Carlos Salcedo cited among the “blunders” of the accusing body the seizure of a $6 million check from his office hours
The technical defense of Alexis Medina Sanchezmain defendant in the case anti octopusdescribed yesterday the accusation of the Public ministry as “volatile, ethereal”, and asked the judge of the seventh trial court Deivy Timoteo Peguerothe nullity of the same and the non-submission to the substantive judgment of your client.
At the end of his material defense, the lawyer carlos salcedo He said that the accusation suffers from something as important as the “lack of punitive claim”, that is, it does not ask for a sentence for the accused, in the hypothetical case that he is sent to trial.
“The indictment is simply a sum of many pages, of many articles allegedly violated; a simple story in each case, but no imputational content, ”she stressed.
He indicated that among the criminal offenses that the MP charges against Alexis, there are even some such as influence peddling, which do not exist as an offense in Dominican Republic; and others such as political campaign financing, for which there is no legal qualification unless the resources are illegal.
Regarding the evidence presented by the accusing body, he said that it is “packaged evidence” against everyone, not precise or individualized, in addition to the fact that none is related to criminal offenses, but rather administrative.
In the case of Fonper, he pointed out that although the MP says that Alexis’ companies supplied medical equipment worth RD$2,579 million, 83% of that equipment was sold by other suppliers who were entitled to it.
He asked that “if the majority that sold did so under the same conditions, under the same privileges,” why is only Alexis being prosecuted, unless it is not a crime, for an unknown purpose,” he said.
He added that another of the “blunders” of the MP was the mention of the law firm “Salcedo & Astasio” that he represents, on the occasion of the search of Alexis’s vehicle when he was arrested on November 29, 2020, in the one that appeared a check for almost RD$6 million in the name of that firm, as an advance on his professional fees, and the assistant attorney Yeni Berenice Reynoso seized it, alleging that it was the product of laundering; and although Judge Alejandro Vargas ordered her to return it to him because it belongs to the lawyers of the firm, she never did.
“And in this process we demonstrate, in a clear way, that there was no embezzlement, bribery or bribery and others as the MP’s accusation says,” he said.
