Two Murders, Two Lawsuits and a Story That Never Reached Trial

ANALYSIS

Two Murders, Two Lawsuits and a Story That Never Reached Trial

William Noel Rivera Sánchez attributed the deaths of Félix Plaud de Choudens and attorney Luis Quiñones González to a financial dispute. Before he died, he left two videos in which he talked about his investments, demanded money and admitted to the killings. The court documents let us know part of what happened, but they also leave important questions unanswered.

Karaya Boricua | October 24, 2026

Two days, three deaths

On Thursday, October 22, 2026, a series of events began that, in less than twenty-four hours, ended with three men dead and a financial dispute exposed before Puerto Rico. Félix Plaud de Choudens, who had been linked to the youth leadership of the Partido Nuevo Progresista (New Progressive Party), disappeared on Thursday night. The next day, attorney Luis Quiñones González was shot in Ponce. William Noel Rivera Sánchez, identified by authorities as the suspect in both murders, was found dead that same Friday in Santa Isabel.

Rivera left two videos in which he spoke about investments in medical cannabis dispensaries, payment agreements and lawsuits. In them he also took responsibility for the deaths of Plaud and Quiñones. In the first recording he announced that he would look for the attorney; in the second he stated that he had already murdered him.

His words began to circulate while authorities were still investigating what had happened. Rivera claimed he had lost his life savings and blamed the two men for his financial problems.

THREE THINGS TO KEEP APART

To understand this story we have to separate three things: what Rivera said, what appears in the court documents and what has actually been proven. Not everything a person claims in a lawsuit or a video is proven simply because it was said.

The final hours of Félix Plaud and Luis Quiñones

According to information released by authorities, Félix Plaud was spending time with another person on Thursday night when he received a phone call and left to meet someone. He did not return. His disappearance led to an investigation that ended with the discovery of his body in Guayama on Friday afternoon.

On the morning of that Friday, attorney Luis Quiñones had been at the Ponce courthouse. Later he was driving his vehicle behind his wife's car when he was shot. Quiñones was gravely wounded and died after being taken to a hospital. His wife witnessed part of the events and fired toward the attacker, according to published police information.

While these events were unfolding, the videos attributed to Rivera began to circulate. In them he took responsibility for both deaths and tied his actions to a financial dispute that, he said, he had spent years trying to resolve.

Rivera's body was found in Santa Isabel at around 12:42 p.m. on Friday. Later, at about 1:57 p.m., the discovery of Plaud's body was reported. Although Plaud would have been killed first, his body was found afterward. That difference matters for understanding the order of events.

The police continued investigating the circumstances of the three deaths, including the evidence found and the recordings that were circulated.

Rivera died without facing trial for these events. For that reason, although his own statements matter to the investigation, no court examined all the evidence and determined his guilt.

Where did the financial problem come from?

To understand why Rivera named Félix Plaud and Luis Quiñones in his videos, we have to go back several years.

The court documents place the beginning of the business relationship around October 2021. Rivera invested money in projects related to medical cannabis dispensaries. Over time, he alleged that the businesses did not develop as he had been promised and that he was unable to recover his investment.

In the recordings he said he had used all of his savings and sold a boat, a RAM truck and a Can-Am vehicle to raise the money. The documents from the first dispute also mention sales of property, loans and the use of credit to finance the investments.

But there is an important detail here: this was not a single investment or a single lawsuit. The documents show projects connected to several municipalities, including Cupey, Arroyo, Guayama and Toa Baja.

Rivera filed two civil lawsuits related to those investments. The first reached the court in February 2025 and ended with an agreement that was recorded in a judgment. The second was filed in June 2026 and was just getting started when the murders occurred.

These lawsuits show that financial claims existed between the parties. They do not show, on their own, that the defendants committed fraud.

The first lawsuit: $100,000 and an agreement before the court

On February 14, 2025, Rivera filed a lawsuit in the San Juan Court of First Instance against Félix Plaud de Choudens, Estrella de Choudens Colón, Victory Research & Development and other defendants.

According to published information about the case file, Rivera claimed approximately $100,000 related to business investments. He alleged that Plaud had agreed to return that amount through an arrangement of monthly payments of $10,000, but that the money was not delivered as he expected.

The case continued until the parties, represented by their attorneys, reached an agreement. On August 29, 2025, the court entered a judgment by stipulation.

And what does that mean?

It means the parties reached an agreement and submitted it to the court so it would be recorded in a judgment. It does not necessarily mean a trial was held to determine who was right on every allegation.

