Marron et al v. Maduro Moros et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN D ISTRICT OF FLOR ID A
M iam iD ivision
C ase N um ber:21-23190-C 1V -M O REN O
CA RLO S EDU ARD O M A RRON , JAN E DO E,
C.R.,aminor,and S.A.,am inor,
Plaintiffs,
NICOLAS M ADURO M ORO ,	S FUERZAS
ARM ADA S REVOLUCIONARIOS DE
COLOM BI ,	A CA RTEL O F THE SUN S
VLAD IM IR PAD RIN O LOPEZ, MAI	KV
JO SE M OREN O PEREZ,NESTOR LU IS
REVEROL TORRE ,	S TA R EK W ILLIAM
SAAB,andTARECK EL AISSAM I,
D efendants.
ORDER GM NTING IN PART M OTION FOR RECONSIDEIG TION AND FINDING
A SSETS AR E BLO C K ED UN D ER TH E TERR O IU SM R ISK IN SUR AN CE A CT
Plaintiffsmoveforreconsideration oftheCoul-t'sOrderDissolving theW ritsof
Galmishmentdated Februal-y 19, 2026.W hilethe Coul-twillnotdisturb the dissolution ofthe
writs,theCoul-tfindsitappropriateto reconsiderwhetherthe assetsatissueareblockedunder
theTerrorism RiskInsuranceAct(TRIA).Onthisissue, theCourtdirected counseltoaddress
whetherthe factthatthelicenseissued toD .E.W ilson was underthe InternationalEm ergency .
EconomicPowersAct(IEEPA)isofconsequence.Thepal'	tiessubmittedsupplementalresponses
and the Coul'tnow reconsiders itsruling on the blocked nature ofthe assetsunderTRIA . D .E.
W ilson,RaulGorrin Belisario, andGustavoPerdomoRosales(theInterestedParties1)arguethat
lThelnterestedPartiesareRaulGorrinBelisario((tGorrin''), Gustavo Perdomo deRosaies(Efperdomo''),RIM	Group Investm ents Col'p.,RIM Group lnvestments ICorp., RIM Group lnvestlnents11Co1'p.,RIM Group
Investlnents111,Corp.,M agusHolding LLC, andM agusHolding 11Col'p,
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 1 of 9

becausetheassetsaresubjectto anOFAC license,theyarenotCs	frozen''underTRIA andthe
statutory exception is inconsequential.The nature ofD .E.W ilson'slicense,in this case,allows
him to dealin andm anageGorrin and Perdom o'sproperties.Ifheelectsto sellaproperty tlnder
the license'sterm s,he is required to putthose funds in a blocked account.The license's
constraints and standard principles ofstatutory construction lead the Coul'tto conclude that
G on'in and Perdom o's assets are blocked underTRIA .A ccordingly,the Cot1l4 reconsiders its
priorl-ulingto preventan en'oroflaw.
THIS CAUSE camebeforetheCoul'tupon Plaintiffs'M otion forReconsideration (D.E.
480).THE COURT has considered the motion,the response,the supplementalbriefs,oral
argum ent, and the pertinent portions of the record,and being otherwise fully advised in the
prernises,itis
AD JU D G ED thatthe m otion forl'econsideration is G RAN TED in pa14 as setforth in this
Order.
Backcround and A nalvsis
The Terrorism Risk Insurance A ctallow svictim s often'orto execute only on blocked
assets.Pub.L.No.107-297,j201(a),116Stat.2322,2337.TheCoul-t'sOrderdatedFebruary
19,2026,exam ined w hetherthe assets ofRaulGorrin B elisario and G ustavo Perdom o Rosales
are blocked underTRIA .The Coul'trelied on language from cases finding thatthe existence of
an OFAC license rendersproperties tûunblocked''precluding a TRIA recovel'y.U pon closer
examination ofthestatuteandthelicenseatissue,theCourtfeelscompelled to reconsiderthat
ruling.
