Before the preventive detention of the former director of the Lottery was ratified louis dicenthis technical defense accused the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (Pepca) of sensationalism and media coverage, and of using the press to, through big headlines, “intimidate, threaten to restrain, challenge and even subject judges.”
The judges of the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the National District rejected the appeal with which Dicent intended to vary his preventive detention for one year He was placed on probation.
The court decided to keep him in preventive detention for one year, which was imposed by a court of first instance, on the understanding that the main defendant in the millionaire fraud that would have been hatched in the National Lottery with the Draw held on May 1, 2021, it did not present sufficient roots to guarantee its presence in the process that is followed along with 1 other0 people involved in the so-called Operation 13.
The former official reiterated his innocence and in an act of drama wished that euthanasia (requested death) was contemplated in the law to opt for it.
Can read: Ratification of preventive detention against former administrator of the National Lottery
He alleged that it was he who voluntarily appeared before the attorney general’s office to denounce the fraudulent draw that affected several consortiums of private lottery banks and that involved the sum of more than RD$500 million.
His defense, made up of Albert Delgado and Jose Bernechea They argued that the preventive detention that was imposed violates articles 40.9 and 69.3 of the Constitution and 14, 14 and 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP), in addition to the fact that Dicent had a sufficient budget based on what the norm says.
Court asks to ratify
The Public Ministry accused the defendant’s defense of lying to the Court by stating that the budgets with which they sought the variation of Dicent’s coercion measure were new elements. Maria Ortizrepresentative of the MP assured that the 74 elements that they claimed to have new, were the same ones that they presented before the judge that imposed preventive detention and before the court that heard the obligatory review of that measure and that ratified it, so it was appropriate that The Court did the same.