The claims against other defendants were also withdrawn through a dismissal without prejudice. Put simply, those claims were left unpursued in that proceeding, but they were not resolved through a trial on the merits.

In his first video, Rivera said he had reached an agreement with Félix and that Félix had breached it. In the second he stated that he received part of the money, but that the payments had stopped in recent months.

The existence of a judgment by stipulation confirms that there was a court agreement. However, we have not yet been able to verify its full terms or confirm through court documents that Félix failed to comply with what was agreed.

Editorial note: We later identified a motion dated September 28, 2026 in which William acknowledged payments totaling $86,500. See the documentary update included in this analysis.

We must also distinguish between a payment agreement Rivera claimed to have reached before filing the lawsuit and the court agreement of August 2025. We cannot assure that both set out exactly the same terms.

UPDATE | October 25, 2026

The first lawsuit: William acknowledged that Félix Plaud had paid $86,500

After this analysis was published, a motion filed by William Noel Rivera Sánchez, on his own behalf, on September 28, 2026, in the civil case against Félix Plaud de Choudens, came to our attention.

In that document, William explained that both parties had reached a payment agreement for $100,000 in August 2025. According to his own filing, the first three payments were made on time, but delays began afterward. He also stated that Plaud made a deposit of $7,500 in June 2026 and another of $4,000 on September 4.

At the time he filed the motion, William reported that $13,500 remained pending and asked the court to order its payment within seven days.

This means that, according to the amounts reported by William himself, Félix Plaud had paid $86,500, equivalent to 86.5% of the agreement . However, he also alleged that the balance should have been settled by April 2026.

This information matters because it allows us to distinguish between missing the agreed deadline and a complete failure to pay. They are not the same thing.

The motion documents what William stated and asked of the court. By itself, it does not establish what determination the judge made or whether the remaining balance was paid afterward.

At Karaya Boricua we believe an analysis must be able to expand when documents appear that provide relevant information, even when those documents force us to qualify the initial narrative.

The second lawsuit: the Cupey dispensary and the $666,000

On June 25, 2026, Rivera filed another lawsuit in the San Juan Court of First Instance, identified as SJ2026CV05345.

This time, the claim was mainly related to a medical cannabis dispensary in Cupey. The defendants included Félix Plaud, attorney Luis Quiñones and other individuals and companies.

Rivera alleged that he had been offered a 24.5% stake in the business in exchange for investing $125,000. He also claimed money for the rent of the premises, the purchase of equipment and the improvements needed to open the dispensary.

In one part of the lawsuit, the expenses described added up to $161,000. However, when requesting compensation from the court, Rivera claimed $166,000 for economic losses and another $500,000 for mental anguish, for a total of $666,000.

ABOUT THE $666,000

This figure needs an explanation because it has been repeated a lot in discussing the case.

The $666,000 was what Rivera was asking for, not a debt the court had ordered to be paid. A person can claim an amount of money in a lawsuit, but afterward must show that he is entitled to receive it.

According to information confirmed by the Office of Court Administration, this lawsuit was still at the service of process stage when the murders occurred.

SERVICE OF PROCESS (EMPLAZAMIENTO)

Service of process, known in Puerto Rico as emplazamiento, is the official notice a person receives informing them that a lawsuit exists against them and that they have the right to answer it.

Therefore, the court had not yet decided who was right in the Cupey lawsuit. There was no judgment holding Luis Quiñones, Félix Plaud or the other defendants responsible for the losses Rivera claimed.

In his videos, Rivera also asserted that Quiñones had gone into bankruptcy. That claim has not been confirmed against the corresponding case file. And even if it were confirmed, we would have to examine what type of proceeding it was and how it affected Rivera's claim before drawing conclusions.

The two videos Rivera left before he died

The recordings are an important part of this story because they capture what Rivera wanted to communicate publicly. In them he explained his version of the investments, named several people who, according to him, could provide information, and admitted to committing the murders.

In the first video he announced that he had already killed Félix Plaud and that he would look for Luis Quiñones. In the second he stated that he had already killed both.

Below, we reproduce the complete transcripts prepared from those recordings. Punctuation and some details of writing were adjusted to make them easier to read. Karaya omitted the names of private individuals whom Rivera mentioned and who have not been publicly accused of anything; in those places [name omitted] appears.

The accusations that appear in the videos are Rivera's statements, not facts this analysis takes as proven.

