Eligio Cedeño is suing Venezuela in a Florida court, seeking recognition and enforcement of a monetary judgment of nearly USD 768 million, issued in June 2022 by the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) of Venezuela in exile, after being subjected to torture, imprisonment, and expropriation by the Maduro regime.
Cedeño, former president of Banco Canarias, was accused of three crimes: smuggling through import simulation, diversion of banking resources, and obtaining dollars fraudulently, leading to his detention. Judge María Lourdes Afiuni ended his preventive detention, resulting in her imprisonment and legal proceedings against her.
The TSJ in exile ruled in favor of Eligio Cedeño, continuing a prior ruling from the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) demanding appropriate compensation.
The lawsuit against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela argues that the Florida court has jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), due to immunity waivers, commercial activity, and expropriation, in addition to seeking recognition as an arbitral award.
Cedeño’s Civil Lawsuit
On October 24, 2025, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Eligio Cedeño filed a civil lawsuit against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign monetary judgment totaling USD 767,953,994.95. This judgment was issued on June 13, 2022, by the TSJ of Venezuela, which meets in exile in Doral, Florida.
The TSJ’s ruling is based on a prior and binding decision from the UNHRC issued in 2012, which determined that the Venezuelan state violated Cedeño’s civil and political rights through actions that include arbitrary detention and denial of a fair trial. The country was ordered to provide “effective reparation,” including “appropriate compensation.”
Eligio Cedeño is a Venezuelan citizen residing in Miami, Florida, as a political refugee. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security granted him asylum on June 15, 2011.
The defendant, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, is a foreign state under the FSIA. The lawsuit distinguishes between Nicolás Maduro’s illegitimate regime and the democratically elected government recognized by the U.S.: the Venezuelan National Assembly (ANV) that was convened in 2016 after the 2015 elections.
Background of Persecution and Human Rights Violations
Cedeño’s claim stems from a politically and judicially orchestrated campaign of persecution by the Venezuelan state.
Beginning of Persecution (2003-2005):
Starting in 2003, after the imposition of exchange controls, Cedeño and Banco Canarias were falsely implicated in a fraudulent currency transaction for the importation of computers by Consorcio Microstar. The lawsuit alleges that while the Currency Administration Commission (CADIVI) was solely responsible for verifying and approving such transactions, the Venezuelan authorities focused solely on Cedeño, disregarding potential corruption within CADIVI.
Imprisonment and Irregular Judicial Process (2007-2009):
In February 2007, Cedeño was placed in preventive detention under allegations of embezzlement, despite the prosecution concealing a report from the Ministry of Economy and Finance proving his innocence. He remained detained for nearly three years, violating Venezuelan law.
Judges sympathetic to his case were forced to recuse themselves under threat of removal and imprisonment.
Release and Intensified Persecution (2009):
On December 10, 2009, a controlling court ordered his conditional release. The next day, the Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP) raided the court and arrested the judge who issued the order.
Then-President Hugo Chávez publicly labeled Cedeño a “bandit” and the judge as corrupt during a national broadcast, calling for the maximum penalty.
Flight and Political Asylum:
Faced with intensified persecution and a new arrest warrant, Cedeño fled Venezuela and obtained political asylum in the United States in 2011. The lawsuit lists the de facto deprivation of all his rights as a Venezuelan citizen, including the right to reside in the country, own property, and access justice.
Legal Grounds for Compensation
The lawsuit is grounded in two key judicial decisions establishing the Venezuelan state’s liability and the amount of compensation.
A. The UN Human Rights Committee Ruling (2012)
In 2010, Cedeño lodged a complaint against Venezuela with the UNHRC. On October 29, 2012, the UNHRC issued its ruling (Communication No. 1940/2010), concluding that Venezuela violated multiple rights guaranteed to Cedeño by the ICCPR:
- The right to an independent and impartial tribunal.
- The right to the presumption of innocence.
- The right to be tried without undue delay.
- The right to not be arbitrarily detained.
The ruling ordered Venezuela to provide Cedeño with “effective reparation,” including “appropriate compensation.” This ruling conclusively established the Venezuelan state’s liability.
B. The Supreme Court Ruling in Exile (2022)
Due to the Maduro regime’s failure to comply with the UN ruling, Cedeño brought his case to the TSJ in exile, constitutionally designated by the ANV in 2017 for a 12-year term. The lawsuit emphasizes that the TSJ is the only government power of Venezuela with ongoing constitutional legitimacy.
The TSJ conducted a trial focused solely on quantifying damages, with a Special Prosecutor appointed by the ANV representing Venezuela. On June 13, 2022, the TSJ ruled in favor of Cedeño, awarding the following compensation:
| Type of Damage | Amount (USD) |
|---|---|
| Emergent Damage (Consequential Damages) | USD 185,461,994.95 |
| Lost Profit | USD 532,492,000.00 |
| Moral Damage | USD 50,000,000.00 |
| Total | USD 767,953,994.95 |
Legal Framework for Enforcement in the United States
The lawsuit argues that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over Venezuela in this case, overcoming the sovereign immunity that typically protects foreign states from being sued in the U.S.
In this regard, Eligio Cedeño invoked several exceptions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA):
1. Waiver Exception (§ 1605(a)(1)): It argues that Venezuela waived its immunity by voluntarily participating and concluding litigation before the TSJ, which met in Doral, Florida. Furthermore, it is claimed that by requesting and accepting licenses from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), such as General License No. 42, for the express purpose of negotiating and settling debts using U.S. assets, Venezuela implicitly waived its immunity for debt claims like Cedeño’s.
2. Commercial Activity Exception (§ 1605(a)(2)): The failure to pay a monetary judgment is characterized as a commercial act (non-payment of a settled debt) that has a “direct effect” in the U.S., as payment was to be made in-country to a U.S. resident.
3. Expropriation Exception (§ 1605(a)(3)): It maintains that non-payment of the judgment constitutes an expropriation of Cedeño’s property (the judgment itself) in violation of international law, and that this property is present in the United States.
4. Arbitration Exception (§ 1605(a)(6)): The lawsuit presents the UNHRC process as a form of binding arbitration to which Venezuela agreed by signing the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. Therefore, the UNHRC ruling is seen as an arbitral award enforceable in U.S. courts.
Moreover, Cedeño emphasizes in the lawsuit that the U.S. government recognizes the 2015 ANV as the only legitimate government of Venezuela. In this context, the OFAC issued licenses, like General License No. 42, allowing the ANV to carry out transactions “incident and necessary for negotiating settlement agreements… related to any debt of the Government of Venezuela.” It is argued that this license grants the ANV not only the authority but also the obligation to resolve legitimate debts such as as outlined in the TSJ ruling.
Requested Reparation by Eligio Cedeño
The lawsuit is structured on four formal causes of action:
1. Recognition of foreign monetary judgment: under Florida law (Fla. Stat. § 55.601 et seq.), seeking to have the TSJ’s ruling recognized as valid.
2. Declaratory judgment: petitioning the court to declare that the TSJ ruling is recognizable and enforceable.
3. Enforcement of the arbitral award: based on the theory that the UNHRC ruling is a binding arbitral award under the FSIA.
4. General claim for enforcement of foreign monetary judgment: a general claim for the enforcement of the TSJ ruling.
The plaintiff requests that the court issue a monetary judgment for USD 767,953,994.95, plus accumulated interest, costs, and attorney fees.
Check out “Cartel de los Soles in Guadalupe and Martinique | US Government Shutdown and NY on Fire”: