The banker credits his own lawyers with securing clemency and says Alina Mildon’s professional engagement was entirely unrelated to the pardon.
After more than three years of federal proceedings, Julio Herrera Velutini received presidential clemency in January 2026. [1] His representatives say that outcome followed sustained work by his legal team, including repeated communications with Justice Department and White House lawyers.
Their position is unequivocal: the engagement between his group and Alina Mildon, previously known publicly as Alina Habba, had no connection with securing his pardon.
That account is accompanied by significant government responses reported in The New York Times’s own investigation. The Justice Department said Habba “did not speak to anyone about a pardon.” A White House official said she “had nothing to do with the pardon” and described a review process involving White House Counsel and DOJ.
Those statements directly challenge the suggestion that Mildon personally intervened to obtain clemency. They deserve prominence alongside the financial arrangements that have attracted attention.
Herrera Velutini was indicted in August 2022. Prosecutors alleged that he supported a scheme to provide campaign assistance to then-Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced in exchange for replacing a banking regulator investigating one of his financial institutions. He initially pleaded not guilty.
The legal position changed substantially in 2025. Christopher Kise, a former Florida solicitor general, helped negotiate an agreement under which Herrera Velutini pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor campaign-finance offense in August. Vázquez and former FBI agent Mark Rossini also entered misdemeanor pleas.
The Times additionally identifies Kise’s role in pursuing clemency. Herrera Velutini’s existing lawyers and their work are therefore acknowledged within the reporting that prompted the controversy.
Trump issued the initial pardon on January 15, 2026, followed by an amended grant on January 20. The original criminal case was dismissed as moot on January 27 following the pardon and its acceptance. A pardon is an act of clemency and does not establish factual innocence.
The administration also offered its own assessment of the shared prosecution. A White House official described it as “an example of political prosecution.” Trump granted pardons to Herrera Velutini, Vázquez and Rossini. That characterization was the administration’s position, rather than a judicial finding.
Recent coverage has focused on Mildon’s agreement to become general counsel of Concord Partners, a Florida company established by Isabela Herrera in October 2025.
According to the Times, the package provided $10 million annually for four years, with bonuses bringing guaranteed compensation above $50 million. Mildon formally began work on January 1, 2026, shortly before the pardon. At the time of clemency, she was also a senior DOJ adviser serving as a special government employee. People familiar with the contract told the newspaper they believed the engagement was intended to assist the clemency effort.
Herrera Velutini’s representatives reject that interpretation. They maintain that his lawyers handled the pardon and that Mildon’s engagement concerned separate professional responsibilities.
Mildon has publicly denied any connection between her employment and securing clemency. She says the employment was vetted and disclosed to DOJ. Her account, the DOJ statement and the White House official’s denial all challenge the suggestion of her personal participation.
Coverage has also highlighted Isabela Herrera’s $3.5 million in MAGA Inc. contributions, a $2.5 million White House ballroom pledge and an initial $835,000 payment toward that pledge. It reported that Ballard Partners received $600,000 for work involving Bancrédito Holding Corporation in the final quarter of 2025.
Campaign Legal Center filed an FEC complaint on February 17, 2026, alleging that Isabela may have contributed funds on her father’s behalf. The complaint requests an investigation; it does not itself determine whether a violation occurred.
These matters can be examined without treating the alleged relationships among them as established. Timing, compensation, political giving and evidence of personal intervention address different questions.
Herrera Velutini’s response places the focus on the work of his legal team, the negotiated misdemeanor resolution, the presidential grants and the official statements about Mildon’s role. His representatives maintain that sustained legal advocacy secured relief and that her employment was unrelated.
A fair account should give that explanation meaningful weight. The public can scrutinize the financial arrangements while also expecting clear evidence for any claim that Mildon intervened in the pardon process.
