FORMER  Supreme Court Judge  Alejandro Moncada Luna was never exonerated of the crime of money laundering and the Public Ministry (MP) can charge those who participated in the crime.

[caption id="attachment_64775" align="alignleft" width="300"] Luis Mario Carrasco, Maria De Lourdes Estedor, Wilfredo Saenz[/caption]

This was the conclusion of  Second Criminal Superior Court Luis Mario Carrasco in withholding his  vote in the ruling that annulled proceedings against 14 people of the  "zero circle" of ex- President Ricardo Martinelli, who were   investigated for alleged money laundering in accounts related to the disgraced and jailed ex judge Moncada Luna.

Carrasco said that although Moncada Luna was not charged with money laundering as part of the sentencing agreement signed with Deputy Pedro Miguel Gonzalez –prosecutor  in the process followed in the National Assembly, this does not relieve others being investigated for the alleged commission of the offense.

The judge disagreed with his colleagues Wilfredo Sáenz and Maria De Lourdes Estrada, considering that it  is "perfectly feasible to press charges for money laundering," and said  that there were np  grounds for annulment, as raised Sáenz and Estrada in the September 23 judgment.

In  a six pages document Carrasco explains why he opposes the  criterion of his colleagues Wilfredo Sáenz and Maria De Lourdes Estrada, who in a ruling declared void all actions taken in the process against  Felipe Pipo Virzi, Nicolas Corcione, Ricky Ricardo Calvo, and 11 others, derived from the activities of ex judge

Alejandro Moncada Luna who was condemned  by the National Assembly for unjustified enrichment.

Carrasco argues, for example, that the reasons given by his colleagues "are nonexistent," so he says, research has been interrupted ab  " ostentatious and unusual" decision..

"I observe first that the claim that generated the pronouncement was  born with the presentation of a motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction promoted by the legal representative of the company Cubemu Corporation, S.A. which  is identified as an affected third party. "

He  then states that Cubemu Corporation is not a defendant in this case and is not complaining. "It is a legal person without facing charges involving criminal liability maintains a proprietary interest linked to the investigation." Indeed, the appeal court came to hand Gilberto Perez, of the law firm José María Castillo & Asociados, acting on behalf of Cubemu Corporation.

In their  judgment, Saenz and Estrada pose, that in this case the guarantee of due process was violated due to the failure of the formalities concerning the formulation of charges for the crime of money laundering.

It also infers that in  the agreement between the prosecutor Pedro Miguel Gonzalez and Moncada Luna latter accepted a sentence of 60 months imprisonment on charges of unjust enrichment and deceit. And then add that point four of the same agreement provides that the delivery of the judgment entails the closure of the investigation. "With the agreement charges of money laundering and corruption were eliminated, therefore only they declare the accused responsible for the crimes of unjust enrichment and deceit," explain the two lawyers.

However, Carrasco says it is necessary that the Public Ministry culminate the investigation initiated within the terms of law, and argues that this action must be submitted to scrutiny of the trial judge, who at the time is entitled to recognizing annulments or any other irregularity claiming a judicial remedy "