WITH CRUCIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ORAL ARGUMENT LOOMING, U.S. ASSERTS ALEX SAAB MORAN WAS NOT AN ACCREDITED DIPLOMAT WHEN ARRESTED FOR MONEY LAUNDERING

The District Court Judge in Miami in the ALEX NAIN SAAB MORAN money laundering case has scheduled oral argument on the defense motion to dismiss for December 20, 2022; The evidentiary hearing, where testimony will be taken by both sides, will occur the week before the lawyers argue their positions. The case comes down to one issue: whether Saab Moran was a qualified and duly accredited diplomat when he was detained in Cape Verde, which would give him immunity from criminal prosecution in his pending money laundering case. The filing shown above indicates that the Government has classified information in support of its case, which has been filed for the attention of the Court.

Here is an extract from the court docket:

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 166 Motion to set oral argument for December 20, 2022 as to Alex Nain Saab Moran (1). Oral Argument on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment 147 is set for 12/20/2022 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr., at the Wilkie D. Ferguson U.S. Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Courtroom 12-3, 12th floor, Miami, Florida. The Court has reserved three hours. The one-week evidentiary hearing shall proceed as scheduled commencing Monday, December 12, 2022 at 9:00 AM. See Paperless Order at ECF No. 137. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 12/2/2022. (jh) Modified on 12/2/2022 to correct spelling error (jh). (Entered: 12/02/2022)

The Government has made several important points, two of which stand out in their filings:

(1) That the Government of Venezuela initially failed to advise that Saab Moran was a Venezuelan diplomat when he was detained. The belated claim of immunity demonstrated that there is no legal basis, and that the claim was a desperate measure by Venezuela to free Saab, who has extensive personal knowledge of criminal activity by Venezuela's President, Nicolas Maduro, and others in his inner circle, and who might later choose to cooperate with American law enforcement, to mitigate his eventual sentence.

(2) Venezuela's proffer of Saab's appointment, years earlier, in an official publication of record was a blatant forgery. Copies of the publication, on file at the US Library of Congress, did not contain such an entry. The so-called "evidence" introduced by Venezuela was a fraud upon the Court.  

Saab's ostensible diplomatic status, which is not recognized by the US State Department for a number of valid reasons, will most likely be the subject of a subsequent appeal, by the losing side, which will further delay the trial.

 

SSSSSSS