The Constitutional Court ordered the Attorney General’s Office and the Directorate of Custody and Administration of Seized Property to return two vehicles that were seized from César Emilio Peralta (César el Abusador).
The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional review appeal against a ruling in an amparo action by the Second Chamber of the Criminal Court of the National District that ordered its return
The Constitutional Court confirmed the amparo ruling issued by the Second Chamber of the Criminal Court of the National District. The judges verified that the file contains the ownership documents of the vehicles seized by the Public Prosecutor’s Office without a reasoned order from a competent judge.
The vehicles that the Public Prosecutor’s Office must return are a 2019 Land Rover Range Vogue, blue, and a 2019 Mini Cooper John Cooper, white, which were claimed by the company Autobox and Mr. Rafael Polanco Pérez.
The claimants claimed before the Constitutional Court that they are the owners and that there was no reasoned order from a judge or criminal proceedings opened against them.
The amparo ruling was appealed by the Attorney General’s Office and the Directorate of Custody and Administration of Seized Assets, which sought to have the decision of the second chamber of the Criminal Court on amparo matters, which ordered the delivery of the vehicles, revoked.
Judges Napoleón R. Estévez Lavandier, president; Eunisis Vásquez Acosta, Fidias Federico Aristy Payano, Alba Luisa Beard Marcos, Sonia Díaz Inoa, Army Ferreira, Domingo Gil, Amaury A. Reyes Torres and María del Carmen Santana, through decision TC/0277724, of the highest court, maintain that on several occasions they have stated that it is the responsibility of the investigating judge or the court in charge of the conflict to hear the request for return of retained assets when it involves an authority or institution that seizes, retains or confiscates assets.
In an attempt to justify their request, the Directorate of Custody and Administration of Seized Assets and the Attorney General’s Office argued that the judge of the appeal ordered the delivery of the two claimed vehicles without the plaintiff having proven that they belonged to him.
The Supreme Court maintains in its decision that the judges of the Second Chamber of the Criminal Court, in order to accept the amparo action filed by the company AutoBox and Rafael Polanco Báez Pérez, based their decision on the fact that the retention of the vehicles violated the Right to Property since there was no criminal process against them.
In addition, the constitutional body confirmed that the file contains document number 004033, from the head of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, where he proposes to Dania Veloz, director of the Office of Custody and Administration of Seized Assets, the delivery of the vehicles to their owners.
