For President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the AKP leadership, one of the most serious crises of the past decade ended suddenly—and with a result so favorable that many in Ankara described it as “better than anyone could have hoped for.” In fact, news that an agreement had been reached in the Halkbank case overshadowed even reports of the ongoing bombardment against Iran.
As of yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the case would not be resolved through a traditional court verdict but through a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). This mechanism is widely used in the American legal system. Under a DPA, the defendant agrees to certain conditions; if those conditions are met for a specified period, the charges are eventually dismissed and the criminal process ends.
A similar formula will be applied to Halkbank.
Under the agreement, the bank will open its sanctions-compliance and anti-money-laundering mechanisms to independent monitoring. It will refrain from conducting transactions with Iran through the U.S. financial system and will cooperate with U.S. authorities regarding the freezing or restitution of assets linked to Reza Zarrab.
Although some observers say the deal effectively places Turkey “under a form of supervision,” the prevailing view in Washington is that the Halkbank case is essentially finished.
From a technical standpoint, such agreements are common in the American legal system. However, the Halkbank case was never an ordinary financial case. For that reason, a question is widely asked in Washington:
Why was this case closed now—and in this particular way?
The Key Phrase in the Document
A striking phrase appears in the documents submitted by the Department of Justice to the court. The justification for the decision does not rely solely on legal considerations; it also references geopolitical and diplomatic factors.
The document specifically highlights:
- Diplomatic relations with Turkey
- Developments following the Gaza war
- U.S. foreign policy priorities
- National security considerations
Such wording is well known in the language of the American bureaucracy. Even if it is not stated explicitly, the message is clear:
“We are closing this case because of our national interests.”
Experienced diplomats and legal experts in Washington interpret it in exactly the same way. Some cases, they say, are resolved not in courtrooms but at geopolitical negotiating tables.
Similar Cases in U.S. Practice
The United States has numerous precedents of resolving major legal cases through negotiated agreements due to strategic or diplomatic considerations.
One of the best-known examples is the case of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. Meng had been arrested on charges of violating Iran sanctions and misleading banks. Yet in 2021 she reached a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. She acknowledged certain facts but did not formally plead guilty, and no financial penalty was imposed. The U.S. suspended the case and Meng returned to China.
What made the case particularly interesting was that on the very same day Meng returned to China, two Canadian citizens detained by China were released. Most international analysts interpreted the deal as a diplomatic move aimed at reducing tensions between the United States and China.
Similarly, major cases involving corporations such as UBS, KPMG, Daimler, and British American Tobacco have also been resolved through deferred prosecution agreements.
These examples illustrate an important reality of American law:
Some cases are not merely legal matters; they are also matters of economics, diplomacy, and strategy.
Why the Halkbank Case Was Seen as Political
Legal circles in Washington viewed the Halkbank case as political for three main reasons.
First, the case centered on Iran sanctions, which are a direct instrument of U.S. foreign policy.
Second, the defendant was Turkey, a NATO ally, which naturally added a diplomatic dimension to the case.
Third were the controversies during the Trump administration. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton made a striking claim in his book: according to Bolton, Donald Trump wanted to shut down the Halkbank case at Erdoğan’s request.
Over the past decade, it was widely known that Erdoğan’s government had done everything possible to close the case. Ankara reportedly spent large sums on lobbying firms and law offices in Washington, even appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to delay proceedings.
Those efforts had failed at the time, as American prosecutors refused to back down and the case continued.
Today, however, the situation appears to have changed.
The Iran War and Washington’s Calculations
The Middle East is currently experiencing a major crisis. The United States and Israel are now in direct confrontation with Iran. Iran, in turn, has activated its regional proxy forces. Tensions are escalating across Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria.
In this environment, Turkey has become a critical country. It is a NATO member, a key actor in the Black Sea region, and it shares a border with Iran.
Some analysts in Washington therefore argue the following:
As the crisis with Iran deepens, the United States does not want a new diplomatic confrontation with Turkey.
For this reason, certain legal cases may be pushed aside due to strategic priorities. Many believe the Halkbank case has been treated in exactly this way.
A Strange “Victory” Narrative
Following the decision, pro-government media in Turkey quickly launched a propaganda campaign declaring:
“Turkey was right! The December 17 corruption case has collapsed!”
However, this interpretation has no legal basis.
In American law, the closure of a case through a negotiated settlement does not mean “there was no crime.” More often, it simply means:
“The allegations are serious, but we are resolving the case this way due to national interests.”
Indeed, the statement from the U.S. Department of Justice explicitly notes that regional and current developments played a role in the decision.
The Real Question: What Was Given in Return?
Today, the case has ended not with a court verdict but through a settlement.
Yet this does not erase the allegations revealed during the December 17 corruption scandal, nor does it resolve the questions surrounding how Iran sanctions were allegedly circumvented.
On the contrary, it highlights another reality of international politics:
In the world of great powers, some cases are closed not in courtrooms but within strategic calculations.
This leads to the real question:
The Halkbank case may be closed—but what was given in return?
For such a favorable outcome, Erdoğan would likely have had to offer Trump a significant concession—or the United States (or Israel) must have gained something of vital strategic importance.
Not long ago, Erdoğan was reportedly offering the United States $100 million in exchange for closing the case and preventing any new prosecutions.
Considering that similar cases have resulted in billions of dollars in fines, the fact that this case ended with an even better outcome than Ankara had hoped for naturally fuels speculation.
The issue has also attracted attention in the American media. Ankara may prefer to keep the details of the negotiation hidden, but U.S. journalists are pursuing the same question.
Sooner or later, we will likely learn what this case was closed in exchange for.
