Former President Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia, whose properties were confiscated by court order on Monday, left their home before dawn on Tuesday only to receive news hours later that Justice Richard Concepcion had changed his mind and suspended the confiscation of the house they live in. The stay is for 30 days, to give the Humalas time to resolve their housing situation, particularly because they have three young children.
Concepción obviously granted the suspension under pressure, since his confiscation order has met scathing criticism, even from some of Ollanta Humala’s harshest political critics. His counter-order has also been criticized, by the president of the Judiciary, Duberli Rodriguez.
“I don’t think this going forwards and backwards is any good, changing a decision once it’s been executed,” Rodriguez said on ATV, criticizing the lack of coherence.
District attorney officers arrived Monday morning at the Humala home with the court order and with police who were heavily armed and even masked. The simultaneous confiscation included five real estate properties, five vehicles and several bank accounts, including the savings accounts of the two young daughters.
The confiscation order was issued because the district attorney’s office, with information from the Financial Intelligence Unit, believes the properties were acquired with illicit money, via campaign funds given by the in 2006 by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and in 2011 by the Brazilian firm Odebrecht.
In the case of two of the properties, however, defense lawyers indicate that these are inherited properties in the Heredia family.
The confiscation order has been described by critics as grotesque, abusive, even as revenge. The Episcopal Conference issued a statement Tuesday saying the order was “excessive and disproportionate,” quoting St. Thomas Aquinas that “justice without mercy is cruelty.”
Even Ollanta Humala’s father, Isaac Humala, who never had a good word to say about his son’s presidency, said the measure was a “savage act” issued by a “stupid, foolish idiot like Justice Concepcion Carhuancho.”
Some political analysts believe the confiscation order was also a political move, or triggered by political pressure. Political analyst Rosa Maria Palacios, in La Republica, questioned the 18-month pre-trial detention of the Humalas and now the confiscation of their properties “when Alan Garcia and Keiko Fujimori are not touched even with a rose petal.” Both Garcia and Fujimori, as the Humalas, are under investigation for campaign funds from Odebrecht, confirmed by Odebrecht officials who have turned state evidence in Brazil, yet neither are restricted from travelling abroad, and the travel restrictions have been lifted on third parties who received funds from Odebrecht for them.
Ronald Gamarra, one of the lead prosecutors in the Alberto Fujimori trials, noted that the properties were already under an embargo order, and therefore there was no need for confiscation. “And there are no new elements” presented in the request for confiscation that would lead to the supposition that the properties were purchased with “dirty money,” Gamarra said on IdeeleRadio.
Former anticorruption prosecutor Cesar Azabache said he had no idea why the confiscation order had been issued, especially considering children were involved. “There is no justification for this measure, even if charges had been filed.”
And the crux of the Humala case is, in fact, that no charges have yet been filed. Investigations have been ongoing for the past four years, but the district attorney’s office has yet to present sufficient evidence to charge Ollanta Humala or Nadine Heredia of any specific crime. The investigations now centers on money laundering, i.e. hiding the source of the money, which could be illicit given that funds from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez would have undoubtedly been government money and the money from Odebrecht was channeled to all the presidential candidates via a parallel accounting system for that purpose. Peruvian legislation, however, does not limit the source of campaign funds nor the way it is spent.
The Humalas’ defense attorneys are appealing the confiscation order, and are also requesting that Justice Concepcion be recused from the Humala case.
There seems to be a hidden agenda in this on going this legal case against Humala. Apparently there isn’t any oversight of the Judicial branch of the government. The situation of the Judicial department going after only one person, when others are accused of the same crime, and being left alone. This can have unintended consequences . Seizing property and bank accounts, without any evidence or charges filed against the accused, will give investors second thoughts about investing in Peru. The rule of law will be put in doubt. I would suspect that other people with money in Peruvian banks, will be transferring excessive funds out of the country. The United State’s banks will be happy to take the deposits, with no questions asked.