The imputation of the Public Ministry proves that the governor of Potosí, Jhony Mamani has “repeated or previous criminal activity”, because he has an open process against him; that despite his charge, he did not prove an address in the city of Potosí, that there is a risk of obstruction and flight. Therefore, he will request house arrest in the hearing next Thursday, for the complaint for the allegedly irregular purchase of 41 ambulances.
As precautionary measures, he will request at the precautionary hearing next Thursday the obligation to appear before the Prosecutor’s Office once a week, prohibition to communicate with witnesses, participants and experts; a personal bond or economic, arraigo and house arrest
The imputation warns of the existence of repeated or previous criminal activity, “duly accredited. According to the history of complaints filed by the Public Ministry, it is clear that the accused has a previous criminal proceeding against him for the crimes of breach of duties, attributing the rights of the people, improper use of influence and contracts harmful to the State.
According to the informative statement of the Governor and the data obtained from the Segip, the Prosecutor’s Office maintains in the imputation that the authority does not have a precise address in Potosí. “His real address would be in the municipality of Tahua, but it is known that due to the function he fulfills as governor of the department, he would have to have an address that meets the conditions of habituality and habitability in the city of Potosí” .
Thus, warns of a risk of leakage that not only hinders the development of the processbut also makes any notification by the Judicial Branch or Public Prosecutor difficult, “so this risk is fully accredited,” says the document, and notes that it has been shown that “andThe defendant does not have a precise addressand that’s why I could “leave the country or stay hidden”.
The indictment also states that it is likely “that the accused threatens or negatively influences the participants, victims, witnesses or experts for the purpose of misreporting or behaving reticently.” Because in the present case the defendant in unrestricted liberty is hindering the co-defendants because they depend or depended on him as government officials.
The imputation of the Public Ministry proves that the governor of Potosí, Jhony Mamani has “repeated or previous criminal activity”, because he has an open process against him; that despite his charge, he did not prove an address in the city of Potosí, that there is a risk of obstruction and flight. Therefore, he will request house arrest in the hearing next Thursday, for the complaint for the allegedly irregular purchase of 41 ambulances.
As precautionary measures, he will request at the precautionary hearing next Thursday the obligation to appear before the Prosecutor’s Office once a week, prohibition to communicate with witnesses, participants and experts; a personal bond or economic, arraigo and house arrest
The imputation warns of the existence of repeated or previous criminal activity, “duly accredited. According to the history of complaints filed by the Public Ministry, it is clear that the accused has a previous criminal proceeding against him for the crimes of breach of duties, attributing the rights of the people, improper use of influence and contracts harmful to the State.
According to the informative statement of the Governor and the data obtained from the Segip, the Prosecutor’s Office maintains in the imputation that the authority does not have a precise address in Potosí. “His real address would be in the municipality of Tahua, but it is known that due to the function he fulfills as governor of the department, he would have to have an address that meets the conditions of habituality and habitability in the city of Potosí” .
Thus, warns of a risk of leakage that not only hinders the development of the processbut also makes any notification by the Judicial Branch or Public Prosecutor difficult, “so this risk is fully accredited,” says the document, and notes that it has been shown that “andThe defendant does not have a precise addressand that’s why I could “leave the country or stay hidden”.
The indictment also states that it is likely “that the accused threatens or negatively influences the participants, victims, witnesses or experts for the purpose of misreporting or behaving reticently.” Because in the present case the defendant in unrestricted liberty is hindering the co-defendants because they depend or depended on him as government officials.
;
