LOS ANGELES — A man facing federal charges in what authorities have called the largest jewelry heist in U.S. history was deported to Ecuador late last month, bringing the case against him to a crashing halt, according to recent court filings.

Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores was one of seven men charged last year with breaking into a Brinks big rig and stealing around $100 million worth of gold, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and luxury watches in 2022. The inquiry into the heist has seen investigators chase leads across the globe, apprehend one suspect in Panama and explore the alleged thieves’ ties to Ecuador. Much of the loot has not been recovered.

Flores faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on charges of conspiracy to commit theft from interstate and foreign shipment and theft from interstate and foreign shipment. He has pleaded not guilty.

But, in a complicated sequence of events, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Flores on or about Dec. 29, according to his attorney, John D. Robertson. In a Jan. 9 motion to dismiss the case against Flores, Robertson said he had “just learned” his client had been deported.

The jewelers victimized by the crime are indignant.

“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,” said Jerry Kroll, an attorney for some of the jewelry companies.

“For our clients — jewelers who lost their life’s work — this outcome exposes a gap in the system that deserves transparency. They are entitled to clear answers about how this happened and whether safeguards exist to prevent it from happening again.”

According to the court filings, Flores was in ICE custody since September and opted for deportation. While not unusual for someone to be deported as they face pending criminal charges, the magnitude of the crime raises questions about what unfolded.

Robertson argued that the government had chosen to forgo Flores criminal prosecution. Robertson, who did not respond to a request for comment, asked that the judge dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning that charges cannot be refiled.

Federal prosecutors disagreed, indicating they were caught unawares by his removal and still hoped to bring Flores to trial — if he ever returns to the U.S.

In a Jan. 15 motion, Assistant U.S. Attys. Kevin Butler and Jena MacCabe said Flores “chose to forgo his prosecution by declining the immigration judge’s relief offers.” They added that prosecutors “are supposed to allow the civil immigration process to play out independently while criminal charges are pending.”

“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,” the prosecutors said. “To give defendant a further windfall of being allowed to return to the United States with these charges irrevocably erased from his record would be improper under the law and unfair given the facts.”

The prosecutors asked that the case be dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could refile charges in the future.

The judge has yet to issue a ruling.

Butler and MacCabe said they have “worked countless hours to pursue criminal convictions and sentences in this case” and “remain eager to prosecute defendant for his crimes and vindicate his victims’ -- who unabashedly share that desire -- interests.”

In a declaration, MacCabe said prosecutors believed Flores was a lawful permanent resident “and that he would continue to live and work in the United States while awaiting trial.”

In his motion, Robertson described his client as “a permanent lawful resident of the United States residing in the Central District of California for 25 years.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment on Flores’ immigration status and why he was deported as he faced federal charges. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. referred the Times to MacCabe and Butler’s court filing. ICE did not immediately respond to questions about the deportation or if Flores could be extradited to face charges in the future.

Flores was one of five suspects arrested last year. Two are still at large.

Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who now serves as a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said “ordinarily you would not deport somebody you were going to prosecute unless it was pursuant to some kind of agreement that would resolve the case.”

“Ordinarily the prosecutors would be aware if their defendant who is set for trial is being deported,” Levenson said. “This is a definite problem in communication and coordination.”

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said while a deportation in a serious federal crime pending trial should not happen, it sometimes has.

“The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing,” he said.

In June, the seven men from the Los Angeles area, ranging in age from 31 to 60, were indicted on theft and conspiracy to commit theft charges for their alleged roles in the crime, which victimized 14 jewelers whose merchandise the big rig was transporting.

Prosecutors have accused the men of breaking into the Brinks semitruck during a 27-minute window at a Flying J truck stop, as one guard grabbed food at a gas station and the other slept in the cab. At the time, the jewelry was in transport from an international jewelry show.

The co-conspirators, some of whom use aliases, are Carlos Victor Mestanza Cercado, Jazael Padilla Resto, Pablo Raul Lugo Larroig, Victor Hugo Valencia Solorzano, Jorge Enrique Alban, Eduardo Macias Ibarra and Flores.

Lugo and Alban were later released on bond. Authorities arrested Mestanza in Panama in July. He and Padilla Resto remain in custody.

Flores, who was born in Ecuador, was ordered released on bond by a federal judge, but his attorney stated in his motion that after posting bail Flores was instead transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

In the motion, Robertson described Flores as indigent and said his client was unable to retain immigration counsel. His detention in ICE custody, Robertson said in the motion, created “enormous problems for court-appointed Defense counsel to communicate with Defendant Flores and prepare for trial.”

Robertson told the judge he had been preparing to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on Due Process grounds and 6th Amendment violations, among others, as a result of Flores’ transfer to ICE custody.

In her declaration, MacCabe said she and Butler learned in September that Flores had been transferred to ICE custody on a detainer. Before that, she said, the prosecutors had been “unaware of any immigration detainer” on Flores.

According to the prosecutors, as of last March, ICE records indicated that Flores was legally residing in the U.S. as a permanent resident.

“To be clear, the prosecutors here agreed to bail for a lawful permanent resident and did not improperly rely on any potential immigration status for him to be detained,” the prosecutors stated in their motion. “Unbeknownst to the prosecutors, defendant was taken into immigration custody.”

The prosecutors said they played “no role in ICE’s decisions, which defendant assented to, or even knew about those decisions beforehand.”

MacCabe said that when Robertson alerted her to the deportation, she expressed “genuine surprise ... due to the defendant’s legal status.”

She wrote that a Special Assistant United States Attorney who handles immigration matters for the office informed her that Homeland Security notes indicate that during Flores’ immigration hearing on December 16, he “appeared pro se, admitted to all the allegations against him in his immigration proceedings, and asked for Chile to be the designated country of removal, while DHS asked for Ecuador in the alternative.”

“According to that Special Assistant United States Attorney’s review of the notes, the immigration judge found defendant eligible to pursue several different relief options, but after discussing it with the judge, defendant opted to not pursue them and requested voluntary departure,” MacCabe said.

Voluntary departure allows someone to avoid a final order of removal, which carries criminal and civil consequences. According to the prosecutors, the immigration judge denied Flores’ voluntary departure application, but issued a final order of removal for him.

Prosecutors said that while Flores was in ICE custody he faced two options, “(1) assert his lawful permanent residence status, fight his criminal case, and face a potentially lengthy criminal sentence only to possibly be deported after his release; or (2) waive his immigration rights, functionally self-deport, and avoid criminal exposure all together. He chose the latter.”

Kroll, the attorney for the jewelers, said the government has stated that the removal occurred through the immigration process and without prosecutorial involvement.

“If that is so, it raises an equally serious question: how a system can permit a defendant accused of a $100 million crime to exit the country in a way that effectively ends criminal accountability,” he said.

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.