In a blow to the fight against corruption, the Constitutional Court (TC) annulled the application of the domain extinction to illegal goods acquired before 2018, thus limiting the recovery of properties related to serious crimes. The effect of this ruling would bring positive news for some former presidents such as Alejandro Toledo, Ollanta Humala or who corresponds to keep the property of the ex -dictator Alberto Fujimori.
The provision would not only reach the aforementioned ex -president, but also to figures related to their government. Such is the case of Vladimiro Montesinos or Nadine Heredia, to name a few cases.
Alberto Fujimori: The exdictor’s environment would benefit
The effects of this provision would go to the woven corruption from the fujimorist dictatorship of the 90s. From then until 2018, goods were seized from institutions with the power to do so from the Domain extinction law.
As reported at the time the then interim prosecutor of the Nation, JUAN CARLOS VILLENA CAMPANAsixteen million dollars related to Alberto Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinosbetween bank accounts and properties, of which one part was destined to ensure the re -election of the ex -dictator.
In the same way, the Specialized Transitory Superior Prosecutor In Lima’s domain extinction, it confirmed that, through a judicial resolution, it was ordered that the property belonging to Víctor Venero Garridoconsidered testaferro of Vladimiro Montesinos and valued at 4 million 450 thousand 395 dollars, be transferred to the State.
Both recovered around the figures of Fujimori and Montesinos as within its close environment it would be returned to those who correspond after the decision taken by the magistrates of the TC.
Alejandro Toledo and Ollanta Humala: another of those who is released with this provision
The former president Alejandro Toledo Face a deprivation of liberty of 20 years after being found guilty of receiving money from the company Odebrecht. Amid the investigations against him, Prosecutor’s Office ordered the seizure of a series of patrimonial assets that were in the name of the former president and his family circle, among which is his wife Eliane Karp, also investigated for crimes of corruption linked to the aforementioned Brazilian company.
The properties located in Las Casuarinas, Punta Sal, Camacho and the Omega Tower, which were bought for more than five million dollars, as well as more than 42 thousand dollars in an account in the name of Eva Fernenbugmother -in -law of Alejandro Toledothey would be related to crimes of corruption and money laundering. It is suspected that they were acquired with illegal money from bribes paid by the Odebrecht company within the framework of the IIRSA Sur project.
The former president’s environment Ollanta Humala It would also be benefited by the provision of the TC. And in May 2017, the judge Richard Concepción Carhuancho ordered the seizure of at least Five propertiesin addition to accounts and vehicles, as part of the process against Humala and its environment for money laundering, long before 2018.
Reactions to the ruling of the Constitutional Court
Different personalities of national policy have reacted to the failure of Constitutional Court. Such is the case of Congresswoman Ruth Luque (popular democratic block), who pointed out that this decision shows that the TC is aligned with interests outside the care of national democracy.
“The decision of Constitutional Court On domain extinction it is serious. Denatures a tool that has been key to dismantling corruption networks, illegal mining, smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering and others. The TC, which is part of the authoritarian coalition, allows them to be convicted, investigated, and sentenced to retain their assets, even if they are a product of criminal activities. (…) The TC is put on the side of the mafias, gives them patrimonial privileges of those who have benefited from crime and impunity, “he said in their social networks.
From the other sidewalk, the president, Luz Pachecohe considered that the decision made by the constitutional body that she chairs has been correct: “There cannot be such a broad phrase that, in addition, under suspicion it goes against the fundamental right constitutionally recognized as it is that of property”
