En Español

Visiting Fellow Roger F. Noriega

It was, indeed, a startling announcement from Miami on Wednesday: the U.S. government charged five individuals for their role in covering up an intended $800,000 cash contribution from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to the campaign of Cristina Kirchner, the woman who won election handily in October and who has barely finished one week in office as president of Argentina.

Of course, President Kirchner immediately issued an angry response to the accusation. That was predictable. What is quite unusual is that, rather than merely denying the accusation, President Kirchner fiercely impugned the motives of the U.S. investigators, arguing that the criminal complaint was intended to "trash" her presidency (operaciones basura). And she defied "pressure" for her to end the friendship with the anti-American firebrand Hugo Chavez.

One would have thought that a leader elected to uphold the rule of law in her country would have pledged to get to the bottom of the scandal, if for no other reason than to clear her name. After all, isn't it possible that an illicit contribution was offered by Chavez or solicited by an official of Kirchner's campaign without her knowledge?

Shouldn't the new president be more curious why there was no investigation by Argentine authorities of the August 4 incident in which Argentine customs agents discovered Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson arriving at Jorge Newbery Airport in Buenos Aires carrying $800,000 in undeclared cash? Is it so common that foreigners arrive in Argentina with $800,000 and flee the country once the cash is discovered that this incident raised no suspicions?

If Argentine officials had done their job, U.S. authorities would likely have been prepared to bring money laundering charges against Antonini. If Argentine officials had done their job, by now they might have built their own case and requested Antonini's extradition to face Argentine justice.

Instead, U.S. law enforcement officials read of the apparent crime by a U.S. citizen who tried to smuggle a vast sum of cash into Argentina and who hastily abandoned the money when he was caught. Antonini retreated to Miami where, according to the published federal complaint, four other men approached him demanding that he go along with their plot to conceal the true origin and destination of the suspicious cash. The men told Antonini that their plot was approved at "the top of the Venezuelan government," including Vice President Jorge Rodriguez (the man who chaired the electoral board that oversaw Hugo Chavez's 2006 reelection) and the Venezuelan intelligence agency. They promised Antonini that if he claimed the cash as his own and hid the fact that he received the money from Chavez's government his legal expenses and penalties would be paid by the Venezuelan oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela. Conversely, Antonini was warned that if he failed to cooperate with the cover-up that the Venezuelan government would come after him and his children would be in danger.

The fact that the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of Florida brought a case on a mere technicality--that the five charged individuals were working for the Venezuelan government without registering as "foreign agents"--demonstrates that U.S. authorities had to construct this case without the full cooperation of Argentine authorities.

Incidentally, it is certain to me that the U.S. Attorney, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. magistrate who signed the criminal complaint are acting with absolute independence. The idea being offered by some senior Kirchner officials that this is an "intelligence operation" suggests a very troubling unfamiliarity with the independence of law enforcement and the judiciary. The assertion that this move is part of a diplomatic gambit to pressure the Kirchner government to break off its romance with the Chavez government is almost as ridiculous. My guess is that U.S. diplomats first read about these criminal charges on the Miami Herald website and are wringing their hands today about the predictable backlash from Buenos Aires.

Now that the U.S. attorney has brought these serious charges, he clearly intends to use them as leverage against the conspirators to get to the heart of the crime. It would be a welcome development if Argentine law enforcement agencies were to cooperate, but that is not necessary to advance what promises to be a very interesting investigation into the inner workings of the Chavez regime, the corrupt misuse of Venezuelan money, and of the network of international partners in Buenos Aires and beyond who are willing to sell their loyalty to Chavez.

One would think that Argentine authorities would have some curiosity about an apparent crime committed on their territory, or that Argentine authorities would want to know if their friends in Caracas were worthy of a plot to threaten a man's innocent children to cover up a crime. Instead, the president and her ministers instantaneously defend Hugo Chavez and dismissed the allegations as if they already know more about them than the rest of us.
 
Roger F. Noriega is a visiting fellow at AEI. His law and advocacy firm, Tew Cardenas, LLP, represents U.S. and foreign governments and companies.