TRIA j201(d)(2)definesblockedassetsas:
(A)Any assetseizedorfrozenbytheUnitedStatesundersection5(b)oftheTradingwith
the Enem y A ct.,.orundersections 202 and 203 ofthe lntelmationalEm ergency
Econom ic Pow ers A ct...and
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 2 of 9

(B)doesnotincludepropertythat-
(i) issubjecttoalicenseissuedbytheUnitedStatesGovernmentforfinal
payment,transfer,ordispositionbyortoapersonsubjecttothejurisdictionof
theUnited Statesin connection with atransaction forwhich theissuanceof
such licensehasbeen specifically requiredby statuteotherthan the
lntel-nationalEm ergency Econolnicpow(4r5,Act...orthe United N ations
ParticipationActof1945(.	1
Pub.L.No.107-297,j201(d)(2),116Stat.2322,2339-40,ltisthissectionthatcreatesthe
dispute cun'ently atisstle.
TRIA'Ssubsection(d)(2)(A)definesblockedassetsas(C(A)anyassetseizedorfrozenby
theUnited Statesundersection5(b)oftheTradingwiththeEnemyActorundersections202
and203ofthelnternationalEmergency EconomicPowersAct.	''In subsection(d)(2)(B),TRIA
createsastatutol	'	yexceptionfrom thatdefinitionforblockedassetsforpropertythatissubjectto
alicense.Theexceptionprovidesthatpropel	'	ty subjecttoalicenseisnotrecoverableunder
TRIA asablockedasset,butnotjustanylicensewilltriggertheTRJA exception.Thelicense
mustbeoneC'forfinalpaym ent,transfer,ordisposition''ofpropel'ty and issuedunderaCtstatute
otherthan the Intel-nationalEm ergency Econo'm ic Pow ers A ct. . . orthe U nited N ations
Participation Actof1945.''2TheInterestedPartiesconcede thatD.E.W ilson's IEEPA license
wouldnotfallintothe(d)(2)(B)exceptionthat(lunblocks''theassets.Becausethelicensedoes
notsatisfythel	'	equi	rementsofsubsection (d)(2)(B),thecun'entdisputecentersonwhat
consti	ttltesûlseizedorfrozen''underTRIA'Ssubsection(d)(2)(A).3
Sections202and203ofthelnternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersAct,50U.S.C.j
1701 and 1702,apply to V enezuela.These sections grantto the Presidentthe broad authority to
regulate foreign assets in certain circum stances.PresidentTrum p invoked his authority underthe
2N eithertheTradingwiththeEnem y ActnortheUnitedNationsPal-ticipationA ctof1945arerelevanthere. This
casefocuseson theIEEPA restrictionsand theIEEPA license.
3ThepartiesagreethattheUnited StatesdidnotseizeGorrin and Perdom o'sproperties. Thequestion iswhether
theassetsarefrozenunderTRIA . .
3
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 3 of 9

CslnternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersAct(50U.	S.C.1701etseq.)tots	blockgj''Gtgaqll
propel'ty interests''ofany person detennined by theSecretal'y ofthe Treasul-y,in consultation
withtheSecretaly ofState,tohaveengagedincellainactivity(e.g.ûttransactionsinvolving
deceptivepracticesorcorruption'')withtheGovernmentofVenezuela.''ExecutiveOrder13850,
Blocking Property ofAdditionalPersonsContributing to the Situation in Venezuelat'Nov.1,
2018)4Andsoonaûer,theUnited StatesDepal-	tmentofTreasury designatedRaulGol	-	rin
Belisario and Gustavo Perdom o RosalesasSpecially D esignated N arcoticsTraffickers and
blockedtheirassets.84Fed.Reg.2946,2946(Feb.8,2019)(discussingtheJanuary8,2019,
designation ofG orrin and Perdom o and blocking theirpropel'ty and interestsunderExecutive
Order13850).TheU.	S.DepartmentofTreasul	'	yOrderspeci	fically indicatesthatç	tgaqilpropel	'	ty
andinterestsinpropertysubjecttoU.S.jurisdictionofthesepersonsgincludingGorrinand
Perdomo)areblocked,andU.S.personsaregenerall	ypl-	ohibitedfrom engagingin transactions
withthem.''84Fed.Reg.2946,2946(Feb.8,2019).Both Gon-inandPerdomo'sassetsremain
OFAc-blocked.SeeOfficeofForeignAssetControl,SanctionsListScl/'c/c(showingthatRaul
Gon'in Belisario and Gustavo Perdom oRosalesare designated asSpecially Designated Narcotics
Traffickers).Thepal	-tiesdisputewhethertheExecutiveBranch'sorderssufficetofreezethe
assetsunderTRIA in lightoftheIEEPA licenseissued to W ilson.
