Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro’s lead U.S. lawyer filed a dramatic motion on Feb. 26 asking a federal judge in Manhattan to dismiss the charges against his client or, at minimum, to acknowledge that the U.S. government has obstructed his ability to mount a defense. Barry Pollack says the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) briefly authorized him to receive payment from the Venezuelan government on Jan. 9, then revoked that license three hours later without explanation, leaving him unable to accept state funds to pay legal fees.
The filing frames the OFAC action as active interference with Maduro’s right to counsel. The motion reiterates the Venezuelan account that Maduro was seized by U.S. forces on Jan. 3 and transported to the United States; U.S. prosecutors in Manhattan have charged him and his wife with drug-trafficking-related offenses. Maduro first appeared in federal court in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 5 and has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn; the defense says his next scheduled appearance is in March.
Legally, Pollack’s argument hinges on the intersection of sanctions law and criminal-due-process protections. Because U.S. sanctions bar most transfers from the Venezuelan government without a license, OFAC approval was a prerequisite for a state-funded defense; an unexplained revocation could be read as a government-created barrier to effective representation. Defense attorneys can seek dismissal when prosecutorial or executive misconduct so taints a case that it deprives a defendant of a fair trial, though courts require a high evidentiary bar to prove such prejudice.
The plea for dismissal or for permission for Pollack to accept government funds arrives against a politically charged backdrop. Latin American governments and regional bodies have widely condemned the U.S. action as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, according to Venezuelan state media. In Washington and in U.S. court filings, prosecutors have argued the narcotics charges are criminal matters; the defense is attempting to recast the dispute as an unlawful and politicized executive abduction followed by instrumental use of sanctions to hobble a defense.
Practical outcomes remain uncertain. Judge Alvin Hellerstein can order OFAC to explain its decision, authorize an alternative funding arrangement, appoint alternative counsel at government expense, or, in theory, dismiss the indictment if he finds the executive branch’s conduct so egregious that it amounts to structural interference. Any ruling will have implications beyond this case: it will test how U.S. courts reconcile national security and sanctions policy with constitutional rights in politically sensitive prosecutions, and it will influence how foreign governments and defendants approach litigation when one party is beneath sanctions.