Attorney General Porcell accused of wrong-doing in Mossack Fonseca case

A lawsuit has been brought against Attorney General Kenia Porcell for her role in the belated investigation of law firm Mossack Fonseca, in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal. The formal complaint was lodged by members of the Cambio Democratico party (CD), on the same day that a national poll by Dichter & Neira showed a majority of the population rating President Juan Carlos Varela’s handling of the scandal negatively.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs accuse the Attorney General of alleged crimes against the public administration as well as abuse of power and willful disregard of her duties as a public servant. The argument at the heart of the complaint centers on the excessive time that the PM allowed to elapse between the revelations brought about by the Panama Papers scandal and the launch of an investigation into alleged wrong-doing at law firm Mossack Fonseca.

According to Luis Eduardo Camacho, spokesperson for the CD party, the handling of this affair on the part of the authorities flies in the face of all the claims of transparency that the current government was elected on. “It took them 10 days to raise a finger. This is a serious matter, as vital evidence could obviously have been tampered with in that time”.

The lawsuit also focuses on some more technical matters, which have in themselves generated a lot of interest. For instance, it highlights how the office of the prosecutor in charge of the Mossack Fonseca investigation – the second public prosecutor against organized crime – was legally constituted only on Thursday 14 April. However, the judicial proceedings that brought about the raid of the Mossack Fonseca offices in Panama City, took place 2 days earlier, on Tuesday 12th April. That is, before the authority in charge of investigating the law firm had come into formal existence. This, according to Ernesto Cedeño, a local lawyer, could very well be used by the defense to declare the proceedings null and void. “The prosecutor now in charge was not in charge when the investigation was actually launched”, he argued. Mr Cedeño went on to say that the April raid was at any rate “untimely”, as there was cause to raid the [Mossack Fonseca] offices in Panama City since the firm was first mentioned in the Brasilian Lava Jato investigation, well before the Panama Papers scandal broke out. Instead, “the PM sat with their arms crossed”, showing little interest in finding proof of wrong-doing at the law firm.

Juan Jovane, former presidential candidate, reinforces that view, adding that there appears to be a number of reasons why President Varela may not be that interest in shining the light on the firm at the epicenter of the Panama Papers scandal. “I am under the impression that, beyond the professed bonds of friendship that we have been made aware of in multiple presidential declarations, there must exist a strong political relationship that is acting as a break on a proper and thorough investigation of this global scandal”. Indeed, firm co-founder Ramon Fonseca Mora was, until recently, not only ministerial adviser to President Juan Carlos Varela, but also president of the ruling Panameñista party. “As if the scandal was not enough in itself”, Mr Jovane went on to add, “the inexcusable slowness of the PM in dealing with the situation at hand caused further damage to the country. This whole affair should have been investigated swiftly, in a fashion similar to what we have seen in other countries, such as Iceland”.

Varela handled himself poorly

According to the latest polls published by Dichten & Neira for the pro-government TVN news channel, as well as Omega Stereo and El Financiero, 55% of respondents rated President Varela’s handling of the crisis poorly, while only 39% viewed it positively.

Respondents recorded their skepticism over the likelihood of a “fair investigation of law firm Mossack Fonseca