The coordinator of the Domain Extinction Prosecutor’s Office, Mirko Cano, announced today that due to the last judgment of the Constitutional Court (TC), 762 cases must be filed and Millionaire Assets return to prosecuted, such as former President Alejandro Toledo, the former director of Odebrecht, Jorge Barata, and the fugitive owner of Peru Libre, Vladimir Cerrón.
Peru21 He had advanced that the properties of Cheap, valued at US $ 613,000 (S/2’646.837 to change), would be returned due to the criminal benefits enjoyed by the Brazilian exejecutive for being an effective collaborator in the Lava Jato case.
However, Cano indicated at a press conference that the court order to strip those properties will also be void due to the ruling of the TC that had new rules of interpretation of the Domain Extinction Law.
After the consultation of this newspaper, the prosecutor indicated that before that ruling the case of cheap “yes it would fall if we apply it to Raja Table.”
He also said that Toledo would be given the house of Casuarinas, the Omega Tower Office, the homes of Punta Sal and Camacho, all for the value of S/19’527,930.
They would also have to conclude the process of domain extinction against Cerrón, who has been held s/1’591,000 that he kept in his bank accounts.
Other favored would be former president Ollanta Humala, who would be returned up to three properties valued at US $ 12’689,000; The terrorist Florindo Eleuterio Flores, Comrade ‘Artemio’, who was seized S/3’145,000 in real estate; the lawyer Rodolfo Orellana, who registers S/259’000,000 in goods; and Congressman José Luna Gálvez, S/7’400,000, who would recover S/7’400,000 in possessions.
On July 30, the TC issued a resolution that provides that the Domain Extinction Law, promulgated with Legislative Decree 1373, will be applied in cases that have been registered since 2018, the year in which the norm entered into force. Those prior to that year will be filed.
Prosecutor Cano clarified that, according to article 204 of the Constitution, the sentences such as this, which became a lawsuit of unconstitutionality, have no retroactive effect so that the judges will be “called to make the interpretation to apply the sentence correctly.”