VIDEO 1 | THE THREAT AGAINST LUIS QUIÑONES

“Well, I'm making this video to clear up a situation I'm going through right now. Soon many things will come to light. I want to record this video because I know a lot of things are going to be said about me. Social media, I know they're going to finish me off, and I want to record this video to clear up many things.

A while back I invested my life savings and put them in the hands of two people, Félix Plaud and attorney Luis Quiñones González, from Ponce. These people did whatever they wanted with my money and with the money of many people. And I have been putting up with it for a long time, staying quiet for a long time.

I tried to do many things, first with Luis. With Félix I already have a lawsuit and we reached an agreement that he has breached, he has completely breached the agreement, and that agreement was for the money from a dispensary that has nothing to do with Luis Quiñones.

The one that does involve Luis Quiñones and also Félix is the one in Cupey, and I tried. That Cupey dispensary, most of it I gave to Luis, to Luis Quiñones.

And I tried in many ways to get him to answer me, to pay me. Two people spoke to him and he didn't care. I tried on several occasions, but since he's a lawyer, he knew how to do things. He knew how to protect himself, and today many of us have fallen and he's happy and content as if nothing happened.

And, unfortunately, my patience reached its limit and, as you will know, at this hour, nine, nine thirty at night, I already took care of the first one, I already took care of Félix, to whom I gave the chance to answer me.

And now I'm going after Luis. The luck Luis may have is that I don't find him tomorrow when I go out to look for him, but if I catch him he's going to end up the same as Félix.

The desperation, I was left at zero, left with nothing, you know, my life savings, I put them in the hands of these people. I had a boat, I sold it, I gave the money to these people. I had a RAM, I sold it, I gave the money. I had a Can-Am, I sold it, I gave them the money. The dispensary didn't open because of their mistakes.

And when the time came to answer, they didn't want to, they didn't want to answer. So, well, it was time to go the hard way, because I tried the good way, I tried the good way, I tried.

I even have a lawsuit against them, but Luis went into bankruptcy, he doesn't care, they don't feel like answering. And I want that before judging me, before crucifying me, I want you to look for information.

I know this video is going to reach the press, social media, so look for information on these two characters so you can see that there were many victims, many people who fell.

There is a well-known businessman from Toa Baja, [name omitted], I want you to interview [name omitted].

In Cupey, the owner of the premises we rented, [name omitted], who is an accountant, talk to [name omitted]. Ask [name omitted] who I am. The same with [name omitted], who I am, how I always behaved all these years and who the two of them are.

[Names omitted], the couple who were with us as partners, invested and gave their money too and lost it. A decent couple. Talk to them, ask them.

To the accountant [name omitted]. Ask him about the things Luis Quiñones did to him.

And before judging me for what I did and for what I am going to do, I want you to look for the complete information.”

End of the first video.

VIDEO 2 | RIVERA STATES THAT HE HAS ALREADY COMMITTED BOTH MURDERS

“Greetings. I'm recording this video because I want to clear up several things. In the next few minutes, in the next few hours, a lot of things are going to be said about me. And before the information gets out the wrong way and social media finishes me off, I want to make this video.

A while back, I invested money in two medical cannabis dispensaries. All my savings I gave to two people: number one, Félix Plaud, and second, attorney Luis Quiñones, from Ponce.

These two people took advantage of my good faith and my good will, they did whatever they wanted with the money. And the things they had to do with the dispensaries, they didn't do.

The first dispensary that didn't open, which was the money I gave to Félix, I sued him. And Félix, well, paid me back part of the money, but unfortunately in recent months he stopped paying me.

And well, this situation has really been complicated for me because, as I told you, it was all my savings that I gave them, that I put in their hands.

In the second dispensary, the Cupey dispensary, that dispensary didn't open either because of the two of them, because of Luis and Félix, who did things wrong.

When the time came to ask for my money back, they played dumb, they didn't want to give it back to me. I filed a lawsuit, but really, well, it has been uphill because really, well, Luis knew how to do things. Luis knew how to do things, a lawyer after all.

The last thing he did was go into bankruptcy. I have two people close to him who went and talked to him and told him nicely: “Pay Willito, pay Willito, settle up with Willito,” and it went in one ear and out the other.

I got tired, I got tired of doing things the good way and today I made the decision, yesterday I made the decision to do things the hard way.

Yesterday I murdered Félix Plaud and right now I just murdered Luis.

