{"id":324,"date":"2017-08-08T15:02:44","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T15:02:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/armando.info\/?p=324"},"modified":"2017-08-08T15:02:44","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T15:02:44","slug":"the-prosecutors-office-flies-first-and-pays-later","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/armando.info\/en\/the-prosecutors-office-flies-first-and-pays-later\/","title":{"rendered":"The Prosecutor's Office flies first and pays later"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Part \r\ntwo | <\/B>For \r\nnot returning a secured aircraft in 2000, the Attorney General's Office and the \r\nProperty Administration and Disposal Service (SAE) must compensate the company \r\nAeronautical Services and Repairs with 15 million dollars. The case reveals how \r\nthe deficiencies of the Public Prosecutor's Office in the fight against drug \r\ntrafficking becomes a boomerang for the Mexican State.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

In \r\nJuly 2000, it was ordered the seizure of the Sabreliner aircraft and the \r\ndetention of two pilots, who allegedly carried 67 packets of cocaine. However, \r\ntwo years later they were absolved because police agents altered the physical \r\nstate of the aircraft, according to a 2002 ruling issued by a criminal judge in \r\nthe state of Mexico (center of the country). This prevented it from serving as \r\nevidence during the process.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

Thus, \r\nthe Attorney General's Office was obliged to return the plane. However, it was \r\nused until 2006 and then delivered it to the SAE, public entity that sold it as \r\nscrap for $3,895.<\/p>\n\n\n

\"\"
Aircraft seized by the PGR that are under SAE administration. Source: PGR<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

The \r\ncompany which originally owned the plane sued on the grounds that the \r\nconfiscation was the result of an irregular activity of the Attorney General's \r\nOffice. Furthermore, he said, the institution had to notify the company about \r\nthe process from the outset.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

In \r\n2003 the ship was repaired, and its plates and badges changed for those of the \r\nAttorney General's Office, to incorporate it to the aerial fleet of the \r\ninstitution. The plaintiff claimed that the actions represented \"a kidnapping\", \r\nbecause the Prosecutor's Office \"never intended to safeguard an instrument of a \r\ncrime, but instead use it to its own benefit\", according to the \r\ndocuments.<\/p>\n\n\n

The Prosecutor's Office \"never intended to safeguard an instrument of a crime, but instead use it to its own benefit\"<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n

The \r\ndirector of Legal Affairs of the Attorney General's Office, Adriana Campos \r\nL\u00f3pez, acted in defense of it. Campos, now in charge of inspecting the \r\ninstitution, never publicly referred to this case or other similar, as it was \r\nverified in press archives. She was asked for an interview. However, at the date \r\nof publication of this article, it had not been \r\ngranted.<\/p>\n\n\n

A long and lost litigation for the treasury<\/h2>\n\n\n

The \r\nclaimant company filed a suit of amparo in 2002 against the Attorney General's \r\nOffice, but the return request that was made for the aircraft was rejected. The \r\njudicial conflict lasted until 2016 and the lethargy worked in favor of the \r\ncompany. During the process in 2005, the federal Congress approved the State's \r\nAsset Liability Act, which allowed the company to sue for the second \r\ntime.<\/p>\n\n\n

\"The airplane case is a disgrace. It is the example of how things are done wrong in Mexico\"<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n

Years \r\nlater, the Supreme Court of Justice intervened and ordered in 2014 that the \r\nFederal Court of Administrative Justice resolve the lawsuit. By the end of 2015, \r\nthe court ruled against the Attorney General Office and SAE. And although the \r\nState later challenged, it failed again. A chain of errors and legal gaps on \r\ntheir part favoured this.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

\"The \r\nairplane case is a disgrace. It is the example of how things are done wrong in \r\nMexico\", said Francisco Rivas, director of the National Citizen \r\nObservatory.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

SAE \r\nwas accused by the company of failing to keep, guard and supervise the means of \r\ntransportation provisionally secured by the Public Ministry. \"Without a \r\nresolution authorizing the disposal of the property, its sale was approved on \r\nApril 24, 2006, when it was appropriate to make it available to the claimant \r\n(...) this decentralized body is also responsible for the damages caused by its \r\nirregular activity\", argued the defense attorney of the \r\ncompany.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

The \r\nfinal resolution compelled the Attorney General to compensate the company for \r\n$773,000 for damages and $14.3 million for losses. It is a gap in public \r\nfinances: amounts represent half of the 2017 budget for the Assistant Attorney \r\nGeneral's Office for Special Investigations on Organized Crime (SEIDO) which \r\nbarely has 31.5 million dollars.<\/p>\n\n\r\n\n

Who \r\nwas the owner of the 67 packages of cocaine? This was an expensive mystery for \r\nthe federal treasury due to the general shortcomings of the Attorney General's \r\nOffice.<\/p>\n\n