TRIA doesnotprovideanadditionaldefini	tion forû	sfrozen.'	'M artinezv.Republicof
Cuba,No.10-22095-ClV,2011W L 13115432,at*5(S.D.Fla.June27,2011)Report&
Recommendationadoptedinpart,No.10-22095,2011W L 13115471(S.D.Fla.Aug.26,2011).
TRlA 'Slegislative histol'y isinstructive asto them eaning oftcfrozen.''SenatorTom Harkin,a
co-authorofTRIA ,stated:
4https://- .federall-ecister.zov/doculnelAts/zo18/11/02/2018-24254/blockinz-nropel'tv-of-
additional-pel'sons-contl'ibuting-to-the-situation-in-venezuela.
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 4 of 9

g'	lqheterm Ct	blockedasset''hasbeenbroadly definedtoincl	udeany
assetofaten-oristparty thathasbeen seizrd orfrozen by the
United States in accordance w ith law . This definition includes any
assetwithrespecttowhichhnancialtransactionsareprohibitedor
regulated by the U S.Frptz-çî/ry under any blocking order underthe
Trading w ith the Enem y A ct,the Intel-nationalEm ergency
Econom ic Pow ers Act,orany proclam ation,order,regulation,or
license
Weinsteinv.lslal	nicRep.oflran,299F.Supp.2(163,74(E.	D.N.Y.Sept.26,2025)(quoting
Senate Proceedings and D ebatesofthe 107th Congress,Second Session,148 Cong.Rec.S 1l528
(dailyed.Nov.19,2002)(statementofSen.Harkin)(emphasisaddedl).
TheExecutive Branch'sordersaffirm thatGorrin and Perdom o'sassetsareindeedfroze
underIEEPA .To start,the FederalRegisterstatesthatOorrin and Perdom o'spropel4ies are
blocked and CSU .S.personsaregenel-allyprohibitedfrom engaging in transactionswith them .''
CeMainly,asTRIA 'Slegislative history em phasizes,the U .S.D epartm entofTreasul-y ûûregulates''
ttfinancialtransactions''as to these propel-ties underthe blocking orders.D espite the Executive
Branch'sactionsrestricting Gorrin and Perdomo'sassets,thelnterested Partiesarguethey are
notblocked underTRIA becausethe licenseissued toD .E.W ilson unfreezesthe assets.
tû	Anassetisfrozenifitisdifficulttoconvertintocash,	''Est.o/fgpvf	rlv.WellsFcf	rgo
Bank,N A.,156F.	4th 632,639(D.	C.Cir.2025).Ct-	fhatstlggestsanassetisfrozenifitissubject
to a significantrestriction;therestriction need notbe fully im m obilizing.''Id ln f evin,the D .C .
Circuitfound thatthe OFA C license there penuitted coul'tsto enter orders forfeiting blocked
assets to the governm entand allow ed the banks to relinquish blocked funds ifthe governm ent
m anaged to obtain a forfeiture order.1d.The govelmm entin Lpvï?khad notyetobtained a
forfeiture order,so the D .C .C ircuitfound the funds to be frozen in'espective ofthe license.1d.
TheD.C.Circuitemphasizedthatunder31C.F.R.j594.502(($,alicenseremovesaprohibition
5
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 5 of 9

Skonly totheextentspecifically stated by itsterms.''Ccln otherwords,the licensedoesnot
unfreezetheFunds.''fJ.