A lot is going to be said about me, but before social media rips me apart, I want you to call these people, that the news, social media, the police officers, when they investigate, I want you to call these people so you can see that there were many victims of these swindlers, that it wasn't just me.

[Names omitted], who are a super decent couple, who fell into the dispensary trap along with me.

There is a businessman from Toa Baja, [name omitted], the accountant [name omitted], the accountant [name omitted]. [Name omitted] was the person we rented the premises from for the Cupey dispensary.

I want you to talk to those people so they can say who I was and who they are.

Before they butcher me on social media, paint me as an abuser, I want you to do that exercise. So you can see the abuses these people committed, who didn't want to answer or do anything. I'm leaving this little video out there because I know what's coming for me now is not easy.”

End of the second video.

What do the documents confirm, and what remains to be proven?

When we compare Rivera's words with the court documents, we find several matches. Two lawsuits related to dispensary investments existed. One ended with an agreement before the court. The other had not advanced far enough for a decision on who was right.

That allows us to confirm that Rivera had taken his claims to the courts and that financial problems existed between the parties.

But some assertions remain unproven. We have not confirmed through documents that Luis Quiñones had filed for bankruptcy, that Félix Plaud failed to comply with the 2025 judgment or that all the people Rivera mentioned had lost money.

Nor can we state that Plaud or Quiñones committed fraud. A lawsuit records what someone claims, not necessarily what happened. And even if it were shown that a person breached a contract, that does not automatically mean he committed a crime.

Rivera mentioned several people and asked that they be interviewed. That does not mean those people took part in any irregularity. Until there are independent statements or documents, they should be treated only as people mentioned in the recordings.

What would have happened if William Rivera had survived?

The death of William Noel Rivera Sánchez prevented authorities from bringing him before a court to answer for the two murders he publicly attributed to himself. But if he had survived, what process would he have faced? How many years in prison could he have received? And considering that he was 45 years old, would he have had any chance of regaining his freedom?

To answer, we have to start from a hypothetical scenario: that Rivera had been arrested, charged and later found guilty of both murders in the first degree, under the Puerto Rico Penal Code.

The videos and the possible charges

The two recordings would have been relevant to the investigation. In the first, Rivera states that he already killed Félix Plaud and announces that he will look for Luis Quiñones. In the second, he declares that he already murdered both.

Those statements could be used as evidence, provided they were properly authenticated and weighed together with the physical, testimonial and expert evidence.

Article 93 of the Penal Code classifies as first-degree murder, among other forms, one committed on purpose or knowingly. It also includes certain deaths caused by firearm discharge in public places.

The sequence described by authorities and Rivera's own statements would have offered important elements for evaluating those forms. However, it would be up to the prosecution to prove each of the offenses and up to the court to determine his responsibility.

99 years for each murder?

Article 94 sets a fixed penalty of 99 years in prison for first-degree murder.

With two victims, it is natural to think the sentence would have been 198 years. However, the Penal Code contains a specific provision for situations in which a person is tried simultaneously for several offenses.

Article 71, which governs multiple offenses, establishes that when more than one of the offenses carries a 99-year penalty, an aggregate penalty of 20% for each additional victim is imposed.

If both murders had been tried simultaneously and that formula applied, the calculation would be 99 years for the first murder, plus 19.8 years for the second victim.

The result would be a sentence of 118.8 years, approximately 118 years and ten months in prison.

This calculation applies exclusively to the scenario of two first-degree murders under that provision. It does not include possible violations of the Weapons Act or other offenses that might have been charged and proven. Nor does it replace the sentence a court would have had to issue.

Could he have left prison before serving 118 years?

Here we find a fundamental difference between the length of a sentence and the moment when a person can be considered for parole.

Act 85-2024, which amended Article 308 of the Penal Code, establishes that an adult convicted of first-degree murder may be considered by the Parole Board after serving 25 calendar years of the sentence, subject to the exclusions established by law.

The legislation also contemplates rules for calculating eligibility when there are consecutive sentences, without necessarily requiring that the minimum term for each one be served separately.

In our hypothetical scenario, if Rivera had been convicted only of the two forms of first-degree murder that allow that benefit, the reference term for his first consideration would have been 25 calendar years of confinement.

William was 45. At what age could he have been considered?

If he began serving his sentence at 45 and no other legal circumstances altered his eligibility, he would reach 25 years of confinement at around age 70.

That is, approximately in 2051, assuming he had begun serving the sentence in 2026.

But reaching that date would not mean he would leave prison.

