MEDIA WATCH: Weakening the fight against financial crime

ON MAY 5, 1999, the full Supreme Court ruled that: “The key element of protection is the urgency in protecting the estimated.violated constitutional rights.

Hoyporhoy, La Prensa Jan. 7

The imminence of the damage means that it is an actual injury … Imminent means or is threatening to happen soon, and the antonym is remote, far “. What motivated the full Court to ignore its own law? None of the criteria mentioned by the Supreme Court in 1999 concurred in the case of researching  Buko Millionaire, and involving the namesake son of the president of the Republic. In a judgment of November 30 2015, leaving more questions and uncertainties, it is clear that one defendant benefits. It disarms the  prosecutor  and weakens  the combating  of money laundering, illicit enrichment and all kinds of financial crime To make matters worse, Judge Jose Ayu Prado, on the Day of the “Innocents”, told the public prosecutor that the defense must be met. A week later he was re-elected as president of the Supreme Court.