Utah father and son duo charged for allegedly supporting Mexican drug cartel
James Lael Jensen, 68, of Sandy, and Maxwell Sterling Jensen, 25, of Draper, have been charged with conspiring to materially support the Mexican cartel, conspiracy to commit money laundering and related smuggling charges, according to U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.
Utah couple arrested for smuggling millions of dollars of crude oil, documents say
Per the indictment, the Jensens allegedly conspired to provide financial support to the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), a group that was in February.
The Jensens allegedly operated Arroyo Terminals, a Rio Hondo-based enterprise, that reportedly helped 'conceal and disguise the nature and source of the proceeds of illegally smuggled goods' such as crude oil. Federal prosecutors further allege the father and son duo aided and abetted 2,881 shipments of oil in violation of the Tariff Act.
At the time of their arrest, authorities reportedly seized four tank barges containing crude oil, three commercial tanker trucks, an Arroyo Terminal pickup truck and a personal vehicle. Authorities are also working on seeking forfeiture for the Arroyo Terminal property in Rio Hondo, crude oil contained in storage tanks owned by Arroyo Terminal and other real properties.
'What began as a Drug Enforcement Administration drug trafficking investigation evolved into a multifaceted case involving an alleged complex criminal operation generating millions of dollars from crude oil – the largest funding source for Mexican drug cartels,' said William Kimball, acting special agent in charge of DEA – Houston. 'Given the charges have profound implications for both the United States and Mexico, we will continue to explore all leads and identify any believed to be involved.'
Nicholas Ganjei said the case underscores the more aggressive and innovative approach the Southern District of Texas is taking towards battling drug cartels. He said the strategy focuses not only on the traffickers and 'trigger-pullers' that are directly employed by cartels, but also their enablers.
'Whether you are handing the cartel a gun, providing a car or safehouse for smugglers, or putting money in the cartel's pocket, you will be held to account,' said Ganjei.
Prosecutors said, if convicted, the charges of conspiracy to provide material support and money laundering both carry a possible prison term of up to 20 years. Both men could also face up to 10 years and five years for aiding and abetting the smuggling of goods into the United States and by doing so through false statements. James Jensen also faces one count of money laundering, which carries an additional 10 years in prison.
The United States is also seeking a $300 million money judgment if the two are convicted.
Charges are allegations only. All arrested persons are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
BLM to remove over 3,000 wild horses from Wyoming land
Utah father and son duo charged for allegedly supporting Mexican drug cartel
Stage 1 fire restrictions issued for multiple southwest Utah counties
Fetterman claims media trying to 'smear' him over missed votes, absences
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift judge's new block on mass layoffs
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
Priscilla Presley's legal battle with her former business partner heats up with new $50 million suit
The bitter legal dispute between Priscilla Presley and her former business partner escalated this week. Brigitte Kruse, the founder of Agoura Hills-based GWS Auctions Inc. and her business associate Kevin Fialko on Tuesday filed a new fraud and breach of contract suit against Presley in Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit alleges that Elvis's ex-wife 'undermined their business ventures' and exploited the death of her daughter Lisa Marie Presley in order to gain control over her trust and Graceland. They are seeking more than $50 million in damages. The pair allege they 'invested thousands of hours of their time' and 'millions of dollars into Priscilla' to revive her public image and brand only to have their business relationship severed by Presley. The suit calls Presley, 80, an 'opportunist' and describes a tumultuous relationship between her and her daughter. Presley's attorney Wayne Harman was not available for comment. Kruse first filed a breach of contract suit against Elvis's former wife in Florida two years ago after she cut ties with the joint business venture they formed to to set up several companies to exploit Priscilla Presley's name and image and to bolster Kruse's Elvis memorabilia auctions, through her written 'recollections.' Last year Presley, sued Kruse, who is about half her age, and her business associates for fraud and elder abuse in Los Angeles, claiming she was forced into a 'form of indentured servitude,' leading her into signing away 80% of her income . Kruse denied the claims. While Kruse's Los Angeles suit surfaces many of the earlier claims, it also provides a counter-narrative to several of the allegations contained in Presley's fraud suit, her attorney said. 'The evidence will establish that the real victims here are my clients, who invested millions and years of hard work into revitalizing Priscilla Presley's brand, only to be betrayed and falsely accused once the money was on the table and every personal and business issue had been resolved,' said their attorney Jordan Matthews in a statement. The suit contends that Priscilla 'strong-arm[ed]' Elvis's father Vernon in 1979 on his deathbed into making her co-executor of his son's estate by putting a lien on Graceland and taking over management of the trust. It further alleges that Priscilla 'ultimately wanted to control' her daughter's trust and Graceland. Before Lisa Marie died suddenly in January 2023 at the age of 54, her relationship with her mother was severely strained with Lisa Marie refusing to walk the red carpet or sit with Presley at the Golden Globes to celebrate the multiple nominations of Baz Luhrmann's film 'Elvis,' according to the lawsuit. It was during this time that Lisa Marie was in process of removing her mother as the sole trustee of irrevocable life insurance policy and was 'threatening to sue her.' Kruse claims that she and Fialko, 'worked to keep the family together, ' and with Presley's publicist arranged for the women to appear on the red carpet together and sit next to one another during the award ceremony. Two days later, Lisa Marie suffered cardiac arrest and was rushed to West Hills Hospital. According to the complaint, Presley did not follow her daughter's advanced care directive instructions that stated that she wanted her 'life to be prolonged as long as possible within the limits of generally accepted health care standards.' A copy of the health care directive from 2010 is included as an exhibit to the suit. Following Lisa Marie's death Presley went to court to challenge an amendment that had earlier removed her as a trustee of Lisa Marie's estate, the Promenade Trust and made her granddaughter, the actress Riley Keough, sole trustee. The matter was settled five months later. Kruse alleges that she and Fialko brokered a deal with Keough on Presley's behalf that secured her a $2.4 million payout and 'a seven-figure deal for Priscilla's son, Navarone.' Kruse and her company GWS Auctions also are being sued by the Elvis Presley Estate over a cache of documents from Elvis and Col. Tom Parker that they claim were 'improperly and illegally offered for sale at auction.' An attorney for Kruse has disputed the claim, saying in a statement that when she had informed the Elvis estate of the existence of documents in 2021.
