The 16th Turn Flagrancia prosecutor, Sabrina Flores, filed the open case against Gustavo Leal as no fact of a criminal nature or appearance had been found, and this was resolved in this instance.
The former head of the Ministry of the Interior and Frente Amplio leader had been investigated for visiting the father of Alejandro Astesiano, former head of custody of Luis Lacalle Pou: the latter is now serving a sentence for being the leader of a network of passport falsification that They sold from the Executive Tower, under the government’s nose, to Russian citizens in irregular conditions.
Although the former prosecutor of the Astesiano case, Gabriela Fossati, had summoned him as a witness, she decided to pass him on to the category of investigated, although Leal was never fully informed of what he would be accused of.
The local press, citing tax sources, reported that prosecutor Flores decided to suspend the investigations, understanding that there were no reasons to suspect that Leal had committed any crime.
Fossati had accessed the file during his leave and formulated hypotheses
Although it never materialized in a formal accusation, Fossati informed Leal’s defense that he was about to be investigated for one of the three hypotheses she was handling.
In a report from the Legal Service of the Attorney General’s Office, it says that Fossati told Leal and his lawyers that his first hypothesis was: “That the person who went to Leal’s home [para pedirle que visite al padre de Astesiano] is involved in the underlying crimes for which Astesiano was sentenced and asked Leal to intercede to get him involved. For this reason, Leal would have tried to contact a person close to Astesiano.
The second hypothesis was the following: “That the person who went to Leal’s home had interest in involving someone with the facts, in this case it may be real that the person was linked to or tried to create ‘a political event’ regardless of whether they impeded hindering the criminal investigation. Both options would hinder an ongoing investigation.”
Finally, Fossati came to suspect this: “That several people have an interest in guiding Astesiano’s statements, civilians or public officials, para that involves or excludes one or more people or for reasons totally unrelated to criminal law”.
It was never clearly explained what the formal charge was, and that could have contributed to the case coming to nothing, beyond the fact that there was no evidence of a crime committed.
