EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

The Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence (OG 6.990, 02/19/2026) constitutes an instrument of notable scope in the extinction of the criminal action derived from 13 episodes of political conflict. However, its text does not include express provisions on the restitution of property seized, expropriated or subject to real precautionary measures, which represents a legal loophole of the first order for those who suffered property damage in that context. In this article, Dr. Alan Aldana analyzes the current legal text article by article, identifies the legal instruments that supported the deprivation of property, and develops the practical roadmap -procedural and extrajudicial- available to those affected and their legal representatives.

By: Dr. Alan Aldana
Founding Partner : VENFORT ABOGADOS
Specialist in International Criminal Law and Economic Criminal Law
Accredited to the International Criminal Court : Spain and Venezuela
February 2026

I. THE CONTEXT: THE PATRIMONIAL DIMENSION IN AMNESTY PROCEEDINGS

In amnesty processes arising from periods of high political conflict, the property dimension usually takes a back seat to the discussion on personal freedom. However, from the perspective of economic criminal law, the consequences on the assets of those affected are often the most lasting and have the greatest practical impact on the lives of individuals, families and companies.

In Venezuela, a significant number of people who faced criminal proceedings in the framework of the political episodes contemplated in the law lost or had their assets restricted: real estate, vehicles, bank accounts, business interests, licenses and assets of different nature were subject to real precautionary measures, forfeiture of ownership proceedings or administrative proceedings. Many of those affected were never deprived of their freedom, but the economic impact of these measures has persisted to this day.

The Amnesty Law of February 19, 2026 represents a significant advance in the extinguishment of criminal liability. However, its scope in the patrimonial dimension presents important gaps that should be identified with technical precision, so that those affected and their legal representatives can determine the available courses of action.

II. WHAT THE AMNESTY LAW SAYS AND WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY

A. What the law DOES do: extinction of the criminal action.

Article 10 of the law is its most powerful provision. It establishes that with the amnesty all criminal, disciplinary or civil actions related to the amnestied facts are extinguished, at any stage and degree of the process, including extradition requests. Personal coercion measures, alternatives to the deprivation of liberty and any other agreed measure cease to exist.

To this effect, Articles 13 and 14 are added: police and military bodies must terminate inquiries and expunge records. International arrest warrants are to be rescinded immediately.

B. What the law is silent about: the patrimony

An articulated review of the complete text reveals a total absence of any mention of property, patrimony, assets, accounts, real estate, vehicles, companies, shares, licenses, permits, real precautionary measures, preventive seizures, prohibitions to alienate and encumber, seizures of property or restitution of any kind.

Nor does it contain any provision on: political disqualification from holding public office, sanctions for closed media, compensation for pecuniary damages, creation of a truth and reparation commission, or State compensation mechanisms.

TECHNICAL NOTE: The extinction of the civil action foreseen in Art. 10 refers only to the actions arising from the amnestied criminal acts -i.e. the civil claims derived from the extinguished criminal offense-, not to the patrimonial deprivations that had their autonomous basis in instruments such as the Law of Extinction of Ownership, the Law against Corruption or precautionary measures dictated in separate investigations.

C. Comparative table: what was requested vs. what was approved

III. THE LEGAL INSTRUMENTS THAT SUPPORTED THE DEPRIVATION OF PATRIMONY

In order to bring any restitution action, it is essential to identify precisely the legal instrument under which the deprivation occurred. At least six different legal regimes operated in Venezuela:

1. Organic Law of Extinction of Ownership (OG 6.745 - 04/28/2023)

This instrument allows the State to extinguish the right of ownership over assets without the need for prior criminal conviction, the presumption of illicit origin or destination being sufficient. The process is autonomous and independent of the criminal process, which means that the extinction of the criminal action by amnesty does NOT automatically entail the extinction of the ownership process.

This is the most serious risk for those affected by the amnesty: they can regain their freedom and clear their records, but the forfeiture process over their assets will continue before the corresponding specialized court, unless they expressly request its termination.

2. Preventive measures in criminal proceedings

The Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (COPP) allows the prosecutor and the control judge to issue precautionary measures on assets: preventive seizure, seizure of assets, prohibition of alienation and encumbrance, immobilization of accounts. These measures are instrumental to the criminal proceeding: if the proceeding is extinguished by amnesty (Art. 10 of the law), in principle the real measures must cease.

