The judge of the National Court Joaquín Gadea has ordered the imprisonment of former judge Fernando Presencia for directing an organization aimed at his own illicit enrichment and that of some of his closest collaborators through the dissemination of false news. The magistrate appreciates risks of flight and criminal reiteration in the actions of the former judge.

Gadea’s order places Presencia at the top of said organization and explains that when he lost his status as magistrate in 2016 he also lost his main source of income, which, according to the magistrate, prompted the person investigated to devise a criminal structure with which Get the funds for your expenses.

In addition to the crimes that he attributes to those investigated in this case, the instructor adds for Presence those of money laundering and frustration of the execution. The judge bases himself on the bank information collected during the investigation, which makes it possible to verify that Presencia would have used the funds obtained illegally and knowing that they originated from criminal activity.

For the judge, it is also significant that despite the agreed embargoes, the person investigated has tried to evade their effectiveness “carrying out acts of disposition aimed at redirecting the patrimonial income generated by the contributions to ACODAP, through the use of intermediaries or the opening of accounts abroad.

The order considers that there are causes that allow the adoption of the prison measure, such as the risk of escape and criminal repetition. Gadea recalls that the person under investigation did not appear yesterday at the judicial appeal “eviding his intention to hinder judicial work.”

The magistrate states that, after listening to Presencia in his statement today, the person under investigation continues to believe that he is an active magistrate. “It is striking to contemplate the aplomb in which this position is sustained, despite the two condemnatory sentences that have already handed down, without feeling in the least linked to the Agreement of the General Council of the Judiciary that says otherwise. The most striking thing is that it unites to this condition of magistrate a halo of impunity, which appears especially inconsistent with those who are faced with an Association that intends to fight against corruption”.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project