Legal Anatomy of a Transnational Criminal Charge and the Strategic Retreat of the “Cartel of the Suns” Discourse
The criminal case opened in the Southern District Federal Court of New York against Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores represents one of the most complex files ever assembled by the U.S. judicial system against a head of state, who was in power along with their immediate family. This case intersects federal criminal law, transnational organized crime, and terrorism, all under a jurisdiction that Washington believes is activated due to the direct effects of the crime on its territory.
Since its initial formulation in 2020, the accusation has evolved in form, content, and language. This evolution is not a political rectification but rather a deliberate legal strategy, honed to withstand the evidentiary standards of a federal trial and the foreseeable high-level defenses that accompany such a process.
From the Original Charge to the Expanded Accusation
The original accusation filed by the U.S. Department of Justice described a criminal network in which high-ranking Venezuelan officials, led by Maduro, allegedly used their positions of power to facilitate massive cocaine trafficking to the United States, in coordination with Colombian armed organizations. That narrative relied on the idea of an identifiable criminal structure, publicly known as the “Cartel of the Suns,” which is said to have operated for years from the state apparatus.
As time passed, and as the prosecution incorporated witness cooperation, financial evidence, communication records, and materials seized in other federal processes, the accusation was expanded. The version in effect until January 7, 2026 does not eliminate substantial facts—conspiracy to import cocaine, narcoterrorism, use of war weapons, and institutional protection for criminal networks—but restructures the conceptual architecture of the case.
The Tactical Abandonment of the “Cartel of the Suns” as a Formal Entity
One of the most significant changes, and also one of the most misunderstood in public debate, is the prosecution’s decision to not present the “Cartel of the Suns” as a formal criminal organization, with rigid hierarchy, defined membership, and a structure akin to a classic cartel. This alteration has been reported by U.S. media, including The New York Times, and has been used by Chavismo spokespeople as supposed evidence of weakness in the case.
From a legal standpoint, the reading is exactly the opposite. The Department of Justice chose to describe the facts as a systemic state corruption network, where multiple actors—military, civilian officials, logistical and financial operators—acted in a coordinated manner, although not necessarily under a traditional criminal chain of command. This reformulation reduces the evidentiary burden: it is no longer necessary to prove the existence of an “organization” in the classical sense, but rather the conscious concurrence of wills to facilitate federal crimes with impact in the United States.
In procedural terms, this shift strengthens the accusation. Proving a sustained pattern of behavior, supported by administrative decisions, institutional protection, and financial flows, is legally more robust than attempting to fit a captured state within the typology of a conventional cartel.
Nicolás Maduro’s Stance on International Law
Maduro’s defense has insisted on state immunity as an absolute barrier against U.S. jurisdiction. However, U.S. judicial practice distinguishes between political recognition and criminal competence. By not recognizing Maduro as a legitimate president during extensive periods of the process, Washington removes one of the pillars of that defense. Moreover, even in scenarios of recognition, U.S. jurisprudence has consistently limited immunity when faced with serious transnational crimes with direct effects in its territory.
The accusation does not rely on protected governmental acts, but rather on continuing criminal conduct, unrelated to any legitimate state function. This distinction is central and has been carefully worked by the prosecution to safeguard the case against motions to dismiss.
Cilia Flores: From Political Figure to Penal Subject
The inclusion of Cilia Flores marks the Department of Justice’s willingness to target all involved. It has been clarified that this was not a symbolic accusation nor solely derived from her connection to Maduro. The accusation indicates her as an active participant in the conspiracy, knowledgeable and involved in operations aimed at facilitating drug trafficking and protecting those involved. Her prosecution follows a clear logic from the Department of Justice: to dismantle the circle of trust and power, without limiting the case to a single individual.
From a criminal perspective, her role allows the prosecution to argue that the conspiracy penetrated the political power’s core family, reinforcing the thesis that this was not marginal corruption but rather a scheme rooted at the regime’s top.
Jurisdiction, Evidence, and Procedural Horizon
The case is grounded on the extraterritorial jurisdiction that the United States applies when the crime is destined for its territory or directly affects its national security. The importation of cocaine, the use of war weapons, and the connection with actors designated as terrorists activate this legal framework without necessitating that the accused ever set foot on U.S. soil.
The file shows a clear strategy from prosecutors to win the case before a jury, progressively accumulating evidence, refining the accusatory language, and preparing for a potentially prolonged litigation scenario. Although the case has immediate high media impact, the prosecutors have stated it is solidly built and will withstand years of judicial battles.
A Stronger Case, Not a Weaker One
Far from representing a setback, the adjustment in the narrative of the “Cartel of the Suns” reveals the legal maturity of the case. The Department of Justice opted for a legal construction that is harder to dismantle, less vulnerable to semantic attacks, and more aligned with the reality of a state instrumentalized by criminal networks.
The accusation against Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, as presented until January 7, 2026, does not rely on labels, but on facts, patterns of behavior, and accumulated evidence. In that regard, the case has not been diminished: it has been focused.