Justice is not about equity. It is not a system where victims can exact revenge on their tormentors, nor is it a place where serious crimes are punished adequately. There are many instances in which the U.S. Justice system has reached agreements with offenders in exchange for something. The criteria for determining the value of that “something” when it comes to reducing or completely eliminating prison time remains a mystery. There is no guideline or established set of parameters that directs the actions of the judiciary when criminals decide to “cooperate.” Venezuela offers some good examples, the latest being Alejandro Andrade: a former treasury chief who admitted to receiving around $1 billion in bribes, resulting in a 10-year sentence handed down in late November 2018.
What Andrade provided as information for reducing his sentence is yesterday’s news. Therefore, determining the exact value that the Department of Justice assigns to such information is crucial for understanding agreements similar to Andrade’s. This brings us to the case of Alex Saab, who possesses new, critical, and very current information on the criminal enterprises of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and beyond. If Andrade received three and a half years for outdated and useless information, what are the chances of seeing Saab making a deal if he decides to “collaborate”?
Regarding Venezuela, punishment never fits the crime: Andrade *is* the cartel’s boy. But if the deal Andrade received is key to understanding the administration of justice in the U.S., what allows Alejandro Betancourt, Nervis Villalobos, Javier Alvarado, Rafael Ramírez, Luisa Ortega Díaz, Raúl Gorrín, and many others to enjoy their loot without much concern that the Department of Justice will come knocking? This is what truly fascinates us. The Department of Justice appears to be a feeble dog that doesn’t bite, and whenever it shows interest, the recycled information obtained from the public domain along with effective lobbying and advocacy does the trick.