAN BE JUDGED IN THE USA’
Halkbank’s lawyers individually conveyed the opinions of different international experts in their favor to the court. Bank, Milan Bocconi International Law lecturer Prof. Roger O’Keefe, Vanderbilt Law School lecturer Prof. Ingrid Wuerth Brunk, Professor of Business Law at the University of California. He also included the personal views of William S. Dodge and former London Bar Association President Lord Daniel Brennan that the bank could not be prosecuted in the United States.