Court rejects ex-president Varela’s protection gambit

Juan Carlos Varela

 
1,350Views 0Comments Posted 23/05/2022

 

The First Superior Court of Justice did not admit a protection of guarantees presented by former president Juan Carlos Varela against the decision of the third judge liquidator of criminal cases, Baloisa Marquínez, who denied an incident of nullity against the Inquiry order issued by the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office in the investigation for alleged money laundering related to Odebrecht contracts.

In a ruling dated May 18, under the presentation of Judge Juan Carlos Tatis, the judges of the First Court of Justice upheld Judge Marquínez's decision to endorse the investigation order against Varela, issued by the Superior Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office on June 30, 2020.

The ruling says that the protection of guarantees should have been presented at the time the investigation resolution was issued by the prosecution.

It adds that the defense will be able to rehearse this resource during the substantive hearing, as required by article 2277 of the Judicial Code.

Varela was investigated for the payments made to the presidential campaign of his party, the Panameñista, for the period 2009-2014, as Vice President and for the 2014 electoral campaign, in which he was elected president.

July 18 hearing
The preliminary hearing for the Odebrecht case is scheduled for July 18. There are 62 people investigated for alleged money laundering, including former presidents Varela and Martinelli.

The statements of his co-partisan and ex-consul of Panama in South Korea, Jaime Lasso, were the ones that served for the prosecution to summon him.

Lasso, questioned on February 13, 2020, admitted having been the person who accepted payments for Varela’s campaign from 2009 to 2012.

According to prosecution investigations, money from Odebrecht reached the Panameñista Party through the Don James Foundation and through two companies: V-Tech and Poseidon Enterprises.

Varela has said that “no payment was received of the Odebrecht company”, nor of any other State contractor.