Florida court orders convicted "supercop" and wife to pay over $2.4 billion to Mexico after taking cartel bribes
How the FBI captured 2 leaders of the Sinaloa cartel
A Florida court on Thursday ordered a former Mexican security chief convicted of drug trafficking and his wife to pay more than $2.4 billion to their country, Mexico's government said.
Mexico sued Genaro Garcia Luna, who is imprisoned in the United States, for alleged corruption and money laundering involving dozens of public contracts.
The ruling is the latest twist in the saga of the former high-flying minister who earned himself the nickname of "supercop" but instead aided and abetted drug traffickers.
The money awarded by a Florida court is three times the amount that the Mexican government had originally sought, a government statement said.
It said Garcia Luna was ordered to pay nearly $749 million and his wife Linda Cristina Pereyra is to pay a staggering $1.74 billion.
Mexico's Genaro Garcia Luna speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in Mexico City, Sept. 3, 2009.
Dario Lopez-Mills / AP
"The judgment is consistent with seven guilty verdicts previously issued and enforced against Garcia Luna, his wife, and his five companies as a result of their failure to appear at trial," the statement added.
It said that nearly $3 million had already been recovered from assets, including a company owned by the couple, as well as real estate.
Garcia Luna, 56, was convicted by a U.S. court in 2023 of taking millions of dollars in bribes to allow the Sinaloa Cartel to smuggle tons of cocaine.
According to the U.S. Justice Department, former cartel members testified that bribe money was handed off to Garcia Luna in a variety of locations, including at a "safe house" where cash was hidden in a false wall, at a car wash and at a French restaurant across the street from the U.S. Embassy.
Garcia Lina was paid in U.S. cash, "stuffed variously in suitcases, briefcases and duffel bags," prosecutors said.
A New York judge sentenced him to more than 38 years in prison and a $2 million fine.
During former Sinaloa kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman's trial in the same court in 2018, a former cartel member testified that he personally delivered at least $6 million in payoffs to García Luna, and that cartel members agreed to pool up to $50 million to pay for his protection. "El Chapo" is serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison in Colorado after being convicted in 2019 on charges including drug trafficking, money laundering and weapons-related offenses.
Garcia Luna, who held high-ranking security positions in his country from 2001 until 2012, was the highest-ranking Mexican government figure ever to face trial in the United States.
He served as chief of the Mexican equivalent of the FBI from 2001 until 2006, when he was elevated to secretary of public security, essentially running the federal police force and most counter-drug operations.
Garcia Luna is considered an architect of the U.S.-backed war on drugs launched in 2006 by Mexico's then president Felipe Calderon.
In 2012, after retiring from public service, he moved to the United States and used his extensive contacts to win lucrative contracts with the Mexican government.
He was arrested in December 2019 in Dallas, Texas.
The Mexican government accused a business conglomerate belonging to Garcia Luna's family of obtaining 30 public contracts and obtaining funds totaling more than $745 million.
Linda Cristina Pereyra leaves federal court after her husband Genaro García Luna was found guilty of taking massive bribes to protect the violent drug cartels he was tasked with combating, Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2023, in New York.
John Minchillo / AP
Mexico's Financial Intelligence Unit alleged that the money was transferred abroad through the use of tax havens and the acquisition of property and other assets in Florida.
Garcia Luna was sentenced less than three months after the dramatic arrest on U.S. soil of Sinaloa Cartel co-founder Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada, who claimed he had been kidnapped in Mexico and delivered into U.S. custody against his will. Zambada was detained along with Joaquin Guzman Lopez, a son of El Chapo.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
35 minutes ago
- News24
'Very disappointed' Trump in stunning live break-up with Musk
Trump says he is 'very disappointed' in Elon Musk after criticism of his tax and spending bill. Musk hits back on X, calling Trump 'ungrateful' and claiming he helped him win the 2024 election. Tesla shares drop 8% as public fallout between the two billionaires rattles markets. Tensions between Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into public view on Thursday, as the US president said he was 'very disappointed' by his billionaire former aide's criticisms and Musk hit back in real time on social media. 'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after Musk slammed his tax and spending mega-bill as an 'abomination'. The world's richest man responded by live-tweeting on his X social media platform as Trump spoke on television, saying that the Republican would not have won the 2024 election without him and slamming him for 'ingratitude.' Where is the man who wrote these words? Was he replaced by a body double!? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 In an extraordinary rant as visiting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz sat mutely beside him, 78-year-old Trump unloaded on SpaceX and Tesla boss Musk in his first comments on the issue. 'I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here... All of a sudden, he had a problem,' Trump said when asked about Musk. The clash comes less than a week since Trump held a grand Oval Office farewell for Musk as he wrapped up his time leading the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). South African-born Musk, 53, hit back minutes later, saying Trump's claims he had advance sight of the bill were 'false.' 'Whatever,' he added above a video of Trump saying Musk was upset about the loss of subsidies for electric vehicles. Whatever. Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful.… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 Musk then ratcheted up the public spat even further, saying the Republican would have lost the election without his support. He was the biggest donor to Trump's campaign, to the tune of nearly $300 million. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk said on X. 'Such ingratitude.' Tesla shares fell sharply on Wall Street, down 8%, after his comments, in a sign of the huge stakes for a falling out between the world's richest man and its most powerful. 'A little make-up?' A wistful-sounding Trump took reporters through the break-up with Musk on live television, in what at times sounded more like a therapy session than a meeting with a foreign leader. Trump talked about Musk's farewell appearance in the Oval Office on Friday, when he turned up with a black eye that he said was caused by a punch from his son. Musk, at the time, was also facing reports of drug use on the Trump campaign trail. 'You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk, and even with the black eye. I said, you want a little makeup? We'll get you a little makeup,' Trump said. 'But he said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting and very nice. He wants to be who he is.' Trump said he could understand why Musk was upset with some of the steps he had taken, including withdrawing a nominee to lead the NASA space agency, which the tech tycoon had backed. Through it all, the visiting German chancellor sat silently. Merz had prepared to avoid a repeat of the ambushes that Trump unleashed on the Ukrainian and South African presidents in the Oval Office - but in the end it was Musk that the US president ambushed. At the center of the bitter row is Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on tax and spending. The centrepiece of his domestic agenda, it aims to continue tax cuts from his first term - and could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Musk, however, called it a 'disgusting abomination' on Tuesday on the grounds that it will increase the US deficit. A day later, the magnate called for Republicans to 'kill the bill,' and for an alternative plan that 'doesn't massively grow the deficit.'
