The decision that was notified by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Southern District of New York to Judge Alvin Hellerstein in a letter, at night, resolved the problem of financing private lawyers Barry Pollack and Mark E. Donnelly, and also stops a cause for annulment of the process that could be presented in the future, according to criminal lawyer Omar Estacio.
“The US prosecutor’s office is interested in preserving the development of the case and with these OFAC licenses the problem of payment for the defense that was sowing grounds for annulment is resolved,” he explained.
With this new circumstance, Judge Hellerstein continues the process with the private lawyers of Maduro and Flores.
But in Venezuela, meanwhile, widespread anger is growing over the decision and the lack of information about where the million-dollar payment of fees will come from in the face of a hidden budget in the midst of the economic crisis.
According to unofficial information, lawyers Pollack and Donnelly, heads of the defense teams of Maduro and Flores, could charge an average of $5,000 per hour, which could represent more than $100 million.
In the country there are no resources for public universities, according to the Venezuelan Ministry of Higher Education the same day, although it said it was not unaware of the situation.
Anger in Venezuela
Venezuelan university professors are the most sensitive and affected by the use of Venezuelan money for the defense of Maduro and Flores, since they have not increased their salaries for four years. Their payment does not reach two dollars a month due to the uncontrolled devaluation.
“With what face do they dare to tell university teachers and professors that for them there is no real, but there is enough for the defense of Maduro?” claimed Tulio Ramírez, professor of Education at the Central University.
Indignation abounds in the networks and in any citizen.
Arianna, 68 years old, a pensioner and a cardiovascular patient at a public hospital in the capital, expresses her anger because “the health of Venezuelans does not matter to the State and on top of that we have to pay these people’s lawyers when one has to pay for absolutely everything in a hospital.”
She is waiting to be fitted with a pacemaker that she bought with the help of her family for $12,000 because “Social Security no longer provides them” and she is holding a raffle to get another $5,000 to cover the costs of the surgery at the hospital. “And who pays me or other patients like me for these expenses?” he asked himself.
“And with what money are we going to pay Maduro’s lawyers with this crisis we have?” said Joao, a well-informed hardware store owner located in San Bernardino, in the north of Caracas.
“Why do we have to pay them, after they have wasted and stolen so much real and even a former magistrate has said that the man is not Venezuelan, that he is Colombian? Furthermore, how are we going to know if the national budget has not even been published here for years? It’s the last straw!”, he complained.
Uncertainty about funds
According to Estacio, the OFAC decision freed up not only funds but also “a great deal of tension” that existed over the future of the case.
“It is perfectly valid” in the US for a third party, such as a family or a company, to pay for the defense of an accused, and even governments can do so in certain contexts and therefore the concept is not strange in itself,” he noted.
The criminal lawyer mentioned the case against the former president of Panama, Manuel Noriega, captured in 1990, in which the US covered expenses through internal mechanisms, based on the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the accused the right to assistance from a lawyer.
“There was controversy over financing, but it was not Panama that formally paid for the defense under sanctions,” he explained.
The enigma in Venezuela is where the funds released by OFAC licenses will come from for the defense of Maduro, whom the US does not recognize for his alleged presidential position, and Flores.
It was learned that the Venezuelan Attorney General’s Office sent a letter to OFAC in which it assures that it is a tradition in the country to obtain resources in similar cases, which Estacio refuted. It is not common there, as in the US, to favor legal assistance,” he stressed.
“Delcy Rodríguez will have to review which item she gets the money from, because there is no generic item. In addition, the Venezuelan State would have to formally hire lawyers and the contracts must be authorized by the National Assembly chaired by Jorge Rodríguez.”
Payment in the middle of relationships
The criminal lawyer also explained that when a sanctions regime such as the one administered by OFAC prevents access to said resources, “the system is forced to make its application more flexible through specific licenses, in order to avoid a structural constitutional violation.”
The official reestablishment of relations between the US and Venezuela on March 5 and Trump’s “legal and formal” confirmation of recognizing the Rodríguez administration, during his speech at the Shield of the Americas summit in Miami, was the appropriate framework.
“The resources that Rodríguez obtains are legal for the US and that is why Venezuela can pay the questioned fees of Maduro’s defenders,” he said.
Hours before the OFAC decision, the new US Chargé d’Affaires in Venezuela, John Barret, and the head of that country, Delcy Rodríguez, held their first official meeting in which they discussed President Donald Trump’s three-phase plan in pursuit of political transition.
Fees with restrictions
However, the payment of fees to Maduro and Flores’ lawyers has restrictions from the Trump Administration.
“The (US) Government understands that the amended licenses have resolved the problems underlying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the superseding indictment (of Maduro and Flores),” indicated the OFAC letter, which points out the limitations on using Venezuelan money.
Among them, it is indicated that the authorized payments must be made “with funds available” to the regime after March 5, 2026”, that is, not before the date of reestablishment of relations between the US and Venezuela, during which time the money from the sale of oil and gold has been under supervision and in US accounts.
He also ordered that authorized payments not come from Foreign Government Deposit Funds, according to Executive Order 14373 of January 9, 2026.
He also demanded that the defendants withdraw their motions as inadmissible, without prejudice to resubmitting them if similar problems arose in the future.
The court must schedule a follow-up hearing within 60 days, OFAC requested
Estacio stated that in the Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto jurisprudence, the US Supreme Court noted that asset restrictions “cannot functionally eviscerate the right to choose the defendant’s trusted defender.”
A similar principle is also established by the European system (European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6) in relation to the right to defense.
Why the controversy?
Financing of private defense
The case of Maduro and Flores was the subject of several motions by lawyers in which alleged violation of the right to defense of the Venezuelan defendants was alleged, based on the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
On February 25, Maduro’s lawyer reported before Judge Hellerstein that OFAC had without explanation revoked the license it had issued hours before, which allowed the Venezuelan regime to pay the costs of his legal defense.
According to the document, to which Flores’ legal representative adhered, the license was approved on January 9, but subsequently amended, thus nullifying the possibility of the regime covering defense expenses.
After the recent hearing last March, the judge questioned the position of the team of the prosecutor in the case, Jay Clayton, to ratify the initial criterion of the OFAC that prevented paying the legal defense fees with Venezuelan money, in the context of the reestablishment of commercial relations.