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge is skeptical of Justice Department's lawsuit against 15 federal judges as Trump tries to limit power of judiciary
Donald Trump Trump legal cases Federal agencies ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge was skeptical at a hearing Wednesday of the Justice Department's effort to sue all of Maryland's federal court judges in a case testing the Trump administration's effort to limit the power of the judiciary. The case raises major questions about ongoing power struggles between the Trump administration and the federal courts, specifically as judges have tried to curtail due process violations in President Donald Trump's aggressive approach to immigration. The Maryland court has become one of the central playing fields for immigration clashes between the administration and judges, after lawsuits, including one from Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, challenged how the administration was removing detainees with little to no due process. 'I don't have a very good poker face,' US District Judge Thomas Cullen said during a major hearing in the case, where the Trump administration is challenging the ability of all 15 judges in Maryland's federal district court from following a court rule that temporarily bars the administration from carrying out fast-moving deportations of immigrants. 'I have some skepticism.' Cullen, a 2020 Trump appointee to the federal bench in Virginia who was also a US Attorney in the first Trump administration, was brought in to oversee the immigration case at the federal court in Baltimore since all of Maryland's judges are recused from the matter. The judge spent nearly two hours on Wednesday criticizing the administration's decision to file the lawsuit and questioning whether it could lead to other executive branch litigation against federal benches all the way up to the Supreme Court. He said he would rule by Labor Day. 'You have to concede that if they can do this at the district court level, they could do this at the Circuit or potentially the Supreme Court,' Cullen said at one point, appearing sympathetic to the judges' arguments. The judges hired well-known conservative lawyer and George W. Bush-era Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend them in the case and argue the case should be thrown out. 'The logic of the executive branch suit here would extend fully in a suit against the 4th Circuit,' Clement said, referring to the Richmond-based federal appeals court that oversees cases arising from several mid-Atlantic states, including Maryland. In arguing that the case should be thrown out, said that his clients enjoy 'judicial immunity' from lawsuits like this one and that the administration had no cause of action – or claim – through which they could seek to block the Maryland court's rule. 'There really is no precursor for this suit,' Clement said. 'There's just nothing like this kind of injunction against the judicial branch.' The Justice Department sued all federal judges on the lower-level District Court of Maryland in late June, after the court's chief judge put in place a rule that would automatically and temporarily block the Trump administration from removing an immigration detainee from the US if the detainee had gone to court to challenge their removal. The rule was meant to keep the status quo, so a court could intervene within two business days before a detainee would be moved away. The order, from Chief Judge George Russell, was an unusual approach to detainees' cases, though not unheard of in court, coming after a high-profile dispute in the Maryland federal court where the Trump administration mistakenly sent the Abrego Garcia, to a Salvadoran prison without due process and then said it couldn't bring him back to the US. The Justice Department's approach to sue the judges, however, is equally unusual, and judges nationwide have told CNN they consider it to be an extreme approach. Cullen acknowledged that reality on Wednesday after a Justice Department attorney tried to point to other suits brought in the past by executive branch officials against members of the federal judiciary. Those lawsuits include one filed in the 1990s by then-US Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse against Rhode Island's federal court. But those suits, Cullen said, were 'considerably more modest' than the one brought by the Justice Department in June. 'This is taking it up about six notches, isn't it?' he added. The DOJ attorney, Elizabeth Hedges, also tried to tamp down concerns that a raft of litigation could result from a favorable ruling. 'These sorts of suits have been brought in the past and we have not seen a proliferation of litigation,' she said. 'This is not opening the floodgates.' 'We can take your word on that – this is a one-off?' Cullen shot back. None of the 15 Maryland judges who are named defendants in the lawsuit were present in the courtroom for Wednesday's hearing, a spokesman for the court told CNN. Eleven former federal judges from various circuits, including some appointed by Republican presidents, warned in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that if the Trump administration is allowed to carry its approach through 'to its logical conclusion,' it would 'run roughshod over any effort by the judiciary to preserve its jurisdiction that frustrates the Executive's prerogatives. … That result would be devastating to the efficacy of the Nation's courts.' Apart from the implications of the lawsuit, Cullen indicated he was concerned by the fact that the Justice Department decided to mount a wholesale challenge to the Maryland court instead of taking issue with court orders around detainee removals on a case-by-case basis. 'Why not file an interlocutory appeal as applied in any one of these (immigration) cases' and take it up to the Supreme Court when necessary, he said. The judge pointed to the fact the high court has acted quickly on cases appealed to it on its emergency docket. Such an approach, he said, 'would be more expeditious than the two months we have spent on this.'
