The Metropolitan Municipality of Lima (MML)under the management of the mayor Rafael López Aliagahas added a new defeat in international courts. The American Justice, through Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Court of the Southern District of New York, ratified the rejection of the request for ‘Discovery’ presented by the commune against the Brookfield company, within the framework of the investigation for the alleged illicit origin of the shareholder in the concessionaire Lima routes.
The judicial decision revealed by ‘Infobae’, which dismisses a reconsideration of the MML, is a significant failure for the municipal administration that, according to López Aliaga, sought in the American courts the justice that claims not to find in Peru.
You can see: Congressmen expect Juan Santiváñez to resign and expand motion of censure against him
The legal setback becomes even deeper when confirmed that the US Court. Judge Lewis J. Liman reaffirmed that the MML lacks the quality of the legitimate “interested party to demand the delivery of information, dismissing the resolution that placed the Attorney General’s Office on its side as a forceful evidence.
In this way, the ruling gives validity to the previous warnings of the exprocer Silvana Carrión and calls into question the legal strategy of the Municipality to obtain the necessary evidence in its dispute with the concessionaire.
MML’s arguments were dismissed by unfounded and deceitful
The Court of the Southern District of New York, in charge of Judge Lewis J. Liman, rejected the reconsideration of the MML arguing that the resolution of the State Attorney General (PGE), which ordered to add the Ad Hoc Attorney’s Office to the case, could not be considered a “recently discovered evidence”. The magistrate said that said document was issued later to the initial decision and under direct media pressures of Mayor López Aliaga. Even if it had been accepted, the judge stressed that the PGE document did not specify the rights of the MML to present evidence in foreign procedures, with which the condition of “interested party” that sought to prove the commune remained invalid before the court.
Another crucial point dismissed was the argument of the municipality about the high probability that Peruvian investigation against Brookfield of course money laundering was formalized in the short term. The defense of Lima presented a fiscal provision that extended the investigation to suggest that preparatory investigation was imminent, but Judge Liman indicated that this only reflected the prosecutor’s determination to expand the term.
In addition, the magistrate corrected the MML for characterizing a phrase on the “great suspicion of money laundering” as a conclusion of the Prosecutor’s Office, when in reality the phrase appeared in the section that summed up the denunciation of the Municipality, qualifying said presentation of the information as “misleading.”