However, the law does not expressly state this, and practice indicates that judges require a formal request from the party to lift each measure individually, with the risk that some courts will interpret that the extinction is only of the criminal action itself and not of its accessory measures.

3. Anti-corruption law

Article 9 of the Amnesty Law expressly excludes crimes under the Anti-Corruption Law. This has a direct and critical property consequence: those who were investigated or convicted under this law -including many public officials, businessmen and contractors accused for political reasons- are not eligible for amnesty, and therefore their confiscated assets are not affected by it either.

This is the broadest exclusion in terms of assets, given that corruption was the standard offense used to prosecute political opponents under the guise of legality.

4. Disqualification to engage in commerce

A conviction for certain crimes in Venezuela carries with it, as an accessory penalty, the disqualification to engage in commerce, industry or professional practice for a determined period of time. Although the amnesty extinguishes the main penalty, the law does not expressly establish whether the accessory penalties are also extinguished, which generates uncertainty for those who lost permits, licenses or professional qualifications.

5. Administrative measures on companies

During the years of chavismo, the SENIAT, the INDEPABIS, the Superintendence of Banks and other agencies issued administrative measures on companies: temporary closures, interventions, suspension of licenses, administrative fines. These actions are of an administrative nature, not criminal, and therefore the criminal amnesty does not affect them. They require separate contentious-administrative actions.

6. Expropriations and nationalizations

The formal expropriations and nationalizations of the Chavista period constitute the most complex case. They are acts of public law with constitutional basis (Art. 115 CRBV) that establish the obligation of fair compensation. Most of these indemnifications were never paid or were paid under unfair conditions. The amnesty does not mention this universe, which requires indemnification actions before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction or international arbitration as the case may be.

IV. PRACTICAL ROAD MAP: THE ACTIONS TO BE ACTIVATED

Given the silence of the law, the legal strategy for property restitution must be built by articulating multiple channels in a simultaneous and coordinated manner. The following is the roadmap that Venfort Abogados recommends for each type of affectation.

STEP 1 - Assets audit and classification of the assignment

Before initiating any action, it is essential to carry out a complete mapping of the affected assets that allows: (i) identifying the legal instrument on which each deprivation was based; (ii) classifying the assets according to whether the deprivation was criminal, administrative, civil or forfeiture of ownership; (iii) determining whether or not the facts that originated the deprivation are covered by the amnesty; and (iv) locating the files in the corresponding courts or administrative entities.

This audit is the non-negotiable starting point. Without it, any legal action runs the risk of being based on erroneous premises.

STEP 2 - For assets affected by real precautionary measures in amnestied proceedings

If the criminal proceeding that supported the measure is covered by the facts of article 8 of the law, the mechanism is as follows:

1. Formally request to the competent control or trial court the decree of dismissal due to amnesty, in accordance with Article 11 of the law (deadline: 15 continuous days).
2. In the same request or in a separate document, expressly request the lifting of all real precautionary measures ordered in the process: seizure, prohibition to alienate and encumber, sequestration, immobilization of accounts, and any other agreed restriction.
3. This request is based on article 10 of the law (‘all measures that have been agreed upon shall cease’), on article 242 of the COPP (instrumental nature of the precautionary measures) and on the principle of accessory nature: the real measure cannot subsist once the main action that gave it life has been extinguished.
4. If the court refuses to lift the actual measures when dismissing the case, an appeal may be filed before the corresponding Court of Appeals, with devolutive effect in accordance with article 12 of the law.
5. At the same time, the lifting of the annotations and registry margins before the Real Estate Registry, the SENIAT, the Mercantile Registry Office and other entities, providing the judgment of dismissal as a sufficient instrument.

