2024-08-31 11:01:28
As on Monday, Juan Pablo Hermosilla, brother and defender of the renowned criminal lawyer, was once again involved in a tense dialogue with the judge, which was one of the events that marked a new day of formalization. At 12:30, the magistrate will give the decision.
At 09:40 hours this Tuesday, August 27, the fifth day of formalization against began Luis Hermosilla and Leonarda Villaloboswho are charged with tax crimes, bribery and money laundering within the framework of Audios Case.
In this context, the Metropolitan East Regional Prosecutor’s Office requested the precautionary measure of preventive detention for said lawyers and Villalobos’ partner, Luis Angulo.
In the run-up to the resolution of these defendants, last week the judge decreed total house arrest and national roots for Renato Robles (TGR) and Patricio Mejias (SII)who were public officials and are charged with the crime of bribery.
Prior to this new day of formalization, the lawyer and brother of Luis Hermosilla, Juan Pablo Hermosilla, again maintained that his client “he didn’t get rich and he lost money.”
While Alejandra Borda, Leonarda Villalobos’ lawyer, said that “A lesser precautionary measure is sufficient to guarantee the purposes of the procedure“.
The arguments of the plaintiffs to request preventive detention for Luis Hermosilla and Leonarda Villalobos for the Audios Case
During this day, each of the complainants (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Internal Revenue Service, State Defense Council) had 10 minutes to present their responses, as did the defenses of the respective defendants.
The first to speak was the prosecutor Felipe Sepulvedawho explained that “The tax crime is established by the fact that Mr. Luis Hermosilla received or rather made transfers of money from his current accounts in his personal current account“.
After that, the lawyer Daniel Martorell On behalf of the CDE, he replied to Hermosilla’s defense that among his arguments for requesting preventive detention is not the “risk of flight.”
In this regard, he stated that “In this hearing we are not here to cross-examinein this hearing We are not making a preliminary judgment that has some characteristics beyond the formalization and the discussion that we have held.”
Later, it was the turn of the Internal Revenue Servicein the voice of the lawyer and head of the Criminal Judicial Defense department of the SII, Gonzalo Mardones.
The jurist assured that the need for caution is due to the risk that said defendants may intervene in the proceedings and may pay bribes.
Along these lines, Mardones pointed out that the defenses “did not counterargue the obvious possibility that evidence in this case could be destroyed or altered, or co-defendants, witnesses, experts or third parties could be induced to give false information or behave in a disloyal or reticent manner, undermining the possibility of having sufficient legal certainty at the time of presenting a subsequent accusation and probably going to trial, which is, I believe, the need for caution in this main case, in this case.”
He added: “This is because the accused were already capable of paying bribes for their own ends and purposes. There is no reason to believe that such unscrupulous conduct will not be repeated in order to improve their position in this case, thereby harming the normal development of the investigation. This situation is even more evident in the audio already known, when Mr. Hermosilla stated that if necessary, the offices of this service (SII) should even be burned down, despite the seriousness of this situation.”
The arguments of Luis Hermosilla’s defense and a new confrontation with the judge
The main argument of the Luis Hermosilla’s defense focused on the possible bad practices in the arguments of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the complainants, when trying – in the words of Juan Pablo Hermosilla – to make a fact appear as such by making an analogy with another crime (bad part).
The defense attorney also alleged that the IRS was ambushing the defendant by not summoning him to clarify his tax situation.
In the middle of the presentation of the lawyer Juan Pablo Hermosilla, a New clash with Judge Mariana Leytonat the time when the court authority asked the criminal lawyer to deliver his arguments more quickly
“I don’t like being interrupted by the magistrate”said Hermosilla. To which the judge replied: “You have 10 minutes and I already gave you 15,” and the lawyer replied again: “Magistrate, I am answering 40 minutes against myself.”
Faced with this, the judge stated: “Sir, They gave you instructions the day before and you have to adhere to them. “Go on, something else.”
Faced with this, Hermosilla’s defense reiterated: “Yes, but I state that I don’t like being interrupted by the court. You have the right to say that, I will comply, but I have the right to say what I deem appropriate.”
“I’m sorry, but I lead the audience“, the judge replied, closing the tense dialogue.
For its part, Leonarda Villalobos’ defense focused on clarifying that they are not seeking to blame the crimes on Jorge Perez Guzman (Factop accountant)but they are asking the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate their participation in the case.
Regarding the request for a precautionary measure against Villalobos, his defense stated that “preventive detentionespecially in the case of my client, It is immensely unnecessary“.
After the arguments, Judge Mariana Leyton will dictate the resolution at 12:30 p.m.