Where’s the evidence? Why the Herald stands alone on Cuban money theft allegations.

In early August 2025, the Miami Herald published a damning investigation alleging that Cuban officials — especially those tied to the military conglomerate GAESA — had siphoned off billions of dollars and hidden them in overseas accounts, depriving ordinary Cubans of resources. 

Yet in the weeks since, no independent confirmation has surfaced. No criminal charges have been filed. No international audit has verified the claims. Aside from the Herald, few mainstream outlets have covered the story or followed up on it. The gaps leave a swirl of questions: What is the proof? Why is the Herald alone in pushing this narrative? And what standards of journalism are implicated?

The Herald’s Claims — and the Evidence Gaps

The Herald’s series relies heavily on “secret documents” and leaked financial records that allegedly show GAESA and affiliated firms holding dollar reserves in offshore accounts in excess of $18 billion. The implication is that these funds are the proceeds of corruption or misappropriation — money that should have remained in Cuba or benefited Cuban citizens.

But the Herald’s reporting stops short of proving more direct links:

• It does not provide a detailed forensic audit showing how or when funds were diverted, or which Cuban officials personally benefited.
• It does not identify specific beneficiaries or track the money from Cuban state funds into private foreign bank accounts.
• And it emphasizes risk and secrecy more than legal findings: civil or criminal prosecutions for money-laundering, bribery, or embezzlement have not been shown or cited. In other words, while the documents may raise serious red flags, they do not amount to conclusive proof that theft happened.

Independent experts and analysts — including economists and legal specialists familiar with Cuban finance — remain cautious. Without clear, verifiable financial trails or transparent banking disclosures, it’s hard to distinguish between large sovereign reserves, legal hard currency holdings, and illicit assets. The Herald has described its documents as “secret” and “confidential,” which naturally limits scrutiny and verification. 

No government — whether Cuban, U.S., or any international financial oversight body — has publicly confirmed that these funds are stolen. Neither has the Herald pointed to cases where seized assets abroad were definitively returned or linked to wrongdoing by specific individuals. The lack of legal or judicial follow-up means the Herald’s story remains speculative rather than proven.

So Why Has No Other Media Outlet Followed?

Given the potential gravity of the allegations, observers have wondered why the story has not gained traction elsewhere. Several factors may explain why the Miami Herald remains almost entirely alone in pursuing or promoting the narrative:

1. Access to Documents and Sources
   According to the Herald, the investigation is based on internal financial records and previously unpublished documents that were leaked specifically to its reporters. If those documents are not made public or if other media outlets cannot verify them independently, it creates a barrier to confirmation. In other words, the Herald may have exclusive access to certain materials, but that same lack of transparency hampers external validation.
2. Editorial risk and evidentiary threshold
   Reporting that accuses government officials of international-scale corruption is risky. Journalistic standards generally require thorough verification, corroborating sources, and a clear path to accountability — especially when the accused parties can’t easily respond. Other outlets may have found the evidence too weak or not independently verifiable enough to meet their publication standards. Without forensic audits, naming individuals, or legal follow-through, some editors might have opted not to publish the story.
3. Political sensitivity and context
   Cuba remains a highly politicized topic, especially in South Florida and Miami, where the exile community and U.S. policy debates are prominent. Stories about Cuban corruption and hidden wealth often intersect with U.S. foreign policy, anti-Castro activism, and the emotional politics of the Cuban diaspora. Some media outlets may hesitate to engage in ideological debates or spread unproven sensational claims, choosing instead to wait for independent verification.
4. Reputational caution
   If a major newspaper publishes a strong allegation of financial wrongdoing and cannot support it in court or with clear documentation, it risks damaging its reputation and facing legal consequences. Lawsuits or demands for retractions are common in international corruption reporting. Conversely, the Herald may have believed its internal review was enough to move forward—or thought the public interest justified the risk. However, that judgment might not have been shared by other outlets.
5. Follow-up difficulty
   Cuba is a closed society in many respects, and financial transparency is limited. Tracking money through offshore banking jurisdictions, shell companies, and international corporate structures is inherently difficult. Even if the Herald has identified suspicious financial flows, other outlets might lack the resources or the specialized investigative capacity to trace them further or to build on the Herald’s work. Simply put, following up might be much harder than publishing an initial exposé.

***

What This Means for Readers

For readers, the Herald’s reporting raises serious and plausible concerns about how the Cuban government manages its international finances and what might be happening behind closed doors. However, it does not provide definitive public proof that Cuban officials stole public money and laundered it abroad. Without forensic financial audits, named beneficiaries, legal findings, or verified money-laundering trails, the story remains in the realm of investigative allegation rather than proven fact.

That distinction is important. If the money is genuinely sovereign reserves — or legally obtained foreign currency — the implications are quite different from if it is illicitly gained corruption proceeds. Without transparent documentation, broad journalistic corroboration, or legal adjudication, the Herald’s account should be approached with caution.

Ultimately, the fact that only one major newspaper has fully published this story highlights the need for follow-up, independent audits, and a broader journalistic effort. Public allegations of corruption require not just strong journalism but also thorough verification — and this case still hasn’t met that standard.

Felipe Pagliery is a retired professor of history. He lives in West Palm Beach, Florida. This article was written with help from Artificial Intelligence.