1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASA EXPRESS CORP, as Trustee of

CASA EXPRESS TRUST,

Judgment Creditor, Case No. 1:21-mc-23103-BB

v.

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 

VENEZUELA,

Judgment Debtor.

/

JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S EX PARTE EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMMENCE 

PROCEEDINGS SUPPLEMENTARY, TO IMPLEAD DEFENDANTS, AND FOR 

ISSUANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES TO APPEAR

Judgment Creditor Casa Express Corp., as Trustee of Casa Express Trust (“Casa Express”), 

moves for commencement of proceedings supplementary to execute the Amended Final Judgment 

(the “Judgment”) entered in its favor against Judgment Debtor, the Bolivarian Republic of 

Venezuela (“Venezuela”), pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1610(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), Florida Statute § 56.29, and Southern District of 

Florida Local Rule 7.1(d)(2). Casa Express also moves for entry of an order impleading the 

following individuals and entities as defendants in this matter, and for the issuance of statutory 

Notices to Appear: Alejandro Andrade Cedeno (“Andrade”), Raul Gorrin Belisario (“Gorrin”), 

RIM Group Investments Corp., RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp.,

RIM Group Investments III Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., and Planet 2 Reaching Inc.

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 1 of 29
2

REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF 

Casa Express seeks to attach Venezuelan assets blocked by the U.S. Treasury Department’s 

Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”)1. The assets consist of eight real properties located 

in Florida that were purchased by Gorrin (through shell entities) with misappropriated Venezuelan 

funds that he obtained through an illicit and corrupt foreign currency exchange scheme. Since 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds were used to acquire the real properties, the properties are 

subject to a constructive trust in favor of Venezuela, and as explained below, are subject to 

execution by Casa Express pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) and Florida Statute § 56.29. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(2), Casa Express requests expedited review. As recent as 

March 12, 2021, Gorrin’s business partner sold a Venezuelan asset, real property located in 

Coral Gables, Florida for $3.6 million—despite it being blocked by OFAC. In addition, most 

properties have liens for unpaid assessments and are at risk of foreclosure. To prevent additional 

Venezuelan properties from being similarly sold, transferred, or otherwise moved, Casa Express 

respectfully requests expedited review and relief by date certain – September 24, 2021 (14 days 

after filing) to promptly implead the parties holding title to the aforementioned real properties. See 

Stansell, et al., v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Case No. 10-mc-22724-Civ-Scola 

1 Casa Express is in the process of obtaining an OFAC license to cover the eventual 

execution sale of the real properties. In the interim, this Court has authority to commence this 

proceedings supplementary and issue writs of execution against Venezuela’s blocked assets. See 

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 932 F.3d 126, 151 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. 

denied, 140 S. Ct. 2762, 206 L. Ed. 2d 936 (2020) (affirming issuance of writ of attachment to 

execute Venezuela’s blocked asset where creditor had not obtained necessary OFAC license 

explaining that “[w]hether the Treasury Department permits execution,” does not prevent the 

issuance of a writ of attachment or execution).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 2 of 29
3

(S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019, D.E. 22) (issuing writs of execution and garnishment on an expedited 

basis because the properties were at risk of being moved or otherwise sold by OFAC-designated 

individuals).2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Judgment

1. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded a 

$43.3 million judgment in favor of Casa Express against Venezuela for non-payment of two dollardenominated sovereign bonds, which Casa Express beneficially owns. See Casa Express Corp., 

as Tr. of Casa Express Trust v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:18-cv-11940-AT, 

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2020, D.E. 77); Aff. of Luis E. Gamardo Medina, President of Casa Express, 

attached as Exhibit A, at Ex. 1.

2. After Venezuela failed to pay the Judgment for more than seven months, the 

Southern District of New York issued an order finding that a “reasonable period of time” elapsed 

since the entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1610(c) of the FSIA3, and authorizing Casa 

Express to begin enforcement actions in the United States. See Casa Express Corp. as Tr. of Casa 

2 This motion is filed on an ex parte basis for the same reasons. Specifically, Venezuela has 

conceded in other litigation, that the only method to effect service of process on Venezuela is 

through the Secretary of State. See Lovati v. Bolivarian Rep. of Venezuela, No. 1:19-cv-04796 

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2020), ECF No. 44, at 17 (“The only method of service currently available 

against the Republic is set forth in § 1608(a)(4), which allows for service through diplomatic 

channels.”). Effectuating service of process through the Secretary of State could take up to four 

months. See e.g., Pharo Gaia Fund et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 20-cv-8497 

(S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2021), ECF No. 26, at 2 (effecting service on Venezuela “took nearly four 

months”); Chickpen, S.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 21-cv-597 (AT) 

(S.D.N.Y. August 31, 2021) (service “took nearly three months”). Casa Express will serve notice 

to Venezuela after this proceedings supplementary have commenced and the third party defendants 

have been impleaded. 

3 “No attachment or execution [under the FSIA] shall be permitted until the court has ordered 

such attachment and execution after having determined that a reasonable period of time has elapsed 

following the entry of judgment[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 3 of 29
4

Express Trust v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:18-cv-11940-AT (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 

16, 2020, D.E. 96); Ex. A, at Ex. 2. 

3. On August 27, 2021, Casa Express registered the Judgment in this District pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, and it may now be enforced as if it were rendered in this District. See ECF 

No. 1.

4. The amount of $43,315,535.20, plus $27,330.32 in post-judgment interest, remains 

due and owing from the Judgment. Ex. A, at ¶ 7.

Corrupt Practices In Venezuela

5. For years, many officials and insiders of the Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro 

regimes have enriched themselves by engaging in illicit and corrupt schemes that have depleted 

the country’s national resources at the expense of the Venezuelan people. Ex. A, at ¶ 10.

6. One of those schemes involved the misappropriation of Venezuelan funds through 

the conversion of Venezuelan bolivars to American dollars. Id., at ¶ 11.

Venezuela’s Foreign Currency Exchange

7. The Oficina Nacional del Tesoro (“ONT”) is the Venezuelan National Treasury, 

which is responsible for managing the country’s public funds and finances. See U.S. Department 

of the Treasury, January 8, 2019, OFAC Press Release, http://home.treasury.gov/news/pressreleases/sm583 (last accessed, September 10, 2021) attached as Exhibit B; see also Alejandro 

Andrade Cedeno Factual Proffer4, attached as Exhibit C, at ¶ 2 (hereinafter “Andrade Proffer”). 

4 Factual Proffers are admissible in civil actions. See e.g., F.T.C. v. 1st Guar. Mortg. Corp., 

No. 09-CV-61840, 2011 WL 1233207, at *15, n. 144 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2011) (providing that the 

“factual statements in [the] Factual Proffer, [were admissible] for purposes of this civil action.”). 

In addition, this Court may take judicial notice of Factual Proffers. See Phillips v. City of W. Palm 

Beach, No. 18-CV-80172, 2018 WL 3586179, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2018) (taking judicial 

notice of factual proffer “[b]ecause the Factual Proffer [was] both authentic and relevant to 

Plaintiff's claim”).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 4 of 29
5

8. To meet obligations in bolivars, Venezuela’s official currency, the ONT sold

Venezuelan bonds from its portfolio that were denominated in U.S. dollars and other foreign 

currencies. Ex. B; Andrade Proffer, at ¶ 5. 

9. The Venezuelan National Treasurer would then decide whether the proceeds 

generated from the bond sales would be exchanged to bolivars at the Venezuelan National Bank

or at “casas de bolsa” (brokerage firms) at the preferential government exchange rate. Ex. B; 

Andrade Proffer, at ¶¶ 5-6. 

10. The casas de bolsa had access to the parallel “black market” rate, which provided 

for a much higher exchange rate than the preferential government rate, allowing the exchanges to 

sell the preferential dollars at the higher rate and retain massive profits from the spread. Ex. B. 

11. Notably, only ONT-approved casas de bolsa had the ability to conduct bolivar-todollar exchanges with the government of Venezuela. Id.

12. Gorrin controlled one of the few casas de bolsa, which were ONT-approved. Id. 

Gorrin Misappropriates Venezuelan Funds With Andrade’s Assistance Through An Illicit 

Foreign Currency Exchange Scheme

13. From 2008 through 2017, Gorrin paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to 

Andrade, who served as the Venezuelan National Treasurer from 2007 until approximately 2011, 

to secure the rights to illegally conduct foreign currency exchange transactions for the Venezuelan 

government. Id. 

14. As the Venezuelan National Treasurer, Andrade had a confidential relationship 

with Venezuela, which charged him with fiduciary obligations to oversee the management of 

sovereign funds deposited in ONT accounts. See Ley Organica de la Administracion Financiera 

del Sector Publico Sobre el Sistema de Tesoreria (Organic Law of the Financial Administration in 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 5 of 29
6

the Public Sector Over the Treasury System), as published in Official Gazette of the Bolivarian 

Republic of Venezuela No. 38.433, at Article 10(5), (12). 

15. In breach of his fiduciary duties, Andrade accepted “over $1 billion dollars” in 

bribes, and permitted Gorrin (and other regime insiders) to misappropriate billions of dollars from 

Venezuela. Id. (emphasis added); see also U.S. Department of Justice, November 20, 2018, Press 

Release, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/venezuelan-billionaire-news-network-owner-formervenezuelan-national-treasurer-and-former (last accessed, September 10, 2021), attached as 

Exhibit D. Through this scheme, Andrade and Gorrin were unjustly enriched at the expense of 

Venezuela and the Venezuelan people. Ex. B. 

16. The United States government prosecuted Andrade for his involvement in the 

foreign currency scheme, to which he pleaded guilty, and is currently serving a ten-year prison 

sentence. U.S. Department of Justice, November 27, 2018, Press Release, 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-venezuelan-national-treasurer-sentenced-10-years-prisonmoney-laundering-conspiracy (last accessed, September 10, 2021), attached as Exhibit E.

17. In 2010, Gorrin and his associate Gabriel Arturo Jimenez Aray (“Jimenez”)

acquired Banco Peravia, a financial institution in the Dominican Republic, to more discreetly 

launder the misappropriated Venezuelan funds and to facilitate bribe payments to government 

officials, such as Andrade. Ex. D; Jimenez Factual Proffer, at ¶ 1 attached as Exhibit F 

(hereinafter “Jimenez Proffer”). 

18. The United States government prosecuted Jimenez for his involvement in the 

above-scheme, to which he pleaded guilty, and is currently serving a three-year prison sentence. 

U.S. Department of Justice, November 29, 2018, Press Release, 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-owner-dominican-republic-bank-sentenced-three-yearsCase 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 6 of 29
7

prison-money-laundering-conspiracy#:~:text=%Gabriel%20Arturo%20Jimenez%20Aray-%20-

Jimenez,the%20Southern-%20District%20of%20Florida (last accessed, September 10, 2021), 

attached as Exhibit G.

19. When Andrade stepped down as National Treasurer, he introduced Gorrin to his 

successor, Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen (“Diaz”), to ensure that the illicit foreign currency 

exchange scheme continued, undeterred. Ex. B. Gorrin started to pay bribes to Diaz (through her 

husband), continued paying bribes to Andrade for the introduction, and continued 

misappropriating Venezuelan funds with impunity. Id.; see also U.S. Department of Justice, 

December 16, 2020, Press Release, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-venezuelan-nationaltreasurer-and-her-spouse-charged-connection-international-bribery (last accessed, September 10, 

2021), attached as Exhibit H. 

20. The United States government federally indicted Diaz and her husband in the 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida for their participation in the above scheme. See 

Ex. H; see also Superseding Indictment attached as Exhibit I. Diaz and her husband are currently 

under house arrest in Spain. Ex. B; Ex. H. 

21. In total, this illicit foreign currency exchange scheme generated “more than $2.4 

billion in corrupt proceeds,” which resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit to Gorrin. 

Ex. B; Ex. I, at ¶ 10. 

Gorrin Invested The Misappropriated Venezuelan Funds In Real Properties Through Shell 

Entities To Obfuscate His Beneficial Ownership Of The Assets

22. On January 8, 2019, OFAC designated Gorrin on the Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List for his role in the illicit foreign currency exchange scheme. 

Id.; see also U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC Press Release Chart, 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 7 of 29
8

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/gorrin_network_chart_20190108.pdf, attached as 

Exhibit J. 

23. In its designation, OFAC made the factual finding that Gorrin invested the 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds in “domestic and international property” through a network of 

corporate entities and structures in order to obfuscate the beneficial ownership of the assets. Ex. 

B; Ex. I. 

