Apr 23 2023
Public Prosecutor
Attorney Moisés Joel Bartlett Quiel, acting on behalf of Ramiro López Nimatuj (Villamorey's legal representative), filed a formal criminal complaint against Judge Le Ferrec of the Fourth Civil Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Panama. The complaint centered on two allegations: first, that the judge issued Embargo Order No. 1234/14606-21 on August 2, 2022, in favor of Lisa, S.A. for $44,910,912.00 in the special judicial-accounting proceeding (<law id="pty-14606-21" />), without ruling on an objection (reclamo) filed by Villamorey on November 11, 2021; second, that the judge exceeded what the plaintiff had requested, which the complainant characterized as an arbitrary and abusive act.
The Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office carried out the following steps:
The Prosecutor applied the jurisprudential standard for abuse of authority under Article 355 of the Criminal Code, which requires an arbitrary act committed with dolus (criminal intent), meaning conscious awareness of the illegality of the act. The Prosecutor cited the Supreme Court of Justice's ruling of September 8, 2008, which holds that not every resolution contrary to law constitutes a crime; only the conscious, deliberate issuance of a patently unmotivated resolution, born of a public servant's caprice and executed with the clear intention of causing harm to a person.
The investigation established that, once the omission was identified, the Court issued Order No. 1473/14606-21 on September 23, 2022, granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the law firm Galindo, Arias y López (Villamorey's counsel) and vacating Embargo Order No. 1234/14606-21 in its entirety, along with the notification edict and all communications sent to banking institutions. The proceeding was rolled back to resolve Villamorey's objection. This course of action was consistent with Article 1129 of the Judicial Code, which empowers a judge to revoke ex officio any order or ruling.
"Lo que se sanciona penalmente, es la actividad consciente y reflexiva de emitir una resolución o acto a todas luces desmotivado, que nace a la vida jurídica producto de la voluntad o capricho del servidor público; de un acto dispositivo absurdo e irracional, elaborado o materializado con plena intención para causarle un perjuicio a alguna persona." (Page 4)
The Prosecutor concluded that the crime did not materialize: the procedural correction through reconsideration demonstrated that the court acted in accordance with applicable procedural rules, and there was no arbitrary act, no intentional misconduct, and no harm caused through an unlawful exercise of public authority.