The dispute centers on post-judgment collection efforts in Alban Osio v. Maduro Moros, a case involving sanctions against the Venezuelan government.
On November 8, 2024, Judge Darrin P. Gayles referred all post-judgment matters in the case to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres.
Judge Torres subsequently issued a Report and Recommendation on May 13, 2025, advising that the motion to dissolve the writ be denied.
Anschütz filed objections to the Report on May 27, 2025, prompting a response from the plaintiffs on June 10, 2025.
Judge Gayles conducted a de novo review of the motion and the record, ultimately adopting Judge Torres’s analysis in full.
The court’s ruling hinged on the timing of the plaintiffs’ garnishment proceedings relative to OFAC’s actions.
Judge Torres concluded that because the plaintiffs initiated their garnishment and obtained the writ before OFAC unblocked the Escrow Account, the motion must be denied.
Judge Gayles adopted this assessment. The court noted that while Anschütz correctly identified the applicable regulation as 31 C.F.R. § 591.042 (Venezuela Sanction Regulation) rather than the one cited in the Report, 31 C.F.R. § 536.402 (Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations), Anschütz agreed that the two provisions are substantively identical for this purpose.
The court explicitly clarified that its ruling does not determine the ultimate ownership of the funds in question.
A finding that the writ was proper is distinct from a ruling on whether Anschütz must turn over the Escrow Account to the plaintiffs.
The ownership of those funds remains an issue for the court to resolve when it rules on the plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Final Turnover Judgment as to Blocked Funds Belonging to DIANCA.