The the Prosecutor General of the Republic (FGR) announced that it will remain insured and will not return a property owned by a former director of Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), Emilio Lozoya Austinand which is located in Lomas de Bezares in Mexico City.
Through a statement, the agency reiterated that the property was acquired illegally with money laundering funds and therefore argued that “the criteria expressed by Federal Judge Ana Lilia Osorno Arroyo are unacceptable by denying the mandatory use National Domain Forfeiture Act and to claim retroactivity contrary to it.’
It was on Thursday, November 23, that the second district judge in domain forfeiture cases said that in December 2012 – when Emilio Lozoya acquired the property for the amount of 38 million 175,000 pesos – the law did not consider as a cause the demise of the domain criminal offense of operations with funds of illicit origin, so the law cannot be applied retroactively.
In this sense, the judge ruled that “if the purchase of the property subject to forfeiture was made and carried out in 2012, and this transaction was the one that motivated the investigation that serves as the basis for claiming forfeiture, the action is inadmissible because it continues investigation for the crime of operation s sources of illegal originwhich was not regulated in Article 22 of the Constitution as a case of origin for the execution of the reference action.”
However, FGR stated this Sunday that “it is necessary to emphasize that the national forfeiture law itself, in full force, states that no legal act relating to property subject to forfeiture can be legitimized and that the forfeiture procedures carried out are legal and valid.” they began on the date of entry into force of the same, regardless of whether the illegal act occurred earlier (Article 12 and 6. transitional).
He specified that these articles and all corresponding laws had been approved The nation’s highest court (SCJN) when he reviewed the entire said law.
“A corresponding appeal is filed within the statutory period; and will be informed in due course of the allegations that FGR in this regard, he will explain (…) Regardless of the above, the said property is legitimately insured in another criminal proceeding different from this one, for crimes of criminal association and operations with funds of illicit origin,” detailed in the document.