Talk:Prosecution of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores

I'm not that familiar with US legal process, so I can't see how a case can be prosecuted in several federal districts. I would expect it to be at least three cases, but the defendants and prosecution both have some say in whether they are tried together or separately, again AIUI. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC).

Maduro's wife is accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between “a large-scale drug trafficker” and the director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office. In a corrupt deal, the drug trafficker then agreed to pay a monthly bribe to the director of the anti-drug office as well as about $100,000 for each cocaine-carrying flight “to ensure the flight’s safe passage Globetrotter30 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this should be stated, Maduro was forcibly removed from office. He has diplomatic immunity, which is being violated as well. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The indictment is legal, even if seizing him was illegal. The two are not interchangeable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

But it should state it violates international law, the US goverment as a UN member is bound by it. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You cannot indict someone with diplomatic immunity. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what "it" refers to in "it should state it violates international law" (that's often a problem with pronouns: knowing what the referent is).

I don't know whether heads of state have diplomatic immunity; they're not among those listed as diplomats in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Also, I'm pretty sure that the US and Venezuela don't have diplomatic relations right now, and I don't know how that affects it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether heads of state have diplomatic immunity. They do have immunity from US courts under international law, and that should be stated in the article. Source: The Brazen Illegality of Trump's Venezuela Operation Accuratelibrarian (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If the indictment was made before Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president of Venezuela, then it was illegal under international law. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, it is Wikipedia. "I think" is, quite frankly, a rather useless statement, here, unless you are opining on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or an essay. Otherwise, we wield "Wikivoice" carefully and in alignment with what secondary, reliable sources say. You are seemingly conversing with multiple people regarding this topic and other related issues, primarily SWATJester and obviously FactOrOpinion, above, among others. I'm seeing a lot of opinion in these discussions. If you have something you wish to add or change? Your best bet would be to proffer an example of how/what you would change/add and then present reliable, secondary sources directly supporting such statements for others to examine. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the article should mention that the indictment is at odds with international law, Maduro was a head of state when he was forcibly removed from office and indicted, he had diplomatic immunity which was violated by the US. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand: why do you keep talking about what you think the article should say instead of editing it? If someone objects to your edit, then your edit can be discussed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, they did do just that. I, for one, second DiodotusNicator's removal of what they added (diff in-question). Far too argumentative to be worded so firmly and authoritatively, especially in Wikivoice. I would probably support a much softer approach and one which specifies that the U.S. government maintains it was a legitimate and legal act. I also think it's a rather moot point to state that "the U.S. can't do this." They did. But, regardless, I digress. MWFwiki (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but at least it should be mentioned that the indictment is at odds with international law. International law has broad consensus among countries, many have condemned the operation and called for international law to be upheld. I'm a newbie but would gladly work with you to settle down this matter. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

As I've explained below, the source you cited makes it clear why the indictment can not be unequivocally stated to be "at odds with international law." DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The source you cited directly discusses why "Maduro was a head of state when he was forcibly removed from office and indicted, he had diplomatic immunity which was violated by the US" will likely fail in court. The US, the EU, and several Latin American countries reject Maduro's legitimacy as the leader of Venezuela, see 2024 Venezuelan presidential election.

What the source actually says:

"What do you mean, exactly, about his “seizure and indictment”? Venezuela had an election. It was not a free election. He declared himself President, and he’s broadly recognized as the President of Venezuela, but, again, he was not freely elected by the people of Venezuela. That could justify his indictment in an American court?

I should back up. As part of this military operation, at least one of the key goals seems to have been the capture of Maduro and his wife, who have been indicted for criminal charges in the Southern District of New York. The only way they can do that is if they’re claiming that he’s not a head of state, because heads of state get immunity and heads of state are not subject to criminal prosecution in the domestic courts of other states. That’s just a basic rule of international law. The United States has long recognized it.

So you were not saying that the fact that he stole an election per se means you can grab him and try him in an American court but, rather, that if he were not a head of state, that would at least allow for trying him in an American court, which normally would not be the case?

Right. So if he’s not actually a head of state, then head-of-state immunity doesn’t apply..."

Later on:

"It’s an area of law that is unsettled [emphasis mine] and can create real problems..."

The problem with any Wikivoice statements about "international law" is that, as is stated in its article, "there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states." Framing a case like this from the perspective of "international law" implies there is an international court, or any legal body, which has the ability to intervene or pass some binding judgment, when in reality the ICJ has no such power over the United States (see Nicaragua v. United States, where the US vetoed UN enforcement of the ruling + unilaterally withdrew from ICJ's jurisdiction.) DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lf8u2 I have quoted the relevant section of the source above. The interviewee explicitly labels this area of international law unsettled. The interview also extensively discusses the fact that Maduro's legitimacy is a subject of serious dispute, for more see: 2018_Venezuelan_presidential_election#International_2 and 2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election#International DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@DiodotusNicator the source which supports this clearly states: The only way they can do that is if they’re claiming that he’s not a head of state, because heads of state get immunity and heads of state are not subject to criminal prosecution in the domestic courts of other states. I am not disputing his illegitmacy as disputed by many observers, hence why relevant. Lf8u2 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You have quoted a section in which Hathaway explains the US government's argument for why head of state immunity doesn't apply here. Please read the section fully, I thought it was quite clear on this point. Hathaway directly predicts that the SDNY court will likely accept their argument, even, citing the Noriega case. And, as I explained above, Hathaway goes on to detail why his illegitimacy makes the underlying section of "international law" here unsettled. In short, we simply cannot cite a source that explains why this is a gray area of international law in order to state, in wikivoice, that this is a violation of international law. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Maduro's legitimacy was disputed (I remind everyone that he is no longer in power), but until Delcy Rodríguez took office last Monday he was still the de facto head of state, he was the one that held the real power, not Edmundo González Urrutia, exiled in Spain. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

A de facto head of state need not be the de jure head of state. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I know, but it is not even clear who is the de jure head of state right now, some countries recognize the National Assembly while others never recognized González Urrutia. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but the US government (in its legal filings) is claiming that prior to the arrest, Maduro was not the de jure head of state. As voorts has noted, the US court is very unlikely to question this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That is for the courts in the US to decide. No doubt the prosecutor will raise the fact that both the Trump and Biden administrations ,as well as many other countries, considered Maduro an illegitimate leader who lost the 2024 election. The courts will have to rule on whether someone has diplomatic immunity even if they are “illegitimate” ~2026-25748-3 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no case named United States v. Maduro, et al. with Nicolas Maduro as a defendant. The actual name of the case is United States v. Carvajal-Barrios.

Background: here's Courtlistener's copy of the case docket, parts 1 and 2. Here's the first indictment in the case, here's the first superseding indictment in the case (filed on 3/5/2020, which is when Maduro is added as one of the defendants ― but Carvajal-Barrios remains a defendant), and the second superseding indictment in the case (by this point, Carvajal-Barrios had already pleaded guilty, see entry 248 in the court docket part 1, and so no longer appears in the list of defendants). You can confirm that the case number for all of these is 1:11-cr-00205, assigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

So we need to move the article to another name and turn this page into a redirect. I see two possibilities for another name: either United States v. Carvajal-Barrios, or some name that isn't a case name but includes Maduro. What do others prefer? Also, some of the text in the article will need to be corrected in light of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for Cyfraw, as creator of the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The name is a mess, is there no way to officially get the name of the case?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The official name is United States v. Carvajal-Barrios. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Then let us use that and if somebody wants to change it let it open a move discussion Wait I do not know enough of cases but there is also this .--ReyHahn (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a different person, Leonel Maduro, who pleaded guilty long ago. (There are cases named U.S. v. Maduro, but none of them involve Nicolas Maduro.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Then let us change the article name to the official one.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I support reverting the article title to United States v. Nicolás Maduro, per WP:COMMONNAME. Maduro is the lead defendant in the fourth superseding indictment unsealed in January 2026, while earlier versions focused on Hugo Carvajal. international media and reliable sources now overwhelmingly refer to the legal proceedings as the "Maduro trial" or "Maduro case".

Maduro and Ciia's capture on January 3 makes them the central figure in current proceedings. Renascitur (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

In this document it is listed as United States v. Maduro et al. and this one includes full name.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

And here it's only United States v. Cilia Adela Flores de Maduro. AFAIK, the only names that appear are those relevant to a particular document. But IANAL, so I will ask WikiProject Law how the name is handled when the case number remains the same but the list of defendants changes. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You might have already noticed I asked there. Check also United States v. Scheinberg, there other names associated to it and are different from the courtlistener name. I propose we go back to United States v. Maduro et al. and indicate the original name in the lead.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I asked as well, providing a bit more info about the case, and following up with another question. voorts noted that there's a difference between the case name and the case caption. There are at least two questions here: what the name of the case is, and what the name of the article should be; voorts says that it would be more in keeping with other article titles to call is Prosecution of Nicolas Maduro. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

But the case starts with Carvajal, so maybe something like the "Prosecution of Maduro et al" or something more natural (I cannot figure it out yet).--ReyHahn (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. What will the focus of the article be? Right now, the arrest and prosecution of Carvajal only has a brief paragraph (though it could be enlarged a bit, drawing on content in Hugo Carvajal § Cocaine trafficking conspiracy charges). My sense is that there will be much more text devoted to the prosecution of Maduro and Flores. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this page should not have been moved unilaterally. I don't have an issue with @ReyHahn having done so, but it's (at least, now) clear that it is not an "uncontroversial" move. Or rather, it's clear that the name is in dispute. The law project advice was clear: We should go with "Prosecution of" to settle this issue. If all three of us can agree on this, I'd say we have consensus for the move for the time being. The only question would be whether it include Cilia in the title or not. "Prosecution of Nicolàs Maduro and Cilia Flores"? We shouldn't include her if there is not going to be a significant amount of coverage of her within the article. MWFwiki (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Im ok to going back to “United States v. Maduro et al.” As for the other name what about”Prosecution of Maduro and associates”? ReyHahn (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure. Perhaps voorts can weigh-in, here. I would likely support whatever option they felt best. "Prosecution of Nicolàs Maduro and Cilia Flores", "Prosecution of Nicolàs Maduro", or "Prosecution of Nicolàs Maduro and associates", or some other option? MWFwiki (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Start an RM discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@ReyHahn I strongly Support this Renascitur (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this edit by @ReyHahn, I think it should be removed because it may imply guilt of the others without a conviction. What do other editors think? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Let me clarify it, I'll make another edit.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that too much detail for the lede? That should be discussed in the body, I think. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We need to discuss all events involved that are relevant. Also it indicates why it is filed under United States v. Carvajal-Barrios.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, Nicolás Maduro Guerra and Niño Guerrero seem to be missing from the list of defendants. I do not know where to file them under the categories given. ReyHahn (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Right now, for a lot of the defendants, there are either no sources or the source is a court document or DOJ press release. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use court documents as sources, and other primary sources might only be used if "discussed by a reliable secondary source." I doubt that any of the press releases fall in that category. I'm bringing this up both because it means that we're going to have to work on the sourcing for some of the content in the article and because I'm wondering whether you have any sources for those defendants' names other than the court docs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean it is public, see for example: .--ReyHahn (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what the referent of "it" is in "it is public." The source you linked to is totally fine as a source of the other defendants names.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I wrote "Right now, for a lot of the defendants ...," by "right now" I meant the current text in United States v. Maduro et al.. If you look at the article, right now several of the sources are not usable, such as reference #s 33-42 and 44; these are sources being used for content in the tables, and they're not usable sources per BLPPRIMARY. Is that clearer? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

By it, I mean that the names I cited above were included as defendants. I opened this discussion section because I do not know what to do with the tables, I am not sure where the info comes from or how to handle new information to conform with the table. Maybe cyfraw can help here?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The three defendants you listed above are part of the SDNY case. As for "where the info comes from," that's the problem I was highlighting: the sources that are currently used for many of the defendants are not acceptable sources. The source you linked to is fine. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Most sources in the news now you mean?
Yes. Most current/new sources mention only Maduro and Flores. It was only Maduro and Flores who appeared in court on Monday. We could have a separate article for their prosecution.

@ReyHahn, Voorts, Guz13, FactOrOpinion, Cyfraw, AedipikiwTwo, and MWFwiki: Courtesy pings to the editors who participated in the move discussion. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

For now we can keep both in the same article, I see no issue. Who knows what will be in the news later.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

OK. It was just a possibility. Looking at sources, quite a number of them name the other people indicted, some only say "others". But here are the sources that only name Maduro and Flores: . Not saying we should split, just putting the sources out there. They can also be used for this article. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I am starting to change my mind about the split, it might help the article, use this as the one grouping all cases and another for whatever is directly related to Maduro.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Also even if we keep Maduro and Flores, the new indictment contains other people as well.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. But as it stands, it looks like only two of them would stand trial. The split might be WP:TOOSOON, but I suspect that as time goes on the updates will only mention them. This is a WP:CRYSTALBALL prediction, of course. I mainly started this thread so that we wouldn't clutter the move discussion, eventually someone is going to have to read through it and decide whether to move the article or not, no need to make the work of that person harder than it has to be. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not want to predict anything but there were at least 3 (4?) important events to the case since 2020 previous to 2026, so who know what happens next. I just wanted to be clear that we either split or keep it here (and not change the whole direction of the article).--ReyHahn (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I would support this move very much because reading this article has confused me as a reader a lot because there are many overlapping case historical claims. However, we have to wait for more developments. Also, this basically goes against the MoS. Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The MOS has nothing to do with page splits or the scope of articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

sorry my mistake. I didn't mean the MoS.

I do clarify my statement: i don't necessarily want to split the page until we have further developments. Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

No. That would be the unhelpful to readers. The coatracking of various other cases does need to be addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Said Aurelio Cabrera, associated with Carvajal was just arrested in Qatar with his help, might be indicted here too. See . ReyHahn (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

If he's indicted as part of this prosecution, then there will be another superseding indictment added to the court docket. That has not occurred. 17:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Was Alex Saab part of this case? ReyHahn (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean: is he a defendant? No. (You can see that by looking at the indictments.) If you mean "part of" in some other way, would you clarify? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, about being a defendant. Thanks.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)