On June 23, 2025, the Anticorruption Prosecutor admitted Lisa, S.A.'s criminal complaint against former Judge Lesbia Wolfschon Puga through <doc id="pty-denuncia-juzgado-11-2025-06-23-a" />, classifying the conduct as breach of public-service duties and ordering the commencement of a preliminary investigation.
Lisa, S.A. filed a criminal complaint with Panama's Anticorruption Prosecutor against Judge Lesbia Wolfschon Puga, former judge of the Eleventh Circuit Civil Court, for abuse of authority and breach of public-service duties. The complaint alleges that the judge deliberately paralyzed the $51.6 million enforcement proceeding (<law id="pty-117030-21" />) that Lisa, S.A. brought against Villamorey, S.A. for over two years, refusing to process asset-seizure requests even though the defendant's appeal had been granted in devolutive effect only. Through <doc id="pty-denuncia-juzgado-11-2025-06-23-a" />, dated June 23, 2025, the Anticorruption Prosecutor admitted the complaint and opened a preliminary criminal investigation.
On April 15, 2025, Lisa, S.A. filed a <doc id="pty-denuncia-juzgado-11-2025-04-15-a" /> against Lesbia Wolfschon Puga, who served as judge of the Eleventh Circuit Civil Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama until December 2024, for abuse of authority under Article 355 of the Criminal Code and breach of public-service duties under Article 356. The complaint was submitted to the Primary Attention Section of the Anticorruption Prosecutor of the Accusatory Criminal System through attorney Carlos De Icaza Muñoz.
The complaint is grounded in the judge's conduct during the enforcement proceeding that Lisa, S.A. brought against Villamorey, S.A. (<law id="pty-117030-21" />). Through <doc id="pty-117030-21-2021-12-22-a" />, issued on December 22, 2021, that same court admitted the high-value simple executive claim and issued a payment order under Article 1454 of the Judicial Code. Service on Villamorey's registered agent was completed on July 7, 2022, and on July 20, 2022 the defendant filed an appeal granted in devolutive effect. Because devolutive effect does not stay enforcement proceedings under Article 1138(2) of the Judicial Code, the judge was obligated to continue; instead she kept the case paralyzed for over two years, refusing to order the seizure of the assets Lisa had identified.
Lisa, S.A. documents three prior efforts to unblock the proceeding: an <doc id="pty-117030-21-2022-11-25-a" /> filed on November 25, 2022 before the First Superior Tribunal against the judge's implicit order of inaction, which the Tribunal did not grant; a <doc id="pty-556-99-2025-02-10-a" /> filed on February 10, 2025 to proceed with the embargo of the claimed assets; and a <doc id="pty-556-99-2025-02-11-a" /> filed on February 11, 2025 against Villamorey, S.A. and Juan Luis Bosch for nonpayment of dividends and retained sums in the related declaratory proceeding (<law id="pty-556-99" />).
On typicality, the complaint frames the paralysis as an arbitrary act causing economic harm to Lisa (abuse of authority) and as an unlawful refusal, omission, and delay of acts inherent to the office (breach of duties), citing the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber's decision of August 28, 2014. It emphasizes that the same judge had presided over the declaratory proceeding that produced the title now in enforcement, revealing a sustained pattern of noncompliance: first by failing to give effect to the declaratory judgment, then by obstructing its execution.
The complaint marks Lisa, S.A.'s turn to criminal remedies after exhausting the civil procedural mechanisms available to compel continuation of the enforcement proceeding.
On June 23, 2025, the Anticorruption Prosecutor issued <doc id="pty-denuncia-juzgado-11-2025-06-23-a" />, admitting Lisa, S.A.'s complaint against Lesbia Wolfschon Puga. The resolution finds the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of Article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code and orders the commencement of the corresponding investigation.
The Prosecutor's Office classified the reported conduct as a crime against the Public Administration in the form of breach of public-service duties under Article 356 and related provisions of the Criminal Code, covering the unlawful refusal, omission, or delay of acts inherent to a public official's duties. It cautioned that the admission rests on compliance with procedural requirements and does not imply that the reported crimes have been proven; the facts will be investigated to establish elements of conviction at the corresponding procedural stage.
"Esta admisión se cumple en virtud tener por acatados los extremos de los requisitos de procedimiento, sin que se tengan por probados la comisión de delitos puestos bajo nuestro conocimiento"
The formal admission opens a full criminal investigation against the former judge, shifting the dispute over the enforcement paralysis from the civil arena into the criminal one.
The preliminary criminal investigation is underway. The Anticorruption Prosecutor must gather sufficient evidence to determine whether the former judge's conduct constituted a criminal offense under Article 356 of the Panamanian Criminal Code.