Immigration Officials Let Jewelry Heist Suspect Deport Himself, Avoiding Federal Trial
LOS ANGELES — In a highly unusual turn of events, a suspect charged in what is believed to be the largest jewelry heist in U.S. history was allowed by federal immigration authorities to self-deport to South America late last year, avoiding a federal criminal trial and the possibility of prison. The decision has raised serious questions among prosecutors, victims and legal experts about communication and coordination between immigration enforcement and the Justice Department.
The suspect — Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores, 42 — was one of seven people indicted in connection with a brazen July 2022 theft that targeted a Brink’s armored truck near a rural Interstate 5 freeway rest stop north of Los Angeles. Prosecutors initially estimated the value of the stolen diamonds, emeralds, rubies, gold and luxury watches at roughly $100 million, making the case one of the most significant federal theft prosecutions in memory.
The Heist and Criminal Case
According to court filings, Flores and his co-defendants waited for the Brink’s crew to stop at the rest area after transporting high-value shipments from an international jewelry show near San Francisco. Investigators say the suspects “stalked” the armored truck and struck when one driver was asleep in the vehicle and the other was inside a nearby restaurant.
Flores was charged with conspiracy to commit theft from interstate and foreign shipment and related federal theft counts. Had he been convicted, he faced up to 15 years in federal prison. He entered a plea of not guilty in the case before his sudden removal from the country.
Federal prosecutors have long stressed that cases of this type — involving interstate commerce and high-value property — are a priority for the Justice Department. Jewelry companies whose property was taken also filed civil suits, and victims say many items have still not been recovered.
How a Deportation Upended a Federal Case
Flores’ ability to leave the country stemmed from his immigration status and proceedings, rather than the criminal case itself. Flores had lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident and was out on bail when he was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in September 2025 after an immigration detainer was placed on him — reportedly unknown to federal prosecutors handling the criminal case.
During an immigration hearing on Dec. 16, 2025, Flores requested voluntary departure, essentially a self-initiated deportation, which would allow him to return to South America without being formally deported by the government’s removal process. A judge denied that voluntary departure application but issued a final order of removal, citing Flores’ immigration status. Within days Flores was sent to Ecuador, even though he had faced serious federal criminal charges in the U.S.
Federal prosecutors argue that Flores’ deportation was unusually handled — and done without notifying the Justice Department — effectively removing a key defendant from criminal prosecution. “Prosecutors are supposed to allow the civil immigration process to play out independently while criminal charges are pending,” one filing noted, suggesting ICE did what it should have done, but unintentionally to Flores’ benefit.
Legal Fallout and Motion to Dismiss
Flores’ attorney, John D. Robertson, moved to have the original indictment dismissed, saying the immigration proceedings interfered with his client’s right to face criminal prosecution. Robertson contends that federal prosecutors were unaware of Flores’ immigration detainer and that the lack of communication between agencies violated Flores’ rights.
Federal prosecutors, however, are opposing the motion. They argue that the indictment should be dismissed “without prejudice”, meaning the charges are still valid if Flores ever sets foot back in the United States. A dismissal without prejudice preserves the government’s option to prosecute at a later time.
Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson described the situation as extremely unusual, especially given the significance of the case. “It’s just beyond me how they would deport him without the prosecutors … being in on the conversation,” she said, likening the coordination failure to “the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.”
Victims Seek Answers and Closure
Business groups and jewelry companies that lost property in the heist have expressed frustration and outrage over Flores’ departure. Jerry Kroll, an attorney representing some of the victims, said the resolution leaves companies — and consumers — without answers, a verdict or closure in the case. “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,” Kroll told reporters.
The heist — while widely reported to involve more than $100 million in stolen goods — may have been overestimated by victims; Brink’s itself later estimated the actual value recovered could be under $10 million. Regardless, critics argue proper justice should have played out rather than allowing a key suspect to slip out of the country.
A Rare Break in Federal Enforcement
Cases where a criminal defendant voluntarily departs the United States while serious federal charges are pending are extremely rare, especially when the allegations involve interstate theft and large-scale criminal conduct. Normally, immigration officials and federal prosecutors coordinate closely to avoid exactly this sort of outcome.
In minor cases — such as low-level misdemeanors — defendants sometimes choose to self-deport rather than face prosecution. But in major federal felonies, particularly those carrying significant potential prison sentences, prosecutors and ICE generally work in tandem so that immigration actions do not interfere with criminal justice.
Experts say the Flores case is likely to spark congressional scrutiny, and legal analysts predict renewed calls for clearer protocols between ICE and the Justice Department. Whether Flores’ self-deportation will influence future cases — or change how criminal and immigration authorities interact — remains to be seen.
What Comes Next
Flores remains outside the United States, and federal prosecutors are attempting to preserve their ability to pursue the case if he returns someday. If a judge grants the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice, Flores could potentially face arrest and prosecution if he sets foot back on U.S. soil.
In the meantime, victims and legal experts are pushing for answers about how such a breakdown in communication occurred and what it means for future criminal cases involving immigration enforcement. The situation underscores ongoing tensions in the U.S. legal system about balancing civil immigration processes with criminal prosecution — especially in cases involving serious federal allegations.