New York Times
39 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.
Forbes
40 minutes ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Group In Tax Exemption Dispute Over Non-Religious Activities
The Catholic Charities Bureau provides services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic organization qualifies for a tax exemption even though its operations were not primarily religious. The decision overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Under Wisconsin law, certain religious organizations may be exempt from paying taxes, including unemployment compensation taxes. This is similar to laws in other states that provide exemptions based on specific criteria. In other words, tax-exempt status for federal income tax purposes doesn't always translate to state income or other tax exemptions. In this case, Wisconsin law exempts any 'church or convention or association of churches' an services provided '[b]y a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order.' The exemption also covers nonprofit organizations 'operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches,' but only if they are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and four related organizations sought an exemption because they are separately incorporated from the Diocese, but claim federal tax-exempt status under the Roman Catholic Church's group tax exemption (this 'umbrella' treatment is common in the tax-exempt world). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, finding that CCB and the related organizations were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes because the charitable services went beyond theology. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that drawing those lines violated the First Amendment. The Catholic Charities Bureau has, it says on its website, provided 'services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior' for more than 100 years. Today, CCB boasts more than 50 programs serving more than 10,500 people—services are not limited by race, color, national origin, or religion. That apparently innocuous distinction was one of the arguments used by the state against CCB. The organization's activities did not qualify as 'typical' religious activities because they serve and employ non-Catholics. The state also found that CCB does not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,' and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular (non-religious) organizations. Congress enacted the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in 1935 to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The FUTA tax rate is 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees during the year and is paid by all employers unless they qualify for an exemption. Notably, FUTA exempts church-controlled religious organizations 'operated primarily for religious purposes' from paying unemployment tax, the result of an exemption granted by Congress in 1970. Since then, 47 states have adopted language that is identical to, or nearly identical to FUTA's language. FUTA tax may be offset by credits of up to 90% for state unemployment taxes paid—all states have complementary statutes that impose, at a minimum, the coverage mandated by federal law. This tax is only paid by employers, not employees. The tax funds unemployment programs. (CCB noted in its petition that employees have separate unemployment coverage. Wisconsin bishops previously created the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP) 'to assist parishes, schools, and other church employers in meeting their social justice responsibilities by providing church funded unemployment coverage.') CCB applied for an exemption under state law. The Department of Workforce Development determined that CCB and its sub-entities were not primarily operated for religious purposes and denied the exemption. CCB appealed, and after a hearing, the administrative law judge reversed the decision. However, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the reversal (stay with me), finding that the exemption turns on an organization's 'activities, not the religious motivation behind them or the organization's founding principles.' Since CCB provided secular (non-religious) services, the Commission concluded that they do not qualify for an exemption The matter went to court (outside of the administrative channels) and ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held on March 14, 2024, that CCB's 'activities are primarily charitable and secular' and not religious, which means it would not qualify for the exemption. CCB filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in May of 2024. Parties do that when seeking a review of the case—typically, it's in response to another court decision. In that petition, CCB noted that in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases (St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota and California v. Grace Brethren Church) to determine whether the imposition of state unemployment taxes on certain religious organizations under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and related state statutes violated the First Amendment. But, CCB argued, while those cases were resolved, the Court expressly declined to answer the First Amendment questions, resulting in a split among courts. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a matter, it's called a grant of certiorari—by practice, at least four justices must vote to hear the case to be granted cert. Usually, cert is granted in a case of considerable importance or one involving a split. A split happens when courts disagree on a matter of federal law, reaching different conclusions about its application—that's what CCB argued happened here. In its petition, the questions presented by CCB were: The state argued that no split of authority existed on the constitutional question and further contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision does not directly conflict with the decisions of any federal circuit or state high court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state, granting certiorari in December of 2024. The scope of the case was, however, limited to Question 1. (Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?) Dozens of amici curiae briefs were filed before the decision. When it comes to legal issues before the Supreme Court, those with an interest or expertise in the subject but who aren't a party to the litigation may also file briefs to explain their point of view. These briefs are called amicus briefs and are filed by a party known as an amicus curiae, which translates to "friend of the court.' The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations based on their methods of religious expression. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' She went on to write that CCB would, under the state's interpretation, qualify for the exemption 'if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.' However, CCB's Catholic faith, however, bars them from doing exactly that. That means, she explained, that eligibility for the exemption 'ultimately turns on inherently religious choices.' While the state argued that the exemption was intended to draw stark theological lines, Sotomayor went on to write that the exemption 'functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.' The Court acknowledged the importance of the government maintaining 'neutrality between religion and religion.' But, Sotomayor wrote pointedly, 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.' With that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case was overturned. The news was welcome by the Diocese. 'At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,' said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. 'We're grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.' 'Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place,' said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, who represented CCB. 'It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.' The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Justice Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justices Jackson and Thomas filed concurring opinions. The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (No. 24–154).
