Has Hugo Carvajal provided testimony or documents to U.S. prosecutors, and what do official filings show?

1. The concrete record: guilty plea, extradition and pending sentencing

The Department of Justice publicly announced that Carvajal was extradited from Spain in July 2023 and that he pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York on June 25, 2025, to conspiracy to import cocaine, narco‑terrorism for the benefit of the FARC, and related weapons offenses; sentencing was pending as of late 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Multiple international outlets reported the same guilty plea and emphasized that the case originated in an OCDETF investigation alleging Carvajal’s leadership role in the so‑called Cartel de los Soles ^{[6] [5] [1]}.

2. What prosecutors publicly allege in filings: links to Maduro and the Cartel de los Soles

The indictment and public explanatory materials filed by U.S. prosecutors allege a longstanding conspiracy involving senior Venezuelan officials and military figures to traffic cocaine to the United States and to collaborate with FARC elements, identifying the Cartel de los Soles as the alleged organizational vehicle ^{[4] [1]}. Those filings specifically situate Carvajal as a central figure with inside knowledge of military‑intelligence operations and decision‑making alleged to have facilitated drug shipments—facts prosecutors emphasized in their press statements when announcing his plea ^{[2] [1]}.

3. What the record does not show: no public filing of witness testimony or documentary production credited to Carvajal

Despite repeated media speculation that Carvajal might cooperate, the publicly available filings and government statements cited in this reporting do not include a signed cooperating‑witness statement, a plea agreement reflecting proffered testimony against other defendants, or docket entries showing Carvajal’s sworn testimony in related prosecutions as of the latest sources ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Coverage notes that he is “positioned to offer testimony” or that sentencing delays often signal prospective cooperation, but those are interpretations rather than documentary proof of completed cooperation in the public record ^{[4] [7] [5]}.

4. Why observers infer cooperation — and why that inference is not the same as proof

Legal analysts and reporting point to two circumstantial facts that encourage the inference of cooperation: first, Carvajal’s guilty plea and his status as a former intelligence chief with potential knowledge of senior Venezuelan figures; and second, the typical prosecutorial practice of delaying sentencing when a defendant may be cooperating to testify in other cases ^{[7] [5] [8]}. News outlets and experts cited that pattern as a likely explanation for the delayed sentence, but public DOJ materials released alongside the plea do not themselves assert that Carvajal has yet given testimony or handed over corroborating documents that have been entered into cases ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Alternative explanations, agendas and limits of the public record

Sources include official DOJ and State Department statements that frame Carvajal as a key target and potential source, while independent outlets—Reuters, BBC, OCCRP, The Guardian—stress the prosecutorial value of his knowledge without producing public court evidence of cooperation ^{[1] [6] [5] [9]}. Some reporting and historical notes on plea timing and political context imply incentives for both the U.S. government and Carvajal to portray cooperation possibilities: prosecutors gain leverage in high‑profile indictments and Carvajal potentially gains sentencing consideration; the available documents do not disclose any sealed cooperation agreements or secret proffers, and these would not necessarily be visible in open reporting ^{[7] [5] [4]}.

Conclusion: what official filings show, and what they do not

Official filings and DOJ announcements establish that Carvajal was extradited, charged, and pleaded guilty to major narcotics and narco‑terrorism counts and that prosecutors view him as possessing valuable insider knowledge relevant to charges against Venezuelan officials ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The public record assembled in the reporting reviewed does not, however, provide documentary evidence—public plea agreements reflecting sworn cooperation, proffer memos filed on the docket, or transcripts—showing that Carvajal has actually testified under oath or produced documents to U.S. prosecutors that have been entered in related cases; reporting describes potential cooperation but stops short of documenting its completion in the public filings ^{[4] [2] [5]}.