The Board would have to evaluate whether the benefit should be granted, taking into account the legal criteria, the circumstances of the offenses, his record and his conduct during confinement.

In addition, the Penal Code excludes certain forms of first-degree murder from parole, particularly the one in Article 93(c), related to certain victims who perform security or justice functions while carrying out their duties. That exclusion cannot automatically be extended to the murder of any attorney.

So, would he have had a real chance?

From a strictly legal standpoint, and under the conditions of this exercise, yes, there would have been a path to ask that his case be considered after 25 years.

But that does not allow us to say the Board would have granted him freedom, or that he would have received favorable treatment inside prison. Nor do we know what other charges the prosecution would have filed or what determinations a court would have made.

THE DISTINCTION THAT MATTERS

Having the right to be considered for parole is not the same as having the right to walk free.

For that reason, a hypothetical sentence of more than 118 years would not necessarily have eliminated every possibility of release during his lifetime. However, any opportunity would have depended on the offenses ultimately adjudicated, the applicable laws and a future evaluation we cannot anticipate today.

Rivera died at 45. We will never know what the result of a trial would have been, how much time he would have served or whether he would have asked for parole.

Understanding a situation does not mean justifying a decision

When a person says he lost all his savings, that he sold his belongings and that he could not recover his money, it is possible to understand that he felt frustration, desperation or helplessness. But those emotions, however intense, do not give anyone the right to take another person's life.

We can also ask whether our courts offer mechanisms that are fast and accessible enough to resolve financial disputes. That is a necessary conversation. A court process can take time, cost money and cause emotional strain, especially when a person believes he is losing what he built over years.

But in this case there is a detail we cannot overlook: Rivera had a judgment by agreement in one of his claims and a second lawsuit that was only just beginning. We do not have enough documents to state that he had exhausted all available legal options.

And even if he had, that would not have made violence a legitimate alternative.

Justice does not mean each person decides who is right and carries out the punishment he considers deserved. Courts, rules of evidence and each party's right to defend themselves exist precisely to prevent that.

Félix Plaud and Luis Quiñones had the right to answer the claims Rivera had filed. If there were debts, breaches or unlawful acts, it was up to the established procedures to investigate and resolve them.

That right does not disappear because someone is convinced they were harmed.

A story that did not end in court

The court documents confirm that there were investments, two lawsuits and an agreement recorded in a judgment. The videos let us know the version Rivera wanted to leave before he died. But none of those pieces, on its own, tells the whole story.

We still need to learn the full content of the 2025 court agreement and whether there were later efforts to enforce it. We also need to corroborate Luis Quiñones' alleged bankruptcy and other claims Rivera made about the businesses.

Authorities will be able to keep clarifying aspects of the murders. What can no longer happen is a criminal trial against Rivera in which the evidence is presented and his responsibility is judicially determined.

Three men died. Their families were left with losses that cannot be measured in dollars and with questions that may never receive a complete answer.

Rivera asked that all the information be sought before he was judged. That request deserves to be examined from a basic principle: seeking the complete information means also investigating what contradicts our first impression, hearing all sides and distinguishing between an accusation and a proven fact.

We cannot take his entire financial version as true just because it was recorded. Nor can we ignore the court documents showing that real disputes existed.

And, above all, we cannot allow a discussion about money to displace the most important part of this story: two people were deprived of their lives before their financial claims were fully resolved in court.

The question this case leaves us is not only how much money was lost or how long a sentence would have lasted. It is also what happens when someone stops trusting justice and decides to become the judge and executioner of his own sentence.

Understanding that difference is essential for talking about justice with judgment.

Sources and reference documents

Puerto Rico Penal Code (Código Penal de Puerto Rico), Act 146-2012, as amended, Articles 71, 92, 93, 94 and 308.

Act 85-2024, on eligibility for parole consideration.

San Juan Court of First Instance, lawsuit SJ2026CV05345, filed on June 25, 2026.

Information published by El Nuevo Día on the two lawsuits and the judgment by stipulation of August 29, 2025.

Information released by the Puerto Rico Police and reported by news outlets on October 23 and 24, 2026.

Transcripts of two recordings attributed to William Noel Rivera Sánchez, prepared by Karaya Boricua. The names of private individuals mentioned in the videos were omitted.

The documentary research was carried out by Karaya Boricua. Artificial intelligence is used only as a collaborative source in the final drafting to speed up publication processes.

Karaya

No scandal. Sound judgment.