D .E.W ilson's license here reads:
(b)ShouldtheLicenseenotreceivepaymentfrom theresidentsof
the Properties,orin the ordinary course ofbusiness decide to sell
the Propel-ties,the Licensee m ay engage in transactions ordinarily
incidentand necessary to sellthe Propel-ties,and the Licensee is
authorized torecoverforitself,and/orreimbursethird pal4ies,from
theproceedsofthe saleofany oftheProperties,any taxes,costs,
orlegal,adluinistrative orotherfeesthatarenecessal-y and
incidentto the sale ofany ofthe Propel-ties,and place the
rem ainderin a blocked account,asconsistentw ith section 591.203
ofthe V enezuela SanctionsR egulationsand reported to O FA C .
The license laysoutthe circulustances allow ing the licensee to sellthe blocked properties.Italso
restrictsthe use ofcash from thesaleofany propertiesto pay coststlnecessal'y and incidentto
thesale''and (tplacetherem ainderin ablocked account.''UnliketheLevin license,which
allow ed the forfeited assetsto be transferred to the govelmm entforitsfree use,here the iicensee
mustplacetheproceedsinto ablocked accountaftera sale.Thiscaseisthereforeeven m ore
com pelling than fevin because the license'term s allow dealings with blocked propetty but,atno
tim e,doesthelicenseallow thefreeuseofthepropel-ty in comm erce.
The lnterested Partiesrely on W einstein,299 F.Supp.2d at74-75,to supporttheir
position thatthislicense unblocksthe prclperties.ln W einstein,the B ank ofN ew York,held
accounts forthree Iranian banks.The W einstein plaintiffsw ere seeking to recoverproceeds in
those accountsandthepartiestheredisputed the effectofgeneraland specific licensesisstled as
to those accountsforpurposesofdeterm ining w hetherthey were blocked underTRIA .W einstein
holdsthatnotevel-y IEEPA l'estriction freezes an asset,and thatis the lnterested Pal4ies'position
here.Est.ofLevin,156F.4that641.In Weinstein,thecoul'tfoundtheBankofNew York's
accountsw ere notblocked because the accountsw ere created long aflerthe 1979 blocking order
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 6 of 9

astolran and long aflerthegenerallicenseremovedthebloclting dueto the 1981Algiers
Accordwithlran.1d.at74.FollowingtheAlgiersAccord,theCodeofFederalRegulationsj
503.502 stated thata(ûlicenseauthorizing atransaction...hasthe effectofrem oving a
prohibition...butonlytotheextentspecifically statedbyitsterms.''31C.F.R.j535.502.
M oreover,theCodeofFederalRegulations,31C.F.R.j560.517,expressly authorizedthebanks
to close the Iranian accountsatthe reqtlestofthe accountholderand allow ed those accotlnt
holderstoreceivealumpsuntransferofthosefunds./#.(citing 31C.F.R.j560.517).These
regulations rem oving the prohibitionson the assetsw ere atthe heartof W einsteintsholding that
the assetsw ere notblocked underTRIA .
W einstein does notsupportthe Interested Pal-ties'broad view here thatany license
unfreezesanasset.Theassetsherearesubjecttoageneralprohibitionprecludingtransactions
and the license doesnotentirely rem ove the generalprohibition.The license to D .E.W ilson only
allow shim to m anage the propel-ties and to sellthepropel-ties as needed.Ifhe sells the propel-ty,
D .E.W ilson isvto place the funds into a blocked accountfollow ing necessary paym entsto third
paMiesand otherexpensesincidentto the sale.Thatisdifferentfrom theCode ofFederal
Regulationstreatluentofthelranianaccounts.31C.F.R.j560,517.Forthesereasons,theCourt
does notfind the interested parties'reiiance on W einstein persuasive.
To hold asthe lnterested Parties argue w ould also require the Courtto renderTRIA 'S
subsection (d)(2)(B)superfluous.Therewouldbenoneedtoincludetheexceptionifany
propertysubjecttoany licensewasunblocked.Congresscouldhavesaidasmuch anditdidnot.
Rather,Congresscreatedacareftllly crafledexceptiontounblockpropertiessubjecttoalicense
forfinalsale ordisposition and Congress specifically excluded IEEPA licensesfrom that
exception.Congress enacted section 201to elim inate the President's discretion to prevent
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 7 of 9

victimsofstate-sponsoredterrorism from attachingblocl	tedassets.Est.ofLevin,156F.4that
639.lfthe Interested Parties are correct,then section 201 S'w ould notpreventthe very m ischief
thatCongresssoughttoaddress''byallowingtheExecutiveto unblockassetssubjecttoTRIA by
issuing alicenseasto them .1d.M oreover,CongressCtwouldhavehad littlereason to specify
which licensesfallwithin theexception''ifany typeoflicense effectively unblocksproperty.1d.
t'In thatinstance,the license exception - w ith a11ofits qualifications regarding the covered kinds
oflicensesand statutory authorities- w ould be sulmrisingly reduced to surplusage.''1d.at640,
D.E.W ilson submitted an OFAC webpageregardingrepol-tingrequirementsasevidence
thathisiicenserendersthe assetsunblocked.Thewebpagestates:çdpleasenotethattheterm
blocked property only appliesto property thatisblocked ptlrsuantto O FA C l'egulations.Propel'ty
thatw asunblocked by an OFA C generalor specitic license ...isnotconsidered blocked
propel	-	tyg.	j''Notably,therelevantlanguagedoesnotsay(û	propel'	tysubjecttoanOFAC licenseis
unblocked.''Itaddsthecaveatthatthelicensem usthavetheeffectofunblocking thepropel4y.A
review ofW ilson's license again leadsthe Cou14 to conclude thatthe term s ofthisparticular
licensedo notentirely undo theprohibitionsfound in the ExecutiveBranch'sOrders.TheCourt
also notesthatD .E.W ilson's exhibitis a generalw ebpage and isnotdirected atD .E.W ilson
w ith inform ation regarding this specific license.The w ebpage does notpersuade the Coul'tofthe
Interested Parties'position.
Finally,thelnterested Pal-tiesarguethatitisimproperfortheCoul'tto reconsiderits
ruling asPlaintiffshave failed to m ake this statutol-y argum ent.ût-f'he purpose of a m otion for
reconsidel-ation isto correctm anifesterrorsoflaw orfactorto presentnew ly discovered
evidence.''Z.K..	At	ftw-jnc,Inc.v.sf/vArchigetis,808F.Supp.1561,1563(S.D.Fla.1992)(citing
HarscoCorp.v.Zlotnicki,77?F.2d 906,909(3d Cir.1985)).AlthoughPlaintiffsdidnot
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 8 of 9

originally makethisspecific argumentin theirm otion forreconsideration,they arguetheCoul-t
requestOFAC weigh in on theblocked statusoftheGon-in and Perdomo assets.sM oreover, their
originalresponse to the m otion to dissolve argued the Courtshould find the assetsblocked.
Because w hetherthe assets are blocked is an essentialelem entofTRIA ,the Coul4 considers this
to be a m anifesterroroflaw ,and reconsideration isappropriate.
Accordingly,theCou14concludesthatthe restrictivelicenseliketheone here doesnot
renderTRIA inapplicable.Theassetsrem ain ûtfrozen''and thusCcblocked.''And becausethe
license w asnotissued undera statute S'otherthan''the IEEPA orthe Pal4icipation A ct,the
licenseexception doesnotapply.
/
DONEANDORDEREDi	nCha	mbe	r	satMi	a	mi	,Fl	or	i	da	,t	hi	s / ofAug	us	t2026.
.y'-'-- .,
V	..< gu.	, g e	y.y<	;u.''' œ.z .. y .VaT7'; Q.	.	.	n ...	'	g.	.	. 'y .	K:..S w.z' n. r.	y .uv-r .	. *' .:
FEDO ICO A,M ORENO
UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE
Copiesfurnished to:
CounselofRecord
5The Plaintiffs'originalresponse arguesthe assetsare blocked underTIU A and discusses the lim ited nature ofthis
IEEPA license.(ECF371at8-9).
Case 1:21-cv-23190-FAM Document 582 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2026 Page 9 of 9