[ad_1]
Activities in the Congress of the Republic Tuesday included a decision of the Constitution Committee, chaired by Rosa Bartra (Fuerza Popular): the approval of the opinion that proposes to incorporate in the Criminal Code the crime of illicit financing of political organizations.
On 7 November, the Justice Committee, chaired by Alberto Oliva (Ppk), approved another opinion on the same subject. However, unlike this one, the Constitution Commission's document did not contain any provision allowing the public prosecutor's office to open only inquiries requiring a report from the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE). . It was one of the main issues.
In addition, the basic penalty for crime ranges from 4 to 8 years in prison. In the meantime, the aggravating circumstance includes a prison sentence of 10 to 15 years and a fine of 120 to 350 days. But it should be emphasized that the current sanctions for the crime of money laundering range from 8 to 15 years as a basic sentence and 10 to 20 years in the case of an aggravated offense. additional fine and forfeiture.
Despite this and other differences, the specialists consulted by El Comercio said that there were still gaps and inaccuracies in the proposal on illegal financing of political organizations.
– They underline the details
For Percy Medina, head of International IDEA in Peru, this is a subject "too delicate to hurry". In this regard, he felt that a much broader consultation on the standard would be desirable before being approved in plenary.
"The decision does not describe in the base rate what is the illicit financing, so it remains as a type too open." The aggravating factors are not precise either, which could pose problems for the application of the standard […] Being vague, there could be gray areas between this crime and others like washing [de activos]"He said.
In the meantime, according to Gerardo Távara, secretary general of Transparency, although the text of the Constitutional Commission is better than the opinion of the Justice Commission, it still needs to be improved. For example, this coincided with the definition of what is called illicit financing and the definition of the responsibility of political organizations.
"There, it is important to make a very specific distinction, which would be the responsibility of the one who receives directly and those who might be aware of the position within the party," he said.
-They see a possible advantage-
In this regard, the criminal Carlos Caro asserted that the term "unlawful financing" in the first paragraph of the Constitution Commission's opinion could be interpreted as a form of money laundering and that the origin this money should be proven because it is not specified that it refers specifically to the administrative legislation, in this case to a violation of the law on political organizations.
He also stated that some of the aggravating factors of the decision "are based on money laundering", which is why he agreed with Medina that the proposal still needed to be addressed.
"If the penalties are lower than the money laundering, they will apply these sentences more favorable to the defendant.Therefore, this crime of illegal financing with lower penalties will be considered a crime of money laundering. […] One more reason to clearly differentiate this crime from the crime of money laundering, "he said.
One of the things Caro insisted on is that, as the standard requires, people who have been sued for researching money laundering related parties could benefit. "If a standard contemplates a fact that in this case is money laundering, according to the prosecutor, and that we would have a later rule that illegal financing overlaps and would be more beneficial because it would be less painful, it would obviously apply what the government criminals we call benign retroactivity.that is to say that the subsequent beneficial law applies to a past event.It is more advantageous because the penalty is lower than that provided for washing right now, "he said.
-Positions in Congress-
During the debate on the opinion in the Constitutional Committee, approved by a majority of the members present, they voted against Marisa Glave (New Peru) and Gino Costa (not regrouped). Gilbert Violeta (Ppk) abstained, noting that he was awaiting a consensus text with the Justice Committee for the plenary debate.
Glave requested that political parties not be included in organizations or legal entities that could be sanctioned. "What would make a mistake is that the aggravated type includes a way of writing very close to money laundering.We characterize illegal financing, which is fine, but money laundering is another crime and the competition should apply, in other words, both crimes are presented and the prosecutor asks for the sum of the sentence.This should not be considered as an aggravating circumstance as this could create confusion in the process criminal law, "he also criticized.
Marco Arana (Frente Amplio) said via Twitter: "A surprise opinion could have beneficial consequences for Keiko [Fujimori] and Company. It would be a law with its own name: politicians involved in money laundering and members of a criminal organization. The notice creates a new type of crime to circumvent the legislation in force.
Gilbert Violeta said that "there are still things we need to specify in the text".
The Justice Commission met on Tuesday, but did not address the issue.
What the opinion says:
What the law says of political organizations today:
Source link
