In one of the most closely watched international criminal trials in recent history, Descalzo Law defended a businessman accused of participating in a conspiracy connected to the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse—challenging the government’s assumptions and arguing that legitimate business activities were improperly recast as criminal conduct.
Overview of the Case
Descalzo Law represented Walter Veintemilla, a businessman charged in the federal prosecution arising from the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse.
The case, prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida, involved allegations that several individuals participated in a conspiracy that evolved from a political transition effort into the events that culminated in President Moïse’s death in July 2021.
The prosecution relied on extensive international evidence, testimony from cooperating witnesses, communications spanning multiple countries, and years of investigative work. The case drew global media attention and became one of the most significant international criminal prosecutions ever tried in South Florida.
The Situation
Federal prosecutors alleged that Mr. Veintemilla and several co-defendants were involved in planning and financing aspects of an operation connected to the removal of President Moïse from power.
The government pointed to financial transactions, communications among participants, and support provided to individuals involved in activities in Haiti before the assassination.
The defense, however, maintained that the government’s theory improperly blurred the line between lawful business activities, political aspirations, and criminal intent.
Throughout the proceedings, Descalzo Law emphasized that Mr. Veintemilla’s actions were consistent with his understanding that he was supporting a political and security initiative—not participating in a kidnapping or assassination plot.
The Defense Strategy
Descalzo Law’s defense centered on a straightforward but critical principle: intent matters.
The defense argued that while Mr. Veintemilla provided financial assistance related to security operations and political efforts in Haiti, there was no evidence demonstrating that he knowingly supported a plan to kidnap or kill President Moïse.
Key components of the defense included:
- Demonstrating that many of the government’s witnesses had little or no direct knowledge of Mr. Veintemilla’s alleged involvement.
- Emphasizing that financial support for security-related activities is not, by itself, evidence of participation in a criminal conspiracy.
- Challenging the government’s effort to draw criminal conclusions from isolated statements and communications.
- Highlighting the absence of evidence showing that Mr. Veintemilla knowingly funded an assassination plot.
- Arguing that Mr. Veintemilla reasonably believed he was supporting security operations connected to a political transition effort.
- Reminding jurors that speculation cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense also emphasized that a person’s political opinions, business dealings, or criticism of a foreign leader do not establish criminal liability.
What Was the Result
At the time of this Featured Matter, the proceedings represented a pivotal chapter in one of the most complex international criminal cases prosecuted in federal court.
Descalzo Law vigorously challenged the government’s evidence, presented an alternative interpretation of the facts, and advocated for the principle that criminal intent must be proven—not assumed.
Regardless of the public attention surrounding the case, the defense remained focused on ensuring that the government met its burden of proof and that constitutional protections were fully respected throughout the proceedings.
Attorney Perspective
“In complex conspiracy cases, the government often asks jurors to connect dots across thousands of communications, financial transactions, and relationships. Our responsibility is to determine whether those connections are supported by evidence—or by assumptions.”
At Descalzo Law, we believe that every defendant deserves a thorough and fearless defense, particularly in cases involving international investigations, political dynamics, and extensive media coverage.
When a prosecution depends on interpreting a person’s intent, context becomes critical. We work diligently to ensure that juries hear the complete story—not just the government’s version of events.
— Marissel Descalzo
Managing Partner
What This Case Demonstrates
This matter illustrates several important realities about international criminal defense:
- Financial involvement does not automatically establish criminal intent.
- Complex conspiracy prosecutions often require jurors to evaluate competing interpretations of the same evidence.
- International investigations frequently involve political, cultural, and legal complexities that must be carefully examined.
- Context matters when evaluating communications, statements, and business relationships.
- Effective advocacy requires challenging assumptions and demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- High-profile cases require disciplined defense strategies focused on facts rather than headlines.
Descalzo Law has extensive experience representing clients in sophisticated federal investigations, conspiracy cases, international matters, white-collar prosecutions, and other high-stakes criminal proceedings.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this Featured Matter is based on publicly reported court proceedings and allegations presented during litigation. Allegations are not evidence of guilt, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. Every legal matter is unique, and prior representations do not guarantee future outcomes. This content is provided solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.
