Immigration officials allow suspect in $100M jewelry heist to self deport, avoiding trial

Federal immigration authorities permitted a suspect in what’s believed to be the largest jewelry heist in U.S. history to leave the country, shocking prosecutors who had been preparing to bring him to trial for his alleged role in a $100 million theft.

Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores, facing up to 15 years in federal prison on conspiracy and theft charges, was deported to Ecuador in late December after requesting voluntary departure while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, according to court documents. Flores had previously entered a not guilty plea.

The deportation has created a legal conundrum, with defense attorneys filing a motion to permanently dismiss the indictment against Flores. Federal prosecutors oppose this action, requesting instead that charges be dropped “without prejudice” to preserve the option for future prosecution should Flores return to the United States.

“Prosecutors are supposed to allow the civil immigration process to play out independently while criminal charges are pending,” federal prosecutors wrote in their motion. “That is exactly what they did in this case — unwittingly to defendant’s benefit in that he will now avoid trial, and any potential conviction and sentence, unless and until he returns to the United States.”

Flores was one of seven people charged last year in connection with the brazen 2022 heist, in which thieves allegedly stalked an armored Brink’s tractor-trailer from an international jewelry show near San Francisco to a rural freeway rest stop north of Los Angeles. The theft included millions worth of diamonds, emeralds, gold, rubies, and designer watches.

The case has raised serious questions about coordination between federal agencies. Despite being a lawful permanent resident released on bail in the criminal case, Flores was taken into ICE custody in September. Federal prosecutors claim they were unaware Flores had an immigration detainer.

Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, described the situation as highly unusual, especially for a case of this magnitude. “It’s just beyond me how they would deport him without the prosecutors… being in on the conversation,” Levenson said. “This really was the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.”

According to court documents, during a December 16 immigration hearing, Flores opted for deportation to Chile. Although the judge denied his voluntary departure application, a final order of removal was issued, and Flores was subsequently sent to Ecuador.

The unprecedented communication breakdown has left victims frustrated and seeking answers. Jerry Kroll, an attorney representing several of the affected jewelry companies, told the Los Angeles Times, “When a defendant in a major federal theft case leaves the country before trial, victims are left without answers, without a verdict, and without closure.”

The 2022 heist itself remains one of the most significant jewelry thefts in American history, though the exact value of stolen goods remains disputed. While victims reported losses exceeding $100 million, Brink’s has maintained that the stolen items were worth less than $10 million, a discrepancy that has further complicated the case.

A lawsuit filed by Brink’s revealed that one driver was asleep inside the tractor-trailer while the other was getting food inside the rest stop when the thieves broke in. Court documents indicate the suspects had meticulously scouted the Brink’s vehicle as it left the jewelry show carrying dozens of bags of valuable gems and watches.

The case highlights the complex intersection of criminal prosecution and immigration enforcement, raising questions about interagency protocols when handling high-profile defendants with immigration issues. As the legal proceedings continue against the remaining defendants, the unexpected deportation of Flores may set a concerning precedent for similar cases involving non-citizen defendants in major criminal investigations.

ICE officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding their decision to proceed with the deportation without apparent coordination with federal prosecutors handling the criminal case.