The corruption associated with the Chávez regime manifests in various forms and scenarios, as seen in the case of Javier Alvarado Ochoa, who has recently employed his Spanish nationality to resist extradition to the United States and insists on being tried in Spain.
The former president of Electricidad de Caracas and Corpoelec is facing trials in the U.S., Spain, and Andorra for money laundering charges, being accused of laundering funds originating from the Venezuelan public treasury.
Recently, through his attorneys, Alvarado Ochoa requested the Houston Court to reconsider an October 2023 decision that denied the dismissal of charges against him.
Read also: In the CITGO auction process, ConocoPhillips withdrew its lawsuit against PDVSA creditors
Reconsideration of the Motion to Dismiss Charges
On March 5, 2025, Javier Alvarado Ochoa, through his lawyers, submitted a Motion for Reconsideration to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division, challenging the denial of his Motion to Dismiss issued by Judge Hoyt on October 10, 2023. Now, the defendant seeks the certification of an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit as an alternative.
Alvarado Ochoa is seeking reconsideration of his request to dismiss the charges, arguing that prior to the new Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) did not explicitly prohibit foreign officials from receiving bribes, as he is accused of doing.
In his original motion to dismiss, Javier Alvarado Ochoa stated that, legally, no federal criminal law empowered the government to prosecute him extraterritorially as a foreign public official who was not physically present in the United States during the alleged scheme.
Despite this, Judge Hoyt denied the motion, allegedly misinterpreting—according to the defense—the Fifth Circuit’s decision involving a co-defendant as decisive. This refers to Paulo Jorge Da Costa Casqueiro Murta, who was not a “foreign official” but rather an “agent” of a “person” and a U.S. entity within the narrowly defined scope established in the FCPA.
Alvarado Ochoa’s attorneys argue that although the new FEPA filled this legal gap, it should not be applied retroactively to his case, as the original charges against him were not valid under the law in effect at the time of the alleged actions.
Referral of Motion to Magistrate Judge
On February 12, 2025, the Texas Court – Houston Division issued a Notification of Referral of Motion to Magistrate Judge, Peter Bray, to review and resolve the Miscellaneous Remedial Motion identified as number 371, filed by Javier Alvarado Ochoa concerning the case against him in that judicial instance.
The notification was formalized by the court clerk, Nathan Ochsner, through his assistant, K. Papaioannou, who indicated that in the case of the United States against Javier Alvarado Ochoa, the referred motion was sent to Judge Bray for resolution.
From the date the case was assigned to Peter Bray, all parties involved in the case should direct any communication or submissions regarding the motion to him.
Motion to Revoke Judge Hoyt’s Order
Judge Hoyt denied the motion to dismiss charges on October 10, 2023
On April 30, 2024, Javier Alvarado Ochoa requested the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division to revoke Judge Hoyt’s order from October 10, 2023, granting his motion and dismissing all pending charges against him with prejudice or, alternatively, certifying his proposed questions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Alvarado Ochoa argued that there was a lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the principles of international comity and abstention. Specifically, he stated that in his role as the politically appointed president of Bariven S.A. (a subsidiary of PDVSA), he was not a “person” covered by the FCPA at the time of the alleged actions.
The motion from Alvarado Ochoa explains that the FCPA defined specific categories of “persons” subject to its jurisdiction, which included issuers of securities, U.S. companies, and individuals engaging in interstate commerce for bribes, as well as foreign persons or businesses acting in the U.S. to promote corrupt schemes.
Javier Alvarado contends that he does not fit into any of these categories, as he was neither a securities issuer, nor a U.S. company or individual, and it is also not alleged that he was “present in the United States” or paid bribes while there.
He requested the certification of two jurisdictional questions to the Fifth Circuit in case the court deems him to be connected, namely:
Can the government prosecute a foreign official under the AMLA, whether as a principal actor, accessory, or co-conspirator, when that official was not a “person” as defined by the FCPA before the enactment of the FEPA?
Can the government prosecute a foreign official under the AMLA, whether as a principal actor, accessory, or co-conspirator, without identifying in each case a specific viable unlawful activity under the AMLA upon which the money laundering charges are based?
Finally, Javier Alvarado Ochoa argued that the principles of international comity and abstention require the dismissal of the charges against him, as there is an ongoing criminal proceeding in Spain regarding the same underlying conduct.
He states that international comity weighs more heavily in criminal cases and in an international context. He also emphasizes that Spain’s sovereign interest in enforcing its own criminal laws constitutes an exceptional circumstance that requires deference from U.S. courts.
Alvarado Ochoa’s defense maintains that Spain is an appropriate and available forum to try him and expressed his willingness to submit to Spanish jurisdiction.