24. Specifically, OFAC designated the following entities (among others) as 

beneficiaries of the misappropriated Venezuelan funds:

• RIM Group Investments Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by OFAC 

because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife. 

• RIM Group Investments I Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by OFAC 

because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife.

• RIM Group Investments II Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by OFAC 

because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife.

• RIM Group Investments III Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by 

OFAC because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife.

• Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., a Delaware entity, which was designated by OFAC because 

it is owned or controlled by Gorrin.

• Planet 2 Reaching Inc., a Delaware entity, which was designated by OFAC because 

it is owned or controlled by Gorrin. 

Ex. B. 

25. Through an independent investigation conducted by Certified Fraud Examiner and 

Certified Forensic Interviewer, Nelson Luis, Casa Express was able to establish that the OFACCase 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 8 of 29
9

designated entities did acquire real properties in Florida since 2008. See Declaration of Judgment 

Creditor’s Expert, Nelson Luis, attached hereto as Exhibit K, at ¶ 28 (hereinafter “Luis Decl.”).

26. The OFAC-designated entities continue to hold title to the following real properties 

located in Florida:

• 144 Isla Dorada Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33143;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 1010, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 608, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 807, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 813, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 913, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 18555 Collins Avenue, Unit 4401, Sunny lsles Beach, Florida 33160; and

• 7043 Fisher Island Dr., Unit 7043, Fisher Island, Florida 33109. 

Id.

27. On August 16, 2018, Gorrin was federally indicted in the Southern District of 

Florida, and a Superseding Indictment was issued on December 15, 2020, for his participation in 

the illicit and corrupt foreign currency exchange scheme. See Ex. I. 

28. The Superseding Indictment lists several “substitute” real properties5 as “derived 

from proceeds traceable to [the] offense” including:

• 140 Paloma Drive, Coral Gables, Florida 33143 (“140 Paloma Drive”);

5 The government’s interest in the real properties does not vest “until there is a forfeiture 

decree.” United States v. Parcel of Land, Bldgs., Appurtenances & Improvements, Known as 92 

Buena Vista Ave., Rumson, N.J., 507 U.S. 111, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1126, 1129, 122 L. Ed. 2d 469 

(1993). There is no forfeiture decree on these real properties, and Gorrin has been placed in 

fugitive status by the government. See U.S. v. Raul Gorrin Belisario, Case No. 18-80160-WPD-1 

[ECF No. 48].

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 9 of 29
10

• 144 Isla Dorada Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33143;

• 18555 Collins Avenue, Unit 4401, Sunny lsles Beach, Florida 33160;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 804, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 1010, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 608, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 807, Coral Gables, Florida 33146;

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 813, Coral Gables, Florida 33146; and

• 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 913, Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

Id., p. 18-19. 

29. Despite 140 Paloma Drive being the first property listed in Gorrin’s Superseding 

Indictment, Gorrin’s brother-in-law and business partner, Gustavo Adolfo Perdomo Rosales 

(“Perdomo”), sold the property on March 12, 2021, for $3.6 million. See Warranty Deed and 

Screenshot from Miami-Dade’s public records, attached as Composite Exhibit L; see also Luis 

Decl., at ¶ 29.

30. All of the above-mentioned real properties were purchased with funds that were 

misappropriated from, and belong to, Venezuela. Luis Decl., at ¶ 27; Ex. J; Ex. B; Ex. D.

31. Casa Express, as a Judgment Creditor of Venezuela, is entitled to execute against 

these properties in partial satisfaction of its Judgment. Ex. A, at ¶¶ 8, 12-22. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Under Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, post-judgment execution 

proceedings “must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal 

statute governs to the extent it applies.” F.R.C.P. § 69(a)(1). The FSIA provides the federal 

statutory procedure for the enforcement of judgments against foreign states, such as Venezuela. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 10 of 29
11

Specifically, Section 1610(c) of the FSIA provides that “[n]o attachment or execution . . . shall be 

permitted until the court has determined that a reasonable period of time has elapsed following the 

entry of judgment[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c). 

In compliance with the FSIA requirements, Casa Express obtained an order from the 

rendering court holding that a “reasonable period of time” has elapsed since the entry of the 

Judgment, and authorizing Casa Express to initiate its post-judgment proceedings against 

Venezuela. Ex. A, at Ex. 2. 

Section 1610(a)(1) of the FSIA provides that the following property of a foreign state is 

not immune from execution:

(a) The property in the United States of a foreign state, as defined 

in section 1603(a) of this chapter, used for a commercial activity

in the United States, shall not be immune from attachment in aid of 

execution, or from execution, upon a judgment entered by a court of 

the United States or of a State after the effective date of this Act, if-

-

(1) the foreign state has waived its immunity from attachment in aid 

of execution or from execution either explicitly or by implication,

notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver the foreign state may 

purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver.

28 U.S.C. § 1610(a)(1) (emphasis added). As more thoroughly explained below, execution 

pursuant to Section 1610(a) is proper because Venezuela waived its sovereign immunity, and Casa 

Express is seeking to execute its Judgment against Venezuela’s “property in the United States” 

that is “used for a commercial activity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a). Additionally, Florida law allows a 

judgment creditor to execute its unsatisfied judgment against “any property of the judgment debtor 

not exempt from execution in the hands of any person[.]” Fla. Stat. § 56.29 (emphasis added).

I. The real properties are property of Venezuela located in the United States.

Casa Express seeks to execute its Judgment against eight real properties located in Florida 

that were purchased with misappropriated Venezuelan funds by OFAC-designated Gorrin. Since 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 11 of 29
12

the term “property” is not defined under the FSIA, federal courts must look at state law to 

determine what type of property interest the judgment creditor has the ability to execute against. 

See, e.g., Calderon-Cardona v. Bank of New York Mellon, 770 F.3d 993, 1001 (2d Cir. 2014) 

(explaining that courts “must look to state law to define the rights the [judgment debtor] has in the 

property the [creditor] seeks to reach” because of the absence “of any definition of property rights 

[in the FSIA]”) (internal quotations omitted).

Under Florida law, the well-recognized constructive trust doctrine allows the rightful 

owner of misappropriated funds to trace “the proceeds of such property and to whatever has been 

bought with the proceeds if it is capable of being substantially identified as having been acquired 

with the misappropriated property or funds.” Republic of Haiti v. Crown Charters, Inc., 667 F. 

Supp. 839, 843 (Fla. S.D. 1987) (applying Florida law). Florida courts routinely impose 

constructive trusts over real properties that were purchased with misappropriated funds. See, e.g.,

In re Fin. Federated Title & Tr., Inc., 347 F.3d 880, 891 (11th Cir. 2003) (imposing constructive 

trust where creditor could “directly or indirectly” trace fraudulent funds to the purchase of the 

property) (applying Florida law); see also Joseph v. Chanin, 940 So.2d 483, 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2006) (“A constructive trust is an equitable remedy available in a situation where there is a 

wrongful taking of the property of another”) (internal quotations omitted). 

The necessary elements for an imposition of a constructive trust are “(1) a promise, express 

or implied, (2) transfer of the property and reliance thereon, (3) a confidential relationship and (4) 

unjust enrichment.” Little v. White Diamond Int’l, LLC, No. 10-60109, 2010 WL 11602166, at *4 

(S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2010) (quoting Ben-Yishay v. Mastercraft Dev. LLC, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 

1372 (S.D. Fla. 2008)); see also Republic of Haiti, 667 F. Supp. at 843 (holding that “[t]he 

imposition of a constructive trust is an appropriate remedy for breach of fiduciary duty”).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 12 of 29
13

In this case, Andrade made an express promise, as the National Treasurer of Venezuela, to 

manage the ONT, which is charged with the fiduciary responsibility to administer Venezuelan 

funds deposited in ONT accounts. See Ley Organica de la Administracion Financiera del Sector 

Publico Sobre el Sistema de Tesoreria (Organic Law of the Financial Administration in the Public 

Sector Over the Treasury System), as published in Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of 

Venezuela No. 38.433, at Article 10(5), (12); Ex. B; Andrade Proffer, at ¶ 4-6. 

Moreover, Venezuela entrusted Andrade with the management of public funds in reliance 

of his express promise when he was appointed as National Treasurer. Ex. B.; Andrade Proffer, at

¶ 3. Andrade and Venezuela were in a confidential relationship because he acted as “an official 

of the government and a department and agency of the Venezuelan government.” Andrade Proffer, 

at ¶ 3. In breach of his express promise, and fiduciary obligations, Andrade accepted “over 1 

billion dollars” in bribes from Gorrin (and other regime insiders), which permitted them to 

misappropriate Venezuelan funds at the government preferential rate with impunity. Ex. B; Ex. 

E; Andrade Proffer, at ¶ 7. Through this scheme, Gorrin and Andrade were unjustly enriched at 

the expense of Venezuela. Ex. B.

In addition, Gorrin is charged as a trustee ex maleficio because he obtained Venezuelan 

funds with actual knowledge that a breach of trust was being committed by Andrade. See Republic 

of Haiti, 667 F. Supp. at 844 (“[U]nder Florida law, ‘one who takes or purchases trust property 

with knowledge of the trust, stands in the place of his grantor and is himself chargeable with the 

trust or, as sometimes expressed, is accountable as trustee ex maleficio.’”) (quoting Connelly v. 

Fla. Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville, 120 So.2d 647, 650 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1960)). Gorrin is also 

accountable for wrongfully participating in Andrade’s breach of trust because he committed an 

overt act in furtherance of the breach of trust (i.e., the bribe payments), with knowledge that a 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 13 of 29
14

breach of trust was being committed. Centrust Sav. Bank v. Barnett Banks Trust Co., N.A., 483 

So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (“The wrong of [sic] participation in a breach of trust has two 

elements: (1) An act or omission which furthers or completes the breach of trust by the trustee; 

and (2) knowledge at the time that a breach of trust was occurring or the legal equivalent of such 

knowledge.”). 

 Accordingly, Casa Express has established all the necessary elements for the imposition 

of a constructive trust, and the Court should impose a constructive trust in favor of Venezuela over 

the real properties as long as they are “directly or indirectly” traceable to the misappropriated 

funds. In re Fin. Federated Title, 347 F.3d at 891. 

a. Gorrin misappropriated hundreds of millions of dollars from Venezuela through an 

illicit and corrupt foreign currency exchange scheme. 

From 2008 through 2017, Gorrin paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to two 

consecutive National Treasurers to secure the rights to illegally conduct foreign currency exchange 

transactions for the Venezuelan government. Ex. B. On January 8, 2019, OFAC formally 

designated Gorrin and made the following factual findings, which are admissible and relevant to 

Judgment Creditor’s request herein, and which federal courts afford extreme deference to:

Treasury Targets Venezuela Currency Exchange 

Network Scheme Generating Billions of Dollars for 

Corrupt Regime Insiders

01/08/19

Action continues to expose endemic corruption at the highest levels of the Venezuelan government 

as it prepares for Nicolas Maduro’s illegitimate inauguration

Washington– Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(OFAC) sanctioned Venezuelan individuals and companies involved in a significant corruption 

scheme designed to take advantage of the Government of Venezuela’s currency exchange

practices, generating more than $2.4 billion in corrupt proceeds. This designation, pursuant to 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, targets seven individuals, including former Venezuelan National 

Treasurer Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen (Diaz) and Raul Antonio Gorrin Belisario (Gorrin), who 

bribed the Venezuelan Office of the National Treasury (ONT, or Oficina Nacional del Tesoro) in 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 14 of 29
15

order to conduct illicit foreign exchange operations in Venezuela. In addition to Diaz and Gorrin, 

OFAC designated or blocked five other individuals and 23 entities, pursuant to E.O. 13850, for 

their roles in the bribery scheme, and identified one private aircraft as blocked property. 

“Venezuelan regime insiders have plundered billions of dollars from Venezuela while the 

Venezuelan people suffer. Treasury is targeting this currency exchange network which was 

another illicit scheme that the Venezuelan regime had long used to steal from its people,” said 

Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin. “Our actions against this corrupt currency exchange 

network expose yet another deplorable practice that Venezuela regime insiders have used to 

benefit themselves at the expense of the Venezuelan people. The United States remains 

committed to holding accountable those responsible for Venezuela’s tragic decline, and will 

continue to use diplomatic and economic tools to support the Venezuelan people’s efforts to restore 

their democracy.” 

THE INNER WORKINGS OF A CORRUPT SYSTEM

Today’s designations target individuals who took advantage of a corrupt system within the 

Venezuelan ONT, stealing billions of dollars from the Venezuelan people since 2008, under the 

watch of two Venezuelan National Treasurers, Alejandro Jose Andrade Cedeno (Andrade) and 

Diaz. Andrade was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida on November 27, 2018, to 10 years in prison for accepting over $1 billion in bribesfor 

his role in the below scheme. 

The primary responsibility of the ONT is to manage the public finances of the Government of 

Venezuela using bolivars, the Venezuelan currency. The ONT maintains assets in UK bonds, 

U.S. dollars, and bolivars, the sum total of which equal the amount that the ONT has available to 

spend on Venezuelan government operations. When lacking sufficient bolivars for government 

projects, Andrade used a series of exchange houses, or casas de bolsa, to exchange dollars for 

bolivars. As part of the scheme, exchange houses sold dollars for bolivars on parallel markets at a 

higher, black market exchange rate than the official government rate. These exchange houses kept 

the difference between the black market rate and the official government rate, resulting in massive 

profits for exchange houses providing bolivars to the ONT. Only exchange houses approved 

by the Government of Venezuela, specifically the ONT, had the ability to conduct bolivarto-dollar exchanges with the Government of Venezuela. As the National Treasurer, 

Andrade and later Diaz had the authority to decide which exchange houses received 

government contracts. 

THE NETWORK THAT RIGGED THE SYSTEM

The below former Government of Venezuela officials and individuals enriched themselves by 

capitalizing on favorable foreign exchange transactions through casas de bolsa, concealing their 

profits in European and U.S. bank accounts and investments. Both Andrade and Diaz, while 

occupying the role of National Treasurer, used their official positions to give Gorrin, a 

prominent Venezuelan businessman, access to the ONT’s preferred exchange rates to 

maximize profits on currency transactions moving through the casas de bolsa, which 

Gorrin, amongst a select few others that were approved by the ONT, controlled. While 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 15 of 29
16

Andrade was National Treasurer, he awarded the ONT exchange business to a limited 

number of individuals, including Gorrin and Leonardo Gonzalez Dellan (Gonzalez). 

In return for their selection as the only currency exchange houses approved by the ONT, Gorrin 

and Gonzalez, another Venezuelan businessman, paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to 

Andrade. Andrade facilitated the continuation of the bribery scheme by introducing Gorrin to 

Andrade’s successor, Diaz, when he left the ONT. Gorrin compensated Andrade forintroducing 

him to Diaz, and as a result, allowed the bribery scheme to continue, undeterred. From at least 

2011 to 2013, Gorrin paid bribes to Diaz, wiring money to her and her husband, Adrian Jose 

Velasquez Figueroa (Velasquez), and purchasing assets on their behalf, to include a residence in 

Cap Cana, Dominican Republic, and an aircraft. 

Gorrin and Gonzalez controlled the corrupt wealth that was generated on Andrade’s behalf, 

holding the money in offshore bank accounts and reinvesting in properties, aircraft, and other 

luxury assets at the direction of Andrade. Andrade’s portion of the illicit profits were never sent 

directly to Andrade; instead these individuals would purchase assets for Andrade, at his direction, 

or on his behalf. Gorrin, Gonzalez, and Gorrin’s brother-in-law and business partner, 

Gustavo Adolfo Perdomo Rosales (Perdomo), purchased assets and paid expenses for 

Andrade related to numerous aircraft and yachts, properties in the United States and 

abroad, multiple championship horses, and numerous high-end watches. The purchase of 

all of these goods and wiring of payments was hidden behind a sophisticated network of 

U.S. and foreign companies that hid the individuals’ beneficial ownership. All individuals 

involved in the scheme spenttheir portions of the resulting profits on properties in the United States 

as well as through maintaining significant accounts in U.S. banks, and purchasing boats and planes 

that were registered in the United States. Gorrin later mimicked this structure in controlling Diaz’s 

assets generated as a result of the currency exchange scheme. 

The seven individuals designated today have been determined to be responsible for or complicit 

in, or have directly or indirectly engaged in, any transaction or series of transactions involving 

deceptive practices and corruption and the Government of Venezuela or projects or programs 

administered by the Government of Venezuela, or are immediate family members of such a 

person who held properties or owned or controlled companies on that person’s behalf. These 

individuals are listed below:

• Raul Gorrin Belisario was indicted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of Florida in August 2018 for conspiring to violate the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act, and for conspiring to bribe Venezuelan officials and commit 

money laundering by hiding embezzled government funds, totaling more than 

$1 billion, in Florida and New York. Gorrin was also being investigated for 

misappropriating billions of dollars from Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, 

Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). Gorrin is also thought to have paid several 

officials to have access to Venezuelan politicians and government officials, and 

was believed to hold funds on behalf of these individuals in the same way he held 

funds for Andrade. These individuals include, but are not limited to, Elvis Eduardo 

Hidrobo Amoroso, who was designated by OFAC on November 9, 2017, and 

Maikel Jose Moreno Perez, a close friend of Gorrin, who was designated by OFAC 

on May 18, 2017 pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13692. Gorrin also purchased 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 16 of 29
17

gifts for Cilia Adela Flores de Maduro, the First Lady of Venezuela, who was 

designated by OFAC on September 25, 2018 pursuant to E.O. 13692.

• Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen is the former head of the ONT, serving as the 

National Treasurer between 2011 and 2013. In her role as the National Treasurer, 

Diaz accepted bribes from Gorrin directly, as well as through her husband, Adrian 

Jose Velasquez Figueroa (Velasquez), in return for permitting Gorrin to be the one 

of the select casas de bolsa for the Government of Venezuela. Gorrin held and 

purchased assets for Diaz and Velasquez in the same way he did for Andrade, to 

include a property in Cap Cana, Dominican Republic, aircraft, and yachts, 

obfuscating ownership of these assets through another individual to hide the 

ultimate ownership by Diaz and Velasquez. She, along with Velasquez, is currently 

under house arrest in Spain.

• Adrian Jose Velasquez Figueroa received bribes from Gorrin on behalf of his 

wife, Diaz, as part of the scheme to ensure Gorrin’s selection as one of the casas de 

bolsa for the Government of Venezuela. Gorrin held and purchased assets for Diaz 

and Velasquez in the same way he did for Andrade, to include a property in Cap 

Cana, Dominican Republic, aircraft, and yachts, obfuscating ownership of these 

assets through another individual to hide the ultimate ownership by Diaz and 

Velasquez. He, along with Diaz, is currently under house arrest in Spain. 

* * *

• Gustavo Adolfo Perdomo Rosales is the brother-in-law and a business partner of 

Gorrin. As Gorrin’s business partner, Perdomo — on Gorrin’s instruction — made 

wire transfers and held property on behalf of Andrade. Additionally, Perdomo 

beneficially owns an aircraft that Andrade would use, N133JA.

• Maria Alexandra Perdomo Rosales (Maria Alexandra) is the wife of Gorrin, 

and owns or controls, along with Gorrin, several of the companies used to hold 

property in the United States.

• Mayela Antonina Tarascio-Perez (Mayela Antonina) is the wife of Perdomo, 

and owns or controls, along with Perdomo, a company used to hold property in the 

United States.

Id. (emphasis added). As mentioned, these OFAC factual findings, which establish the 

misappropriation of Venezuelan funds, are afforded extreme deference under federal law. See 

Stansell, Case No. 10-mc-22724-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019, D.E. 22) (issuing writs of 

garnishment and execution “[b]ased upon the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign 

Assets Control [] factual findings . . . .”); Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 

734 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that courts are “extremely deferential” to OFAC designations because 

OFAC operates “in an area at the intersection of national security, foreign policy, and 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 17 of 29
18

administrative law”); Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 609 F.3d 43, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (stating 

that an OFAC designation is a “factual finding”); De Cuelar v. Brady, 881 F.2d 1561, 1565 (11th

Cir. 1989) (“The decision of the OFAC is entitled to great deference, and should be reversed only 

if arbitrary or capricious.”); Paradissiotis v. Rubin, 171 F.3d 983, 987 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that 

OFAC’s designation of a specially designated national, as “an agency’s application of its own 

regulations, receives an even greater degree of deference than the Chevron standard, and must 

prevail unless plainly inconsistent with the regulation”).

b. The misappropriated Venezuelan funds were invested in real properties located in 

Florida. 

OFAC also made the factual finding that the “billions of dollars” in proceeds from the 

corrupt foreign currency exchange scheme were invested in “domestic and international property” 

through a network of corporate entities and structures meant to obfuscate Gorrin’s beneficial 

ownership of the assets. Ex. B; Ex. I. Specifically, OFAC designated the following entities 

(among others) as the beneficiaries of the misappropriated funds: 

• RIM Group Investments Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by 

OFAC because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife;

• RIM Group Investments I Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by 

OFAC because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife;

• RIM Group Investments II Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by 

OFAC because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife;

• RIM Group Investments III Corp., a Florida entity which was designated by 

OFAC because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin, and his wife;

• Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., a Delaware entity, which was designated by OFAC 

because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin; and

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 18 of 29
19

• Planet 2 Reaching Inc., a Delaware entity, which was designated by OFAC 

because it is owned or controlled by Gorrin. 

Ex. B. Through the independent investigation conducted by Mr. Luis, Casa Express was able to 

establish that the OFAC-designated entities did acquire the following real properties in Florida 

since 2008: 

1. 144 Isla Dorada Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33143. Purchased on October 

21, 2009, by OFAC-designated entity RIM Group Investments III Corp. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Lot 8, Block 20, of COCOPLUM SECTION TWO, Plat E, 

according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 131, Page 

76, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

See Warranty Deed attached as Exhibit M.

2. 18555 Collins Avenue, Unit 4401, Sunny lsles Beach, Florida 33160. Purchased on 

November 29, 2009, by OFAC-designated entity Posh 8 Dynamic Inc. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Unit 4401 of 18555 Collins Avenue Condominium, a 

Condominium according to the Declaration of Condominium 

thereof, recorded in Official Records Book 28399, Page 2439, of 

the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and all 

amendments thereto, together with its undivided share in the 

common elements. 

See Special Warranty Deed attached as Exhibit N.

3. 7043 Fisher Island Dr., Unit 7043, Fisher Island, Florida 33109.

6

 Purchased on 

November 8, 2016, by OFAC-designated entity Planet 2 Reaching Inc. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

6 This property is the only real property not listed in Gorrin’s Superseding Indictment. See

Ex. I. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 19 of 29
20

Unit 7043, PALAZZO DEL SOL / DELLA LUNA AT FISHER 

ISLAND, A CONDOMINIUM, together with an interest in the 

limited common elements and common elements appurtenant 

thereto, according to the Declaration of Condominium for 

Palazzo del Sol / della Luna at Fisher Island, a Condominium, 

as recorded on December 30, 2015, in Official Records Book 

29908, Page 447, as amended from time to time, of the Public 

Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

See Special Warranty Deed attached as Exhibit O, at Ex. A.

4. 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 1010, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. Purchased on October 

29, 2008, by OFAC-designated entity RIM Group Investments Corp. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Condominium Unit No. 1010 of ONE VILLAGE PLACE, A 

CONDOMINIUM, according to the Declaration of 

Condominium thereof, recorded in Official Records Book 

26306, at Page 2098, of common elements appurtenant thereto. 

Master Folio Numbers #03-412 0017 0330; 03 412 0017 0340; 

and 03 412 0017 0380.

Ex. P.

5. 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 608, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. Purchased on 

December 19, 2014, by OFAC-designated entity RIM Group Investments I, Corp. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Unit No. 608 of ONE VILLAGE PLACE, A CONDOMINIUM, 

according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof, recorded 

in Official Records Book 26306, at Page 2098, and all exhibits 

and amendments thereof, Public Records of Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

Ex. Q.

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 20 of 29
21

6. 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 807, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. Purchased on April 2, 

2010, by OFAC-designated entity RIM Group Investments I, Corp. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Unit No. 807, ONE VILLAGE PLACE, A CONDOMINIUM, 

according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof, as 

recorded in Official Records Book 26306, at page 2098, of the 

Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, together with 

an undivided share in the common elements appurtenant 

thereto. 

Ex. R.

7. 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 813, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. Purchased on 

December 19, 2014, by OFAC-designated RIM Group Investments II Corp. with 

misappropriated Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Unit No. 813, of ONE VILLAGE PLACE, a Condominium, 

according to The Declaration of Condominium recorded in 

Official Records Book 26306, at Page 2098, and all exhibits and 

amendments thereof, Public Records of Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. 

Ex. S.

8. 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 913, Coral Gables, Florida 33146 – Purchased on April 2, 

2010, by OFAC-designated RIM Group Investments II Corp. with misappropriated 

Venezuelan funds, and is legally described as:

Unit No. 913, ONE VILLAGE PLACE, a Condominium, 

according to The Declaration of Condominium thereof, as 

recorded in Official Records Book 26306, at page 2098, of the 

Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, together with 

an undivided share in the common elements appurtenant 

thereto. 

Ex. T.

See Luis Decl., at ¶ 28.

Relying on OFAC’s factual findings, and the results from the independent investigation, 

Mr. Luis opined that the real properties “were acquired using misappropriated Venezuelan 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 21 of 29
22

funds.” Id., at ¶ 27. Mr. Luis’ expert opinion is consistent with the demonstrative chart published 

by OFAC, which portrays the bribery scheme and the manner in which the misappropriated funds 

were invested in “properties and assets” located in the U.S. Ex. J. His opinion is also consistent 

with the allegations from Gorrin’s Superseding Indictment describing the real properties as 

“substitute property” that are “derived from proceeds traceable to [the illicit bribery scheme].” See 

Ex. I, p. 17-18. Since the real properties were purchased from 2008 till 2016, Mr. Luis’ opinion 

is also consistent with OFAC’s factual finding that Gorrin began investing the misappropriated 

funds in real properties starting in 2008. See Ex. B (“From the beginning of the scheme in 2008

to present day [2019], the billions of dollars’ worth of corrupt proceeds generated through this 

scheme were invested in domestic and international property”).

Thus, Casa Express has presented substantial competent evidence, expert testimony, two 

factual proffers, OFAC-factual findings, and a demonstrative chart establishing that the 

misappropriated funds are traceable to the real properties. Therefore, this Court should find that 

the properties are subject to a constructive trust in favor of Venezuela. See In re Lee, 574 B.R. 

286, 295–96 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Lee v. Wiand, 603 B.R. 161 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

(“Tracing does not require that each dollar be specifically accounted for at all points in time”) 

(applying Florida law); see also In re Fin. Federated Title, 347 F.3d at 891 (imposing constructive 

trust where creditor could “directly or indirectly” trace fraudulent funds to the purchase of the 

property) (applying Florida law).

II. The real properties are used for a commercial activity as defined by the FSIA.

It is undisputed that a foreign sovereign is “absolutely immune” from the jurisdiction of 

foreign courts for its sovereign and public acts. See Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations 

Law of the United States § 451 (1987). However, “[a] foreign state loses its immunity if it engages 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 22 of 29
23

in commercial activity . . . because then it is exercising the same powers that 

a private citizen might exercise.” Honduras Aircraft Registry, Ltd. v. Gov't of Honduras, 129 F.3d 

543, 548 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 614, 112 

S. Ct. 2160, 2166, 119 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1992)) (emphasis added); see also Devengoechea v. 

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 889 F.3d 1213, 1221 (11th Cir. 2018) (providing that, under the 

FSIA, “a foreign state engaging in commercial activities does not exercise powers peculiar to 

sovereigns; rather, it exercises only those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens”) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

In this case, the real properties were not being used for consular or embassy purposes, 

which are recognized sovereign activities. See, e.g., S & S Mach. Co. v. Masinexportimport, 802 

F. Supp. 1109, 1112 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (“[I]t is axiomatic that only a sovereign can operate a 

Consulate and undertake the activities for which such a building is used.”). To the contrary, the 

real properties at issue were purchased by private citizens (through shell entities) for the benefit 

of private citizens. There is nothing peculiarly sovereign about such ownership. 

Accordingly, the real properties are used for a commercial activity as defined by the FSIA. 

III. Venezuela has waived sovereign immunity from execution under the FSIA. 

Lastly, Venezuela unequivocally and irrevocably waived sovereign immunity from 

execution in the Fiscal Agency Agreements (the “FAA”), which govern the underlying debt 

securities that form the basis of the Judgment. See Ex. U (1998 FAA); Ex. V (2001 FAA). 

Specifically, Section 14(d) of the FAA, provides:

To the extent that the Issuer [Venezuela] ... shall be entitled, ... with 

respect to any suit, action or proceeding at any time brought solely 

for the purpose of enforcing or executing any Related Judgment in 

any jurisdiction in which any Specified Court or Other Court is 

located, to any immunity from suit, from the jurisdiction of any such 

court, from attachment prior to judgment, from attachment in aid of 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 23 of 29
24

execution of judgment, from execution of a judgment or from any 

other legal or judicial process or remedy, and to the extent that in 

any such jurisdiction there shall be attributed such an immunity, the 

Issuer irrevocably agrees not to claim and irrevocably waives 

such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such 

jurisdiction (including, without limitation, the Foreign 

Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 of the United States) ....

Ex. U § 14(d) (1998 FAA) (emphasis added); Ex. V § 14(d) (2001 FAA). Casa Express seeks to 

execute a “Related Judgment,” as defined by the FAA, because the Judgment “[was] obtained in 

[a] Specified Court7 [in an action] arising out of a[] Related Proceeding8[.]” E.g., Ex. V § 14(A) 

(2001 FAA). Additionally, this Court is an “Other Court,” as defined by the FAA, because it is a 

court with “competent jurisdiction” to enforce or execute the Judgment. Id. As such, Venezuela 

has explicitly waived sovereign immunity in this execution action. See EM Ltd. v. Republic of 

Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 203 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding that Argentina waived sovereign 

immunity using similar language in bond indenture agreements).

Accordingly, the real properties are subject to execution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) 

of the FSIA, and the execution should be conducted in compliance with the procedures provided 

by Florida’s post-judgment statutes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a).

IV. Florida’s proceedings supplementary statutes allow Casa Express to execute its 

unsatisfied Judgment against non-exempt Venezuelan property in the hands of a 

third party. 

Section 56.29, Florida Statutes, allows judgment creditors like Casa Express that hold 

unsatisfied judgments to execute against “any property of the judgment debtor not exempt from 

7 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is a Specified 

Court under the Fiscal Agency Agreements. See, e.g., Ex. V § 14(A) (2001 FAA).

8 The action styled Casa Express Corp. as Tr. of Casa Express Tr. v. Bolivarian Republic of 

Venezuela, 18 Civ. 11940 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) is a Related Proceeding because it is a “suit, action or 

proceeding against [Venezuela] or its properties, assets or revenues with respect to this Agreement 

[or] any Note or coupon appertaining thereto.” E.g., Ex. V § 14(A) (2001 FAA).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 24 of 29
25

execution in the hands of any person[.]” Fla. Stat. § 56.29 (emphasis added). The proceedings 

supplementary give judgment creditors the ability to “ferret out what assets the judgment debtor 

may have or what property of his others may be holding for him, or may have received from him 

to defeat the collection of the lien or claim, that might be subject to execution.” Uoweit, LLC v. 

Fleming, 300 So.3d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Longo v. Associated Limousine 

Servs., Inc., 236 So.3d 1115, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)). Moreover, proceedings supplementary 

“are equitable in nature and should be liberally construed.” Zureikat v. Shaibani, 944 So.2d 1019, 

1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (internal quotations omitted). 

In compliance with Section 56.29(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, Casa Express filed this 

motion with an accompanying affidavit from its president. See Ex. A. This Court should enter the 

proposed Order attached hereto as Exhibit W, which provides for the commencement of this 

proceeding supplementary, and should issue the attached Notices to Appear directing the 

impleaded defendants to respond to this Motion within 7 business days of service of the Order. 

a. Casa Express does not need to obtain an unsatisfied writ of execution prior to 

commencement of this proceedings supplementary. 

The proceedings supplementary statutes were amended in 2005 to eliminate the 

requirement of obtaining an unsatisfied writ of execution, and to authorize any judgment creditor 

holding an “unsatisfied judgment” to commence supplementary proceedings in aid of execution. 

Compare § 56.29(1), Fla. Stat. (October 1, 2004 Amendment) (“When any person or entity holds 

an unsatisfied execution and has delivered a writ of execution to any sheriff, the plaintiff . . . is 

entitled to these proceedings”) (emphasis added); with § 56.29(1), Fla. Stat. (June 17, 2005 

Amendment) (“When any person or entity holds an unsatisfied judgment . . . the judgment holder 

. . . is entitled to these proceedings supplementary to execution) (emphasis added). 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 25 of 29
26

Despite this, Casa Express is aware of post-amendment jurisprudence from this District 

(applying Florida law) stating that an unsatisfied writ of execution is a prerequisite to a proceedings 

supplementary. See e.g., Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises, 

LLC, No. 17-CV-81140-CIV, 2020 WL 3146502, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2020) (“A party 

bringing a proceeding supplementary to execution must 1) show that he or she possesses an 

unsatisfied writ of execution, and 2) file an affidavit averring that the writ is valid and unsatisfied”) 

(internal quotations omitted). But, as the Northern District of Florida has recognized, those 

holdings are premised on outdated caselaw. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. Wild Bill’s Bingo, Inc., No. 

5:10-CV-64/RS-MD, 2011 WL 13315685, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2011) (explaining that “[t]he 

current version [of the proceedings supplementary statute] is more expansive and allows ‘any 

person or entity [who] holds an unsatisfied judgment’ to act”).

Indeed, Section 56.29(1) does not make any reference to an unsatisfied “writ of execution” 

as a requirement to initiate a proceedings supplementary:

(1) When any judgment creditor holds an unsatisfied judgment

or judgment lien obtained under chapter 55, the judgment creditor 

may file a motion and an affidavit so stating, identifying, if 

applicable, the issuing court, the case number, and the unsatisfied 

amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including accrued costs 

and interest, and stating that the execution is valid and outstanding, 

and thereupon the judgment creditor is entitled to these proceedings 

supplementary to execution.

§ 56.29, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Furthermore, in a case against a foreign sovereign, the court 

must “determine whether the property in question falls within one of the statutory exceptions to 

foreign immunity” prior to issuance of a writ of execution. Connecticut Bank of Com. v. Republic 

of Congo, 309 F.3d 240, 247 (5th Cir. 2002), as amended on denial of reh'g (Aug. 29, 2002).

In an abundance of caution, if this Court finds that an unsatisfied writ of execution is a 

requirement for commencement of proceedings supplementary, Casa Express alternatively 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 26 of 29
27

requests that this Court enter an Order in the form proposed in Exhibit X determining that the real 

properties are (1) subject to a constructive trust in Venezuela; (2) subject to execution by Casa 

Express pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a); (3) issuing the proposed writ of execution against 

Venezuela (Ex. Y) prior to commencement of this proceedings supplementary; and (4) 

commencing this proceedings supplementary after the writ of execution is issued. 

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification

Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) is inapplicable at this time. 

WHEREFORE, Casa Express Corp., as Trustee of Casa Express Trust, requests expedited 

review and relief and that its Motion be granted in either of the following forms:

1. if the Court finds that an unsatisfied writ is necessary for commencement of this 

proceedings supplementary, Casa Express respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order in 

the form proposed by (Ex. X):

a) determining that the real properties are subject to a constructive trust in 

favor of Venezuela;

b) determining that the real properties are not immune from execution pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a);

c) issuing the proposed writ of execution against Venezuela (Ex. W);

d) commencing this proceedings supplementary;

e) issuing the attached Notices to Appear directing the impleaded defendants 

to respond to this Motion within seven (7) business days of service of the 

Order stating why the real properties should not be applied to satisfy the 

judgment; and

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 27 of 29
28

f) taxing attorneys’ fees and costs in relation to this proceeding to the 

Judgment Debtor, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, pursuant to § 

56.29(8), Fla. Stat. 

2. if the Court finds that an unsatisfied writ is not a requirement for commencement 

of a proceedings supplementary, Casa Express respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order 

in the form proposed by (Ex. W):

a) commencing this proceedings supplementary;

b) issuing the attached Notices to Appear directing the impleaded defendants 

to respond to this Motion within seven (7) business days of service of the 

Order stating why the real properties should not be applied to satisfy the 

judgment; and

c) taxing attorneys’ fees and costs in relation to this proceeding to the 

Judgment Debtor, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, pursuant to § 

56.29(8), Fla. Stat. 

Dated: September 10, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

SANCHEZ FISCHER LEVINE, LLP

1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 750

Miami, Florida 33131

(305) 925-9947

/s/ Fausto Sanchez

Fausto Sanchez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 86229

Email: fsanchez@sfl-law.com 

Secondary: eservice@sfl-law.com

David M. Levine, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 84431

Email: dlevine@sfl-law.com

Andres Gamardo, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 1021165

Email: agamardo@sfl-law.com

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 28 of 29
29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 10, 2021, I authorized the electronic filing of the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. I further testify that the foregoing 

document was served by electronic email to the following:

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL

U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington D.C. 

[by email service directly to OFAC counsel in compliance with 31 CFR 501.605]

By: /s/ Andres Gamardo

 Andres Gamardo, Esq.

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 29 of 29