Lucia Salinas
09/01/2021 19:35
Clarín.com
Politics
Updated 09/01/2021 19:35
The Federal Chamber of La Plata confirmed this Wednesday the decision that had been made during the investigation of the case in Lomas de Zamora: Karina Moyano, daughter of the trucker leader, will be
withheld 600 thousand pesos and 434 thousand dollars,
as part of a file for money laundering.
That money was found at his home after a raid that was carried out in relation to a drug trafficking case.
In addition,
the origin of the funds is investigated.
Although his defense attorney anticipated that he will appeal the measure, there is already a firm resolution in court for Hugo Moyano's daughter to return the questioned funds.
For the owner of Truckers, everything is part of a media campaign against him.
"They do not respect judges with authority like Judge Villena," he said and questioned the newspaper
La Nación
, which reported on his daughter's judicial twists and turns.
"These gentlemen come to speak of moral authority."
In justice,
the analysis was different.
In the federal court of Lomas de Zamora, the file for alleged drug trafficking began in 2018, in whose investigation the head of the Narcocriminality Prosecutor's Office (PROCUNAR),
Diego Iglesias
, intervened
.
In this context, several homes were searched, one of which was that of Karina Moyano.
Due to a change in the composition of the courts, the case continued in the office of
Juan Pablo Augé
but delegated to PROCUNAR.
During the judicial fair of this last summer, Judge Villena subrogated the court of his colleague Augé and it was then that he ordered the dismissal of the union leader's daughter, reimbursing her the money.
The aggravating factor of the situation is that
the measure was taken while the investigation was delegated to PROCUNAR,
whose head ended up denouncing Judge Villena before the Council of the Magistracy, requiring his political judgment.
In the presentation, the prosecutor Iglesia together with his colleague
Cecilia Incardona
, indicated that Villena "enabled the fair without any of the grounds regulated" in the Procedural Code and the Regulations for National Justice "and printed the fast three-day process to two requests that are not based on a single reason of urgency ", setting a period of 24 hours to respond to a hearing, a period that later the same judge did not respect, both prosecutors mark in writing.
On the other hand, they denounced that "the decision of dismissal of a person -Karina Moyano- was issued without knowing the records of the file, without being in charge of the investigation and without being the natural judge of the case."
While that presentation was being made,
Judge Augé returned to his court, signed the annulment of what was resolved by his colleague Federico Villena
, and ordered Karina Moyano to reimburse the money, a measure now that has been confirmed by the Federal Chamber of La Plata.
The ruling stated: “The fact that we were facing a case delegated to the head of the Public Prosecutor's Office implies a transfer of responsibility in promoting the investigation to the head of the criminal action, and it is more serious than Villena was, at the time of making this decision, a fair judge ”.
Under this same guideline, the chambermaid
César Álvarez
rejected the argument of the defense of Karina Moyano, who pointed out that there was "animosity" in the judicial measure. The reply to this argument was: "
It is not part of any judicial war or persecution of any kind against the Moyano family
, and even less as part of a general attack on combative unionism in our country or as a chapter of the so-called
Lawfare
."
On the other hand, the magistrate analyzed, "what persuades me that we are facing a correct decision is that an investigation that was in the head of Judge Villena for so long - and as the defense itself says, almost without activity regarding Karina Moyano ,
is resolved untimely in a judicial fair, ignoring
that the cause was delegated ”.
For his part, the chambermaid
Jorge Di Lorenzo
said that "the circumstance that Judge Villena did not know the proceedings at the time of resolving, renders the entire procedure null and void, including the return of the funds under investigation.
At the time of explaining this point, he said: “I must emphasize that the annulled resolution shows a series of irregularities regarding the participation and curtailment of the powers of the Public Prosecutor's Office that affected due process, caused an irreparable burden on that part and, therefore, caused the invalidity of the decision issued ”.
