The United States federal prosecutor's office firmly rejected the request made by Nicolás Maduro's defense to dismiss the charges against him, in a new twist in the legal proceedings facing the former Venezuelan leader along with his wife, Cilia Flores, in New York.
In a memorandum filed with the Southern District Court of New York, prosecutors requested to dismiss the legal strategy of both defendants, which was focused on claiming an alleged violation of their constitutional rights due to their inability to access funds from the Venezuelan state to pay for their defense.
The position of the U.S. government is clear: there is no legal basis to invalidate the process.
Prosecution dismantles the defense strategy
Maduro's legal team, led by attorney Barry Pollack, requested the dismissal of the charges at the end of February, claiming that the restrictions imposed by Washington prevented him from adequately funding his legal representation.
According to the defense, this situation would violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Pollack warned that “any trial conducted under these circumstances will be unconstitutionally flawed and will not be able to produce a verdict that withstands future challenges.”
However, the Prosecutor's Office rejected those arguments and maintained that the limitations are in response to an existing legal framework related to the sanctions imposed on the Venezuelan regime.
In the document submitted to the court, prosecutors emphasize that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) acted in accordance with the law by preventing the use of Venezuelan state funds to cover legal fees.
“OFAC regulations prohibit a sanctioned entity from covering the legal expenses of another sanctioned individual,” states the memorandum.
The key point: The origin of money
The core of the legal dispute revolves around the source of the funds to pay the lawyers.
While the defense insists that Maduro does not have sufficient personal funds, the prosecution argues that he can indeed finance his defense, but only with personal money and not with resources from the Venezuelan state, which is under sanctions.
In that regard, the U.S. government was emphatic in highlighting the exceptional nature of the request made by the former president's lawyers.
"It is exceedingly rare for a person sanctioned by the OFAC to receive money to pay for their private defense from a sanctioned entity. This situation has never occurred in the legal history of the country," the prosecutors argued.
The Treasury Department reinforced this position by warning that allowing such a mechanism would be completely unusual
"In no case has a foreign government subject to sanctions been authorized to cover the legal services and legal representation of a person also subject to sanctions."
A revoked and corrected license
The Prosecutor's Office acknowledged that there was an initial administrative confusion when the OFAC issued a license allowing the use of Venezuelan government funds for defense.
However, that authorization was revoked shortly thereafter.
According to the official version, Maduro and Flores can currently use personal resources—as long as they do not involve blocked assets or operations within U.S. jurisdiction—but not state funds.
For Washington, the sanctions are not a recent maneuver to obstruct the trial, but rather a national security policy established prior to the case.
"These types of sanctions represent some of the most aggressive and far-reaching measures that the United States can apply," the Department of the Treasury explained in its statement.
Serious charges and ongoing proceedings
Maduro and Flores face multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism, trafficking cocaine to the United States, possession and use of military weapons, and other crimes related to organized crime.
Both were arrested on January 3, 2026, during a U.S. operation in Venezuela and transferred to New York, where they remain in custody.
From their first appearance, they declared themselves innocent and have insisted that the proceedings have political motivations.
Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein is expected to rule on the defense's motion during a hearing scheduled for March 26.
At that hearing, the court will assess the arguments from both sides and determine whether the annulment of the charges is warranted, as well as possible decisions regarding the legal representation of the defendants, including the option to appoint public defenders.
Meanwhile, the Prosecutor's Office has made it clear that it will not yield in its stance: the process must continue and the accusations remain unchanged.
Filed under: