UNITED STATES RESPONDS TO ALEX SAAB MORAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS HIS MONEY LAUNDERING INDICTMENT

Attorneys for the United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, acting jointly with the US Department of Justice in Washington, have filed their Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, a 38-page memorandum of law, with extensive citations to legal authorities, replying in detail to Saab's efforts to achieve immunity from prosecution, on the grounds of Diplomatic Immunity.

The Government's brief, which essentially disposes of all of the defendant's arguments, makes these points:

1. Saab has no diplomatic status in the United States, and he therefore cannot benefit from diplomatic immunity here. He has no US State Department Certification as a diplomat, and the Maduro regime is not recognized by the United States.

2. Saab has no diplomatic status under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as he is not a posted and accredited diplomat to a foreign state (Iran), nor was he ever properly received there in that capacity, for duty at a local embassy, consulate or mission. 

3. Saab does not qualify for transit immunity, because he is listed as only a Special Envoy for a limited purpose, which customary international law requires that his travel through Cabo Verde receive advance notice and permission from that country's government, which was not given.

4. The Act of State Doctrine prevents the U.S. from reviewing Cabo Verde's decision to extradite him.

5. Saab's extradition did not violate Due Process; he had adequate access, through counsel, to the Cabo Verde court system to oppose his extradition.

6. Saab has failed to present reliable evidence that he was a diplomat or Special Envoy.

We also note that, when Saab stopped in Capo Verde to refuel, en route to Iran, he was NOT carrying a diplomatic passport, and the Government of Venezuela did not initially advise the government there that it considered him a diplomat. The diplomatic passport eventually transmitted to Cabo Verde exhibited "indicia of fraud," according to the United States.  As further evidence, there were subsequent, post-detention efforts to have Saab declared a diplomat to an international African organization. This was fraudulent.

By all indications, the Diplomatic Immunity defense was contrived after his detention in Cabo Verde; he did not have such status at that time, though efforts to manufacture it were apparently committed in bad faith, by legal representatives of the Government of Venezuela, solely to evade American justice. Whether official Venezuelan documents were altered, backdated or forged has also been an issue, but it is impossible to establish the truth about these issues with any degree of certainty. The Court should deny him the privileged status he seeks.