Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, allegedly exploited sensitive details from a January mission to capture Maduro, using insider knowledge to place wagers on the platform Polymarket, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York.

Prosecutors said Van Dyke participated in the planning and execution of the operation for about a month starting Dec. 8, 2025, during which he had access to classified material.He faces multiple charges, including unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic information, commodities fraud, wire fraud, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions.

If convicted, he could face a lengthy prison sentence.According to the indictment, Van Dyke created an account on Polymarket in late December and placed around 13 bets, taking positions on outcomes such as the presence of U.S. forces in Venezuela and Maduro being removed from power by Jan. 31, 2026.

Officials allege that after securing the winnings, Van Dyke transferred much of the funds into a foreign cryptocurrency account before moving them into a brokerage account. He also attempted to have his Polymarket account deleted, claiming he had lost access to the associated email, prosecutors said.

Van Dyke, a Master Sergeant promoted in 2023, was part of the U.S. special forces community and stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The indictment states he had signed nondisclosure agreements prohibiting the disclosure or misuse of classified or sensitive operational information.

Kash Patel said the case underscores accountability for individuals entrusted with national security information. “Any clearance holders thinking of cashing in their access and knowledge for personal gain will be held accountable,” he said in a statement.

The case follows heightened scrutiny of prediction markets after reports earlier this month identified suspiciously accurate bets tied to geopolitical developments, prompting warnings from the White House against the misuse of nonpublic information in such platforms.

The Pentagon referred inquiries to the Army and the Department of Justice, while U.S. Special Operations Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick and challenges an article published on Friday that cited anonymous sources describing what it called “conspicuous inebriation” and erratic availability during Patel’s tenure.

Patel denied the allegations in comments to Reuters, calling the report “a lie” and accusing the publication of knowingly printing false information despite receiving prior denials. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,” he said.

The article, which was later retitled online, reported that early meetings had been rescheduled due to late-night drinking and that Patel was frequently unreachable, delaying investigative decisions. The report included denials from the White House, the Department of Justice and Patel himself.

In a statement, The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting and would “vigorously defend” against what it described as a meritless lawsuit.The lawsuit alleges the publication acted with “actual malice,” a legal standard requiring public figures to prove that false information was knowingly published or recklessly disregarded.

Patel’s filing argues that editors failed to adequately consider detailed rebuttals provided before publication and did not allow sufficient time for response.Legal experts note that U.S. defamation law sets a high threshold for public officials.

Deanna Shullman said proving actual malice is difficult and that failing to obtain comment alone is generally insufficient to meet the standard.The complaint also references a letter sent by Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication requesting more time to respond to multiple allegations.

The lawsuit claims the article was published without addressing those objections.The case adds to a series of legal actions by figures linked to the administration of Donald Trump against media organizations, though courts have previously dismissed several similar defamation claims.