The Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice annulled the sentence that, in November 2023, acquitted the Sánchez Paredes brothers of charges of money laundering from illicit drug trafficking. The supreme court made up of judges Victor Prado SaldarriagaAracelli Baca Cabrera, Dante Terrel Crispin, María Luz Vasquez Vargas and Magaly Báscones Gómez Velásquez notified this decision last weekend.
The supreme judges order that experts be appointed and the support of the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) be required to carry out, in a prudent but sufficient time, a new investigation into the fortune of the Sánchez Paredes, from 1959 to December 2007. In addition, that a new public trial be held that jointly assesses the evidence provided by the prosecution and the accused on the alleged links with illicit drug trafficking and the origin of their personal assets and business.
The court takes into account the time elapsed from the beginning of the investigation, January 2008 to the present, that is, 18 years of processbut considers that given the complexity of the case this does not affect the reasonable period of the investigation without sentencing. He notes that the delay in the process would only warrant that, if a conviction is handed down, a prudential discount be made on the sentence imposed.
In this regard, they recommend that the new court “avoid dilatory practices, without affecting the constitutional rights and guarantees that assist the procedural parties.” The investigation of this case began in January 2008, the criminal accusation was presented eight years later, on March 14, 2016. The now annulled public trial took place between January 11, 2017 until November 2023, that is, six years of public trial.
New public trial
With this decision, the brothers Santos Orlando, Segundo Manuel and Fortunato Wilmer Sánchez Paredes and the administrator Jesús Esteves Ostolaza, who are around 80 years old, and the nephew Fidel Ernesto Sánchez Alayo They will have to face a new public trial where their legal situation and seven mining, livestock and transportation companies will be defined.
Inconsistencies and deficiencies
The Supreme Criminal Chamber annulled the acquittal sentence when it found, it says, a series of inconsistencies in the reasoning of the judges of the Third Criminal Liquidation Chamber of the National Criminal Court on the accusation, the “partial and biased” assessment of the evidentiary body of the source crime and the expertise presented by the parties.
On a first point, they point out that it is contradictory that the judges, in December 2016have resolved that “a valid procedural legal relationship exists” to proceed to an oral trial, but at the time of issuing the sentence, in November 2023resolved that the accusation suffers from gaps in the alleged facts.
These observations, says the Supreme Court, should have been clarified before the start of the trial. “Therefore, it is not possible to bring to trial a case whose imputation to the jurisdictional body is not clear, orderly and consistent. Continuing with it would be a contradiction that would only bring with it a diffuse evidentiary activity, which would clearly generate defenselessness for the parties.”
Regarding the previous crime, the court considers that the Superior Chamber discarded the intelligence reports from the Police and the DEA on the activities of Segundo Sánchez Paredes in Rancho LunaMexico and Percyles Sánchez Paredes in Trujillowithout analyzing them with the statements of the anti-drug agents, such as Rubén Prieto, who signed them.
New expert reports
Regarding the 37 expert reports, the supreme court considers that the only way to analyze them is to standardize their contents. The superior court discarded the official expert reports because they covered the period of 1990 to 2007while the economic, financial and accounting reports of the parties included information from 1959 until 2007.
Hence, it is ordered that a new official expert report be carried out that covers all the existing information, since only then will there be comparable conclusions that allow the judges to draw definitive conclusions.
In general, the court concludes that in order to prove the crime of money laundering with a specific aggravating circumstance, the direct or indirect connection between the alleged source crime and the laundering acts must be proven. Furthermore, in a washing process, auxiliary sciences can be used since, due to their scientific scope, they can clarify factual and/or technical aspects about which judges have limited knowledge.
“Impartiality should not be confused with the passivity or absolute neutrality of the judicial body, therefore, what is ordered corresponds to a discretionary power of a complementary nature and that aims to achieve one of the primary purposes of the criminal process: the clarification of the truth,” concludes the supreme executive.
The prosecution accuses the Sánchez Paredes of having founded and developed the Santa Rosa Gold Mining Company (Comarsa), with income from drug trafficking in Peru and Mexico, from the fact that Simón andPerciles Sánchez Paredesmurdered in 1987 and 1991, respectively, were allegedly involved in illicit drug trafficking.
Simón Sánchez died in Mexico and was never investigated for drug trafficking. Percyles died in Peru, some time after the Supreme Court of Justice acquitted him of drug trafficking charges due to lack of evidence. None of them left a physically verifiable fortune, to the further complication of the investigators there who insist on the need for new expert reports.
