Global geopolitics

Central to the complaint is Alfred Nobel’s 1895 will, which defines the Peace Prize as a trust with a specific and limited purpose. Nobel directed that the prize be awarded to the individual who had conferred the greatest benefit to humankind by advancing fraternity between nations, reducing standing armies, and promoting peace congresses. Assange’s argument holds that this language imposes a binding fiduciary obligation on Swedish fund administrators that cannot be overridden by political discretion exercised by the Norwegian selection committee.

The complaint argues that any disbursement contradicting Nobel’s mandate constitutes misappropriation under Swedish law, regardless of the political independence claimed by the Nobel committees. According to the filing, Swedish administrators retain a non-delegable duty to ensure that endowment funds are not diverted to purposes inconsistent with the will. Assange contends that failure to intervene once misuse becomes evident incurs criminal liability rather than mere reputational harm.

The immediate trigger for the complaint was the 2025 award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado. The filing asserts that Machado’s public record categorically excludes her from eligibility under Nobel’s criteria. The complaint characterises the pending eleven million Swedish kronor prize transfer as the object of suspected gross misappropriation and conspiracy by foundation officials who authorised or failed to prevent the disbursement.

Assange’s legal argument extends beyond misappropriation to allege facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity under Sweden’s obligations as a Rome Statute signatory. The complaint states that Nobel Foundation officials knew or ought to have known that Machado had actively incited United States military aggression against Venezuela. It further alleges that Nobel funds would foreseeably contribute to extrajudicial killings and unlawful attacks against civilians, including shipwrecked survivors at sea.

The filing situates the award within an escalating military context that amplifies its legal significance. At the time of the Nobel ceremony, the United States had deployed what military analysts described as the largest naval and troop concentration in the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis. More than fifteen thousand personnel were involved, including an aircraft carrier strike group positioned off the Venezuelan coast. Two days after the ceremony, the United States president publicly announced that military operations would expand to include ground-based action.

The complaint describes this escalation as part of an openly declared strategic shift by the United States toward offensive operations unconstrained by legal caution. Against this background, Assange argues that Machado’s actions and statements assumed heightened causal relevance. The filing alleges that her Nobel recognition elevated her influence at a decisive moment, potentially tipping political calculations in favour of armed intervention.

Machado’s documented statements form a core evidentiary basis of the complaint. These include repeated endorsements of direct United States military intervention, public justification of strikes on civilian vessels that caused dozens of deaths, and praise for foreign military conduct widely criticised as unlawful. The filing also references her dedication of the Nobel award to the United States president for prioritising Venezuela as a national security objective.

The complaint further alleges that Machado entered into a conspiracy with United States officials involving access to Venezuelan oil reserves and natural resources through post-conflict privatisation arrangements. According to the filing, such promises of economic access were made contingent upon the removal of the sitting Venezuelan government by force. Assange argues that this conduct places Machado squarely outside any reasonable interpretation of peace advocacy.

Substantial third-party opposition to Machado’s selection is cited to establish that Nobel officials were on notice regarding her record. Twenty-one Norwegian peace organisations publicly declared that she represented the opposite of a peace laureate. A previous Nobel Peace Prize recipient described the award as a mockery of Alfred Nobel’s will. A leading peace research institute confirmed that Machado had repeatedly called for military intervention.

The complaint emphasises that Nobel Foundation officials had previously exercised oversight authority by withholding prize disbursements in 2018 during an internal crisis. That precedent is used to argue that inaction in the present case reflects choice rather than incapacity. According to the filing, continued disbursement despite known risks constitutes intentional or negligent facilitation of international crimes.

This legal challenge cannot be separated from the broader history of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Since publishing evidence of war crimes, civilian killings, and systemic deception during United States-led wars, Assange has been subjected to prolonged confinement, arbitrary detention, and sustained legal pressure. United Nations bodies and numerous legal scholars have characterised his treatment as punitive and politically motivated. The present complaint reflects a continuation of his long-standing focus on accountability for institutions that enable or legitimise warfare.

WikiLeaks’ publications exposed how legal language, institutional prestige, and bureaucratic processes are routinely used to normalise violence while insulating decision-makers from responsibility. The Nobel Peace Prize has long occupied a contradictory position within that landscape, at times recognising genuine peace efforts while at other moments aligning with prevailing geopolitical power. Assange’s complaint represents an attempt to test whether the prize can be held to its stated legal purpose rather than its symbolic reputation.

The remedies sought in the filing reflect this approach. Assange requests an immediate freeze of all pending prize funds and recovery of the medal to prevent irreversible misuse of the endowment. He seeks seizure of internal communications, financial records, and board minutes to establish knowledge and intent. He further requests interrogation of named officials and referral to international jurisdiction if domestic prosecution proves inadequate.

The complaint concludes by warning that failure to act would permanently transform the Nobel Peace Prize from an instrument intended to restrain war into one that actively enables it. That assertion reframes the controversy from a dispute over political judgment into a question of criminal law and fiduciary duty. Whether Swedish authorities accept that framing will determine whether the Nobel Peace Prize remains insulated from legal accountability or becomes subject to the same standards applied to other financial and institutional actors.

The complaint forces a confrontation between symbolic authority and legal obligation, testing whether prestige can override the plain language of a binding charitable trust.

Authored By: 

If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv

https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics 

Criminal complaint challenges Peace Prize award to María Corina Machado as unlawful and corrupt

Julian Assange filed a criminal complaint in Sweden in December 2025 that challenges the legal integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize and the conduct of those entrusted with administering Alfred Nobel’s endowment. The complaint alleges that senior figures within the Nobel Foundation converted a peace mandate into a mechanism facilitating war, aggression, and crimes against humanity. The filing represents a rare attempt to subject the Nobel Peace Prize to criminal scrutiny under Swedish law rather than moral criticism alone.

The complaint was lodged simultaneously with the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and the Swedish War Crimes Unit, signalling an intention to treat the matter as a question of enforceable law rather than symbolic protest. Thirty individuals associated with the Nobel Foundation are named as suspects, including its chair and executive leadership. The alleged offences include gross misappropriation of funds, breach of trust, conspiracy, facilitation of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the financing of aggression. The requested remedies include freezing prize funds, seizing records, interrogating officials, and potential referral to the International Criminal Court.