Files criminal complaint accusing Villamorey of intimidating judge to force reversal of Lisa's embargo order
Sep 29 2022
Lisa, S.A.
This criminal complaint, filed on September 29, 2022, by attorney Julio Rafael Martínez Vásquez with Panama's Primary Attention Prosecutor, accuses Villamorey, S.A. and its legal representative Ramiro López Nimatúj of intimidating the judge of the Fourth Civil Circuit Court to force the reversal of an embargo issued within the judicial-accounting proceeding brought by Lisa, S.A. (Case No. 14606-21). The complaint invokes Articles 360 and 384 of the Panamanian Penal Code, covering crimes against public officials and calumny in judicial proceedings.
On August 2, 2022, the Fourth Civil Circuit Court issued Embargo Order No. 1234/14606-21 against Villamorey within the special accounting proceeding. Villamorey, through its counsel, filed the corresponding procedural challenges.
On September 22, 2022, the law firm Galindo, Arias y López, acting as Villamorey's counsel, filed a brief at the civil court attaching an authenticated copy of a criminal complaint (querella coadyuvante) filed against the presiding judge, Solange Le Ferrec Malek de Booker. The complaint characterizes this act as a deliberate intimidation maneuver: the presentation of criminal charges against the judge directly in her own courtroom, in a civil case entirely unrelated to criminal matters.
The following day, September 23, 2022, the judge issued Order No. 1473/14606-21 vacating the previously ordered embargo. The complaint emphasizes that less than 24 hours elapsed between the presentation of the intimidating complaint and the reversal of the embargo, which in the complainant's view demonstrates that Villamorey's conduct compromised the judge's independence.
The complaint argues that Villamorey's conduct satisfies two criminal offenses. First, Article 360 of the Penal Code punishes anyone who through violence, intimidation, or deception obstructs a public official in the legitimate exercise of their functions, with an aggravated penalty when the act is perpetrated in a judicial proceeding. Second, Article 384 punishes anyone who files a criminal complaint against another person knowing them to be innocent.
The complainant argues that both Villamorey and its legal representative knew that the judge's conduct did not constitute any criminal offense, and that the complaint was filed solely to pressure her into modifying decisions adopted in the exercise of her judicial authority. This argument is reinforced by the fact that Villamorey's constitutional amparo challenging the judge's rulings had already been denied as inadmissible by the First Superior Tribunal.
"Tanto VILLAMOREY, S.A., como su representante legal RAMIRO LOPEZ NIMATUJ, y su agente residente están claros que no existe delito y aun así, presentan una querella coadyuvante con el fin de obligar a la Juez Cuarta, la Licenciada Solange Le Ferrec Malek de Booker, a cambiar una decisión tomada como funcionaria del Órgano Judicial" (Page 5)
The complaint also invokes Article 472 of the Judicial Code, which provides that procedural omissions do not constitute nullity when the act achieves its intended purpose. The complainant argues that the alleged omission Villamorey attributed to the judge in its criminal complaint did not constitute an administrative fault or a crime, but rather a regular procedural act within the scope of judicial discretion.
The filing of the criminal complaint copy at the civil court, without any formal admission, constitutes according to the complaint an additional transgression: the introduction of an unrelated criminal matter into civil proceedings for the sole purpose of intimidating the presiding judge.