What specific criminal charges are included in the DOJ indictments against Nicolás Maduro and his allies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The U.S. Department of Justice’s indictments against Nicolás Maduro and allied Venezuelan officials center on narco-terrorism and a suite of drug‑and‑weapons offenses—alongside related corruption and sanctions‑evasion allegations—unsealed in a four‑count superseding indictment in the Southern District of New York and in related federal filings [1] [2] [3]. Media briefings and DOJ statements list specific counts that include narco‑terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession and conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices, as well as separate charges tied to sanctions statutes and Kingpin Act violations [4] [5] [2].
1. The core criminal counts listed by prosecutors
The principal criminal charges publicized by the DOJ and U.S. prosecutors are narco‑terrorism conspiracy and international cocaine‑trafficking conspiracies, the latter described as a scheme to import cocaine into the United States; those narcotics offenses are accompanied by weapons charges alleging possession of machineguns and destructive devices and a conspiracy to possess such weapons "against the United States" [2] [4] [5].
2. How the indictments are structured in federal court
The matter in Manhattan was advanced through superseding indictments unsealed in the Southern District of New York: one four‑count superseding indictment names Maduro and several senior officials and sets out the narco‑terrorism count and related drug and weapons counts, while companion superseding indictments allege violations of statutes tied to economic sanctions—specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act—and a conspiracy to defraud the United States [1] [2].
3. Who the indictments name beyond Maduro
DOJ public materials and the SDNY release show the charges reach beyond Maduro to include high‑level Venezuelan officials—Diosdado Cabello, former military intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal, former General Clíver Alcalá Cordones—and even leadership figures from the FARC guerrilla movement; the Justice Department framed the case as targeting a cartel‑like network that allegedly included government actors and foreign narco‑traffickers [1] [2].
4. The allegations that underlie the criminal counts
Prosecutors allege a decades‑long conspiracy in which Venezuelan state actors provided protection, resources and channels to move cocaine toward the United States and coordinated with designated terrorist organizations and traffickers; DOJ officials described that the alleged enterprise “prioritized using cocaine as a weapon against America,” language lifted from the SDNY announcement and underlying superseding indictment [2] [3].
5. Statutory and evidentiary implications—narco‑terrorism, weapons, and sanctions law
Narco‑terrorism charges are distinct because they tie drug trafficking to designated terrorist organizations and violent acts, and in these indictments they are paired with traditional drug importation counts and weapons offenses that can carry lengthy penalties; separately, alleged violations of IEEPA and the Kingpin Act reflect a parallel strategy by U.S. prosecutors to use economic‑sanctions statutes to cripple networks that allegedly evaded U.S. financial controls [2] [1].
6. Context, rebuttals and political framing
The DOJ’s criminal case has long been public (the original March 2020 grand jury indictment and later superseding counts), and Washington has even offered large rewards tied to arrest and conviction efforts—figures reported in news coverage include a $50 million reward for Maduro—while Maduro and his supporters reject the allegations as politically motivated; reporting notes both the legal record and the intensely geopolitical context surrounding the indictments [6] [7] [8].
7. What is on the public record and what is not
The indictment texts and DOJ press releases provide the statutory labels and narrative allegations that form the criminal case [1] [3], but public reporting and agency statements do not substitute for evidence proved at trial; available sources document the charges and the named defendants, while detailed evidentiary proofs remain within court filings and the investigative record not fully reproduced in these news summaries [2] [3].