The Constitutional Court (TC) studies and at National audience could violate the fundamental rights of the lawyer Gonzalo Boye -who has pro-independence leaders such as Carles Puigdemont, Laura Borràs and Quim Torra among his client portfolio- in the case in which he is being prosecuted for a alleged crime of money laundering members of the Sito Miñanco organization, of which he is also a defender.
The appeal of the lawyer, whose presentation has corresponded to the magistrate Enrique Arnaldo, will be dealt with in the block of related matters of the Second Chamber of this body on Monday, October 10, which means that it will foreseeably be accumulated to other pending claims that Boye has for this very matter.
In June 2021, the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court ratified Boye’s indictment that had been issued by Judge María Tardón for his alleged participation in the operation to recover 889,620 euros that the Police had seized members of the ‘Sito Miñanco’ organization at Barajas airport.
Subsequently, as detailed by the lawyer in his appeal and once the matter had already been submitted to the Chamber for trial, it became known that José Luis Correa Hincapié, from the group of Colombian defendants, had been handed over to our country, and at that time boye requested additional evidence to corroborate his statements -favorable to his defense- that were denied, which causes him a severe helplessness, according to his writing before the guarantee body. That is why he asks the TC to annul all the decisions contrary to his interests, so that the National Court allows him to effectively exercise his defense.
Gonzalez Rubio
The requested proceedings should be practiced in Colombiabefore public registries and banking entities, and according to Boye it is a question of verifying “very relevant extremes” for his defense. In his appeal, he insists that Correa Hincapié’s statements that were already taking place in the procedure confirmed what he had always argued in his defense: that the money that he tried to recover from the money laundering prevention supervisory authority ( SEPBLAC) did not come from drug trafficking but of the business activities of another defendant, Manuel Gonzalez Rubio. “In order to try to prove this point, it was necessary that a Rogatory Commission be issued to Colombia, the place of destination of said seized money, in order to prove that its purpose was none other than to pay a previously purchased company, dedicated to what Mr. González Rubio was always dedicated to security,” the letter adds.
restrict the defense
“The relationship between defenselessness and contradiction in terms of equality has been a constant concern of this High Court, which has insisted ad nauseam on the prohibition of restricting the defense of the affected party in a criminal proceeding and the obligation to allow them to procedurally allege and prove their rights and interests,” the resource adds. In the present case, and as the request for investigative proceedings was dismissed “without any justification” according to this part, Boye would have been prevented “exercise the defense and the right to contradiction in equal armsfor reasons unrelated to any juridical criterion suitable in Law, thus violating, in addition to the rights to effective judicial protection and a process with all guarantees, the fundamental right to defence”
Add that in addition it is up to the TC to review the statement of relevance of the evidence “when it is absurd, incongruous or when a diligence has been rejected that is not only pertinent, but transcendent to modify the meaning of the final decision”, as is the case.
Bleaching for Miñanco
Boye and two other lawyers are being prosecuted for their alleged involvement in the preparation of documents and contracts for the sale of bills of exchange to recover the money seized by the Police. Also, there are another 45 individuals and another 5 legal entities prosecuted in this case where, in addition to this money laundering plot, two operations are investigated with which the ‘Sito Miñanco’ organization intended to introduce almost four tons of cocaine in Spain.
Boye, who accuses Tardón of partiality, appealed his prosecution, arguing that the only evidence against him is two statements by people he claims lied, which, in his opinion, would dismantle the theory that the seized money was from ‘Sito Miñanco ‘ and that he was at the meeting with the lawyers where the plan would have been hatched. Therefore, he argued his intervention in this business would have been a “neutral act”, as reported by Europa Press. However, the Criminal Chamber rejected his request, recalling that at this procedural moment the guilt or innocence of the accused is not assessed, but rather if there are sufficient indications to put him on the defendant’s bench.
They understand that the evidence against Boye is not deduced only from those two statements, but from the investigation as a whole, including surveillance, monitoring and contact among the defendants, from all of which one can infer –they affirm– the involvement of the lawyer in this matter. They link him to the “manipulation of purchase and sale contracts and issuance of bills worth 889,620 euros” without “real content” for the sole purpose of recovering the money intervened in Barajas.