A particular problem is the immunity of diplomatic vehicles to ordinary traffic regulations such as prohibitions on double parking. Occasionally, such problems may take a most serious turn, when disregard for traffic rules leads to bodily harm or death. Illustrating how widespread this problem is that in France, between November 2003 and 2004, there were 2,590 cases of diplomatic cars caught speeding by automatic radars. The Autobahn 555 in Germany was also nicknamed in Cologne the "Diplomatenrennbahn" (Diplomatic Raceway), back when Bonn was the capital of West Germany, because of the numerous diplomats that used to speed through the highway under diplomatic immunity. Certain cities, e.g., The Hague, have taken to impounding such cars rather than fining their owners. A diplomat cannot demand the release of an impounded car based on his status.

This also includes parking violations. In New York City, the home of the United Nations Headquarters (and hence thousands of diplomats), the city regularly protests to the Department of State about non-payment of parking tickets because of diplomatic status. Diplomatic missions have their own regulations, but many require their staff to pay any fines due for parking violations. A 2006 study by two economists found that there was a significant correlation between home-country corruption (as measured by Transparency International) and unpaid parking fines; nonetheless, approximately 30 countries (or 20%) had fewer than one unpaid fine per diplomat over a five-year period, and 20 had none at all. Six countries had in excess of 100 violations per diplomat: Kuwait, Egypt, Chad, Sudan, Bulgaria and Mozambique.

Historically the problem of large debts run up by diplomats has also caused many problems. Some financial institutions do not extend credit to diplomats because they have no legal means of ensuring the money is repaid.

Diplomats are not necessarily exempt from paying government-imposed fees when there are "charges levied for specific services rendered." In certain cases, such as London's congestion charge (a daily charge on all cars entering central London), the nature of the fee may lead to disputes, but 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. In August 2009, it was reported that the United States owed £3,500,000 in unpaid congestion charge fees. It was also reported in 2006 that diplomatic immunity had been used to avoid paying millions of pounds in traffic fines, as well as dodging around £1 million in local rates, although some embassies have agreed to settle their bills.

Diplomatic immunity from local employment and labor law when employing staff from the host country has precipitated abuse. When the employer is a diplomat, the employees are in a legal limbo where the laws of neither the host country nor the diplomat's country are enforceable. There is an inherent conflict of interest, as the diplomat is the chief representative of his country and its laws, and is not forced to obey local law, so that an abusive diplomat employer can act with virtual impunity. Diplomats have ignored local laws concerning minimum wages, maximum working hours, vacation and holidays. The worst abusers have imprisoned the employees in their homes, deprived them of their earned wages, passports and from communication and access to the outside world, abused them physically and emotionally, deprived them of food, and invaded their privacy. In the case of corrupt countries and abusive diplomats, it has been virtually impossible to enforce payment of wages, or any standards whatsoever. South Africa, for example, was criticised for claiming immunity from labor laws relating to a Ukrainian domestic worker at their ambassador’s residence in Ireland.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in Swarna v Al-Awadi to argue that human trafficking is a commercial activity engaged in for personal profit, which falls outside the scope of a diplomat’s official functions, and therefore diplomatic immunity does not apply.

On April 24, 2008, Mexican press attaché Rafael Quintero Curiel was taped stealing BlackBerry PDA units from a White House press meeting room in New Orleans, LA. Curiel made it all the way to the airport before members of the United States Secret Service caught up with him. After denying any wrongdoing, he was shown the DVD of the surveillance video. Curiel claimed the incident was accidental, stated his diplomatic immunity, and left the country, but was eventually fired for the incident.

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 cigarettes per day). When enacted, such restrictions are generally quite generous so as to avoid tit-for-tat responses.

In 2009, a Canadian junior envoy was arrested after it was reported that he spat at a traffic police officer on duty in the middle of a traffic jam in the Banana district on the outskirts of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Canada's High Commissioner, Robert Orr, was summoned by the Tanzanian foreign ministry over the incident, and the junior envoy was later recalled by Canada from Tanzania.