Judge charged with fraud has freed child Customs

Santiago's attorney, Jenny Berenice Reynoso, confirmed Tuesday that the Public Prosecutor who declined to vary the extent of coercion against those accused of fraud by more than 100 million pesos from the Directorate General of Customs has a son who works in this institution.

Berenice Reynoso said the son of the president of the Santiago Appeals Court, Vielka Calderon could be investigated in relation to fraud.

In that sense, Berenice Reynoso criticized the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Santiago Appeals Court, presided Calderón, to vary the extent of coercion eight months of imprisonment the court issued the Permanent Service for a financial guarantee of two million pesos to each of those involved in the alleged embezzlement.

The prosecutor said that Calderón's decision is inconsistent with the policy conducted by the Public Prosecutor against corruption.

Berenice Reynoso was interviewed while participating in a meeting with the Attorney General of the Republic, Radhames Jimenez Pena, Deputy Prosecutor, the National Police chief, Jose Armando Polanco Gómez, President of the DNCD, Rolando Rosado Matero, to coordinate actions combating organized crime.

Jiménez Peña immediately announced that Calderón will call to explain the reasons for its decision.

Those involved in the million-dollar fraud are Adalberto Rosa Rosario, a former Customs subcollectors, Miguel Ángel Peña Lazala and Gerard Estevez. At three, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal imposed a financial guarantee of two million each, from leaving the country and presenting all 30 of every month to the prosecutor.

Racketeering

The prosecutor said the embezzlement case has all the hallmarks of organized crime.

In that order, said he did not conceive that there are now hundreds of people in prison for crimes of lesser magnitude than those committed by the accused.

The criminal chamber of Appeals of Santiago, welcomed the request of the defense of the accused, the direction of Customs and the Office of the Court of Appeal, arguing that it was an economic crime.