STEP 3 - For assets subject to Extinguishment of Ownership

This is the most complex scenario and the one that requires the greatest urgency, given that the forfeiture of ownership process is autonomous and independent from the criminal process. The actions are:

6. Appearing before the Specialized Court of Extinction of Ownership with the judgment of dismissal of the criminal proceeding as evidence, arguing that the lawful origin of the assets has been demonstrated with the extinction of the criminal action.
7. Request the suspension of the forfeiture proceedings while the restitution action is being processed, invoking the connection of the case and the risk of contradictory decision between the criminal court and the forfeiture court.
8. Submit documentary evidence of the lawful origin of the assets: income tax returns, purchase invoices, purchase and sale contracts, audited financial statements, business records and any other element that proves the lawfulness of the assets.
9. If the forfeiture court does not paralyze the process, go to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) in amparo, invoking the violation of the right to defense, due process and private property (Arts. 49 and 115 CRBV), with an unnamed precautionary measure to suspend the auction or transfer of the assets.

IMPORTANT TECHNICAL NOTE: The forfeiture of ownership process has its own time limits and preclusive periods, independent of the criminal process. Inactivity of the affected party may result in the definitive consolidation of measures on its assets, even when the underlying criminal proceeding has been dismissed by amnesty. Timely attention to these processes is indispensable.

STEP 4 - For assets affected by the Anti-Corruption Act

As they are expressly excluded from the amnesty, these cases require a different strategy that cannot rely on the February 19 law. The avenues are:

• Review of sentence before the Criminal Chamber of the TSJ if the conviction was based on evidence obtained illegally or in violation of due process, invoking Article 49 CRBV and international human rights treaties ratified by Venezuela.
• Action of contentious-administrative nullity if the confiscation had an administrative component, before the Political-Administrative Chamber.
• Petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) or before the UN Fact-Finding Commission, documenting the political nature of the persecution and the disproportionality of the patrimonial measure.
• International arbitration if the affected party is a foreign businessman or partner of a company with foreign capital, under the bilateral investment treaties (BIT) subscribed by Venezuela or under the ICSID rules.

STEP 5 - For administrative actions on companies and licenses

Measures issued by administrative entities (SENIAT, SUDEBAN, INDEPABIS, SUNDECOP and similar) have their own means of appeal:

10. Appeal for reconsideration before the same body that issued the measure, if it is still within the legal time limit.
11. Hierarchical appeal before the superior of the organ, if the appeal for reconsideration was declared inadmissible or was not decided within the time limit.
12. Contentious-administrative appeal for annulment before the competent Superior Contentious-Administrative Court, if the administrative remedy has been exhausted, with a request for precautionary protection to suspend the effects of the challenged act for the duration of the process.
13. In the nullity writ, document with precision the nexus between the administrative measure and the political persecution of the dismissed criminal proceeding, in order to substantiate the misuse of power as a defect of the administrative act.

STEP 6 - For expropriations and unpaid compensations

Formal expropriations are the most institutionally and politically complex. The roadmap is:

14. Verify if there was a formal expropriation decree published in the Official Gazette and if the appraisal and payment of the fair compensation required by Art. 115 CRBV was made.
15. If the payment was not made or was manifestly insufficient, file an action for compensation for irregular expropriation before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the TSJ.
16. Document the real value of the property at the time of expropriation with independent appraisers, bank reports, cadastral appraisals and inflation indexes for monetary updating.
17. For companies with foreign partners, evaluate international arbitration as a more efficient and predictable alternative to the Venezuelan domestic judicial process.

V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT: THE SOLID BASIS FOR THE CLAIMS

Although the Amnesty Law does not recognize the right to restitution, the Venezuelan Constitution of 1999 does, and with hierarchy superior to any ordinary law. The constitutional foundations are:

The combination of Article 49.8 (reparation for illegal judicial actions) with Article 140 (patrimonial responsibility of the State) and Article 115 (private property) builds a constitutional triangle that solidly supports an action for compensation for the patrimonial deprivations derived from political persecutions, regardless of what the Amnesty Law says or does not say.

STRATEGIC KEY: The dismissal due to amnesty is, in itself, an implicit acknowledgment that the criminal prosecution should not have been initiated or did not have sufficient grounds to succeed. This acknowledgement can and should be used as evidence of the illegal or deviant nature of the patrimonial measures that instrumentalized the prosecution.

