Corruption suspect by any other name
A “DODGE-the-bullet” move by the lawyer for corruption suspect Nicolas Corcione, is hanging on the interpretation of the word “director”
The senior prosecutor for Organized Crime, Nahaniel Murgas, is analyzing an appeal filed by Corcione’s lawyer Roberto Moreno, saying that as a director of the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) he cannot be, be investigated under the rules of adversarial criminal justice system
Corcione who has twice failed to show for scheduled appearance’s before the prosecutor is one of 12 defendants for the alleged crime of money laundering related to disgraced and jailed former Supreme Court Judge Alejandro Moncada Luna now residing in the El Renacer prison for unjustified enrichment and falsifying accounts.
Legal sources say that Corcione is a member of the board but not a “director”. “He’s on the board, but not head of the ACP, so the law that is argued does not apply” one lawyer opined,
The vice president of the National Bar Association, Juan Carlos Arauz agreed. He said that the adversarial criminal justice system is applied to directors of autonomous institutions; ie the person running the institution. He added that the role of a member of the board is not comparable to the role of the director of an autonomous institution.
It appears that the defense lawyer is confusing the use of the word director, which in Spanish in Panama means “manager”, the person who runs the show. In other jurisdictions those who sit on the board of a company are referred to as “directors” who often draw a fat fee, even if they rarely show for a board meeting.”
Readers of the Dicken’s classic, “Oliver Twist” will remember the incident when Oliver was chastised by Mr Bumble for daring to ask for more. The outraged beedle took him before the board of the Workhouse, and the foundling was ordered to bow to the board. The confused child, not understanding the word, bowed to the planks of the table’’ It seems that Corcione’s defense team is equally confused, but the stakes are far higher than begging for an extra helping of watery gruel.
Jorge Espino a partner in Concepts and Spaces, SA, one of those mentioned in the case and who is already in preventive detention said Corcione paid $600,000 to get a contract to build the Maritime Court .
Moreno meanwhile is intent on staving off his client’s appearance to answer questions about his alleged malfeasance, An earlier reason for being a no-show was that Corcieno was out of the country on a pre-arranged trip, almost as frequent a reason as those who discover health problems when charged or faced with confinement.
The lawyer may appeal to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. Although it has previously ruled already in a case of alleged embezzlement involving members of the board of the ACP.
The answer to the record 167-D was issued on August 14, 2009, by Judge Jerome Mejia. “It is estimated that the present complaint filed against members of the board of the ACP should be referred to the Attorney General’s Office, an entity which by law belongs the privilege to instruct summary and generally take such action criminal processes for crimes whose knowledge is attributed to the Supreme Court or the Criminal Division.
Paragraph 1 of Article 94 of the Judicial Code stipulates that it is the competence of the Criminal Court in cases of crimes or misconduct, among others, directors and managers of autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions.
Meanwhile Corcione remains a target for prosecutors whether he is an ACP director or board member, raising the question: “Would a suspect by any other name smell as sour?