Acquittal; Fonseca
I already indicated in previous posts that the case lasted 10 days. Many pieces of evidence and positions were exchanged. This is a real test case in Panama.
It is clear that the judge has stopped the case against Ramón Fonseca, who died last May. In fact, all other defendants are acquitted of (involvement in) money laundering.
Acquittal; regarding verifiability of evidence
The acquittal was partly for formal reasons. The seized digital information did not comply with the so called “Chain of custody” and these documents could therefore not be used. The complete statement of apparently more than 300 pages is not yet known. For this reason it remains unclear whether it concerns the digital information seized by the authorities or the “leaked” information. It is clear that the latter had no technical facilities such as a “hash” total to guarantee integrity. But in the other case, I hope that this has now been properly sorted out in Panama.
Acquittal; crime cannot be proven.
In addition to the latter more formal point, there was also a more materially focused acquittal of all suspects. The judge was not sufficiently convinced that criminal liability could be established for the Panamanian offense against “money laundering in the economic order”.
Panama adjustment the legislation of the money laundering offence after the date of the events in 2014-2016. It is still unclear whether this acquittal is also related to the adjustment. We already knew from a previous case that punishment did not seem possible under the legislation at the time.
In short, it appears that a case against what was described as a major facilitator of money laundering, through the setting up of 215,000 companies in “tax havens” and who was accused of not having its client due diligence (CDD) and AML measures in order, is complex. In words it seems to be moneylaundering but it is not so easy to obtained a conviction.
The future and legislation!
I am very curious to hear what the assessors on behalf of the FATF will say about the new legislation. But this criminal case also teaches us something for possible criminal cases against other facilitators. It is easier to say and write that they are facilitating, but to prove in a criminal case that there is also (involvement in) money laundering is perhaps a bit more complex.
