Former Minister of Housing, Habitat and Urbanism, Dany Durand, has been accused by the Prosecutor’s Office of fraud and criminal association in relation to the Mocipar case. However, lawyer Oscar Tuma believes that this accusation is a result of “administrative carelessness” within the Public Ministry, as the imputation was made twice for the same case.
Tuma stated, “Here it happened, I believe, an administrative mess in the Public Ministry. There were several people who filed complaints against Mr. Durand and against other shareholders of the then Mocipar Group. The signatures were made in different tax units, what’s more, we are aware that some complaints were made in the interior of the country.”
According to Tuma, the proper procedure would have been to accumulate all the complaints made since 2019 and assign a prosecutor to handle the investigation. He emphasized that Durand had already been investigated by prosecutor Stella Maris Cano, who found no evidence of his involvement in any fraudulent activities, especially considering that he had left the firm Mocipar two years before its bankruptcy.
Tuma also highlighted that some prosecutors are charging individuals after several years because they are not aware of other actions initiated in different fiscal units.
In addition, Tuma pointed out that complaints of fraud have been reported since 2019 when Mocipar went bankrupt. However, he argued that these complaints are no longer relevant as the statute of limitations expired in 2017. The Appeals Chamber has also confirmed that Durand should not be investigated for the alleged fraud against the Mocipar group, as he is being investigated twice for the same act.
The accusation against Durand has raised concerns about the administrative processes within the Public Ministry and the need for better coordination and communication among prosecutors. The case highlights the importance of ensuring fair and efficient investigations to avoid unnecessary duplication and potential violations of individuals’ rights.
How does lawyer Oscar Tuma argue that the accusation against Former Minister Dany Durand is a result of “administrative carelessness” within the Public Ministry?
Former Minister of Housing, Habitat and Urbanism, Dany Durand, has been accused by the Prosecutor’s Office of fraud and criminal association in relation to the Mocipar case. However, according to lawyer Oscar Tuma, this accusation is a result of “administrative carelessness” within the Public Ministry, as the imputation was made twice for the same case.
Tuma believes that there was confusion and mismanagement within the Public Ministry, with multiple complaints being filed against Durand and other shareholders of the Mocipar Group. These complaints were made in different tax units and even in the interior of the country. Tuma argues that all the complaints should have been accumulated since 2019 and assigned to a single prosecutor for investigation.
Furthermore, Tuma emphasizes that Durand had already been investigated by prosecutor Stella Maris Cano, who found no evidence of his involvement in fraudulent activities. It should be noted that Durand had left Mocipar two years before the company went bankrupt.
Tuma also criticizes the lack of awareness among some prosecutors about actions initiated in different fiscal units, leading to individuals being charged after several years.
Additionally, Tuma points out that complaints of fraud have been reported since 2019, long after the statute of limitations expired in 2017. The Appeals Chamber has confirmed that Durand should not be investigated for the alleged fraud against the Mocipar Group, as he is being investigated twice for the same offense.
This accusation against Durand highlights concerns about the administrative processes within the Public Ministry and the need for better coordination and communication among prosecutors. It underscores the importance of fair and efficient investigations to avoid unnecessary duplication and potential violations of individuals’ rights.
This article highlights a concerning case of administrative carelessness in the legal system. It’s troubling to see that the same offense has been filed against the former minister twice, raising questions about the efficiency and attention to detail within the prosecution. Such oversights undermine the credibility of the legal process and warrant a thorough investigation.