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs are forcing Canada to address its money laundering problem
On July 31, the Trump administration announced that it would raise tariffs on Canadian imports to 35 percent, citing Canada's failure to meaningfully address the growing use of its territory by fentanyl traffickers. Canada's response has been fractured. Federal officials called for renewed dialogue, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford demanded retaliatory tariffs. If that sounds like an overreaction from the U.S., it's not. It's a reaction to a real and mounting problem: Cartels are using Canada — not in theory, but in practice. Fentanyl super-labs have been discovered in British Columbia. Precursor chemicals from China are entering Canadian ports before making their way into domestic markets or rerouted across the U.S. border. The numbers are still small compared to the southern border. Fentanyl seizures along the northern corridor comprise less than 1 percent of total U.S. interdictions, but they're rising. And while the raw volume was low, the potency was not. According to White House estimates, the fentanyl seized from Canada in the past year was sufficient to kill more than 9 million Americans. The question isn't whether Canada is the dominant trafficking route. It's whether it's increasingly being utilized. And it is. The reason is structural. Canada has long been exploited by criminal networks due to regulatory blind spots, fragmented enforcement and opaque corporate formation laws. Canada is notorious for money-laundering through real estate. Trade-based money laundering schemes are commonly exploited. And bribery and corruption have long been identified as a substantial money-laundering risk. Canada, for too long, has treated organized crime as a localized public safety issue, not a transnational finance and border security risk. The Trump administration's tariff spike isn't just a trade war headline. It's part of a broader strategy of nation-level accountability. Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles, a state-embedded trafficking network directly linked to the Maduro regime, was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity under expanded fentanyl authorities just days before the action against Canada. Mexico has not been spared, either. In February, the U.S. imposed 25 percent fentanyl-linked tariffs on Mexican imports, citing the government's failure to curb cartel flows. In July, those tariffs were scheduled to increase to 30 percent. Although Mexico negotiated a temporary reprieve, committing additional National Guard resources to its northern border in February, the escalation framework remains in place. The goal is not symbolic but structural. Pressure the sovereign, disrupt the enabler. Canada now finds itself in that same pressure chamber. Unlike Venezuela, it is a U.S. ally and a U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement partner. But those relationships don't exempt governments from consequences. Canada's fentanyl enforcement effort has been reactive, fragmented and, until very recently, deeply under-resourced. That posture changed the moment the 35 percent tariff went live. To its credit, Ottawa has shown that it is willing to act with urgency. The newly announced border security initiative includes enhanced lab detection infrastructure, dual-nation strike teams and an aggressive crackdown on shell entities used to obscure cross-border fund flows. These moves are overdue. In 2024, Canada's two largest banks, Royal Bank of Canada and TD Bank, were at the center of major anti-money laundering failures. Royal Bank of Canada's U.S. subsidiary, City National Bank, was fined $65 million for violating the Bank Secrecy Act, while TD admitted in U.S. federal court to allowing over $650 million in suspected fentanyl proceeds to flow through its accounts. TD paid a $3 billion penalty and agreed to oversight by a government-appointed monitor. Regulators called the sector's anti-money laundering risk ' under-appreciated,' exposing deep structural gaps that persisted until the failures became too large to ignore. None of this is partisan. None of this is rhetorical. It is structural enforcement built around financial leverage, and it reflects a doctrine that has quietly reshaped the American approach to trafficking: Drug routes are no longer just a law enforcement issue. They are a sovereign accountability issue. The tools of response — tariffs, sanctions, financial denial mechanisms — reflect that shift. Canada's economy isn't the target. Its vulnerabilities are. But if they remain unaddressed, the economic impact will be severe. Trade penalties will expand. Correspondent banks will de-risk. Investment flows will hesitate. And trust — financial, diplomatic and regulatory — will erode. The Canadian government has a narrow window to solidify enforcement credibility. That means closing anti-money laundering loopholes, coordinating proactively with U.S. agencies, and enacting a serious national strategy against transnational organized crime. Not just speeches. Not just appointees. Results. Because fentanyl isn't waiting. Neither are the traffickers. And neither, apparently, is the Trump administration.