VI. THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION: WHEN THE DOMESTIC ROUTE IS NOT SUFFICIENT

For those affected who exhaust domestic remedies to no avail or who structurally distrust Venezuelan courts - and there is good reason to do so, given that Venezuela has ranked last in the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index for the past decade - there are international remedies that should be pursued in parallel:

A. Inter-American Human Rights System

The IACHR may hear cases of property deprivation that constitute violations of Article 21 of the American Convention (property) and Article 8 (judicial guarantees). Condition: prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or demonstration that such remedies are ineffective, which in the current Venezuelan context can be documented.

The most relevant precedent is the series of cases against Venezuela before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for expropriations and business persecutions during the Chavista period, where the Court condemned the Venezuelan State to indemnify and reinstate the assets or their equivalent value.

B. International Arbitration under BITs

Venezuela has signed more than thirty Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with different countries. Although the country denounced the ICSID convention in 2012, BITs may contain alternative dispute resolution clauses (UNCITRAL, ICC, PCA) that remain in force. For companies with foreign capital or partners from countries with BITs in force with Venezuela, international arbitration is often the most efficient way and the one that generates the most pressure on the State.

C. Action before the International Criminal Court

The ICC has had a formal investigation open on Venezuela since November 2021, focused on crimes against humanity. Although the ICC does not have jurisdiction to order restitution of assets directly, an eventual conviction or advancement of the process generates political and legal pressure on Venezuelan authorities that may contribute to domestic restitution processes.

VII. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC TIMELINE

The simultaneous nature of the actions required and the existence of preclusive time lapses make time a critical factor. The following scheme summarizes the time priorities:

VIII. WHAT THE LEGISLATOR SHOULD DO: THE REFORM THE LAW NEEDS

The approved amnesty is a first step, but it is insufficient. From a technical legal perspective, the National Assembly should complement it with a set of additional regulatory instruments that Venfort Abogados proposes as a minimum legislative agenda for an effective patrimonial restitution:

• Legislative decree for the automatic lifting of real precautionary measures in all proceedings dismissed due to amnesty, with erga omnes effect and without the need for an individual request.
• Reform of the Law on Extinction of Ownership to establish an expeditious mechanism for the review of proceedings opened against persons benefited by the amnesty, with reversal of the burden of proof in favor of the affected party.
• Law of Patrimonial Reparation for Victims of Political Persecution, which establishes a state compensation fund, objective criteria for the valuation of damages and a simplified administrative procedure for the claim.
• Amendment of Article 9 of the Amnesty Law to exclude from the category ‘corruption’ cases in which it is proven that the accusation was instrumentalized for political purposes.
• Repeal of the Organic Law on Extinction of Ownership or, at least, a reform that requires a firm criminal conviction as a necessary condition for the extinction of ownership, eliminating the autonomous procedure that allows acting without a prior judgment.

IX. CONCLUSION: THE PATRIMONY DID NOT AMNESTIED ITSELF

The Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence of February 19, 2026 is a valuable instrument, but radically incomplete. In patrimonial matters, its silence is thunderous: there is not a single article ordering the return of what the State took.

This omission does not make the claim impossible. The Venezuelan Constitution, international human rights treaties and the block of principles of public law provide solid grounds for restitution and compensation actions that are enforceable today, with or without the express support of the amnesty law.

The key lies in the strategy: there is no single path, but rather a set of actions that must be activated in a coordinated manner, within the right deadlines and before the right authorities. Inactivity has a very high cost: the preclusion of deadlines, the consolidation of measures that should have been lifted and the definitive loss of assets that can still be recovered.

The time to act is now. The Venezuelan State is undergoing a process of transformation whose speed and intensity are uncertain. The window of opportunity to make patrimonial claims with political and institutional backing is narrow and may close sooner than expected.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice..

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Alan Aldana is Founding Partner of VENFORT ABOGADOS, a firm specialized in International Criminal Law and Economic Criminal Law with presence in Spain and Venezuela. With more than two decades of experience in the defense of high profile clients, he is accredited before the International Criminal Court and has participated in international reference cases such as the Panama Papers, the 2009 financial crisis and the ODEBRECHT case (2023).

He represents law firms in the United Kingdom, Portugal, France, Belgium, Singapore, Dubai, Colombia, the United States, Panama and the Dominican Republic. He is a member of the Aldana Foundation, an article writer and international lecturer on human rights, economic and international criminal law.

For specific questions on the topics discussed in this article: contact[@]venfort.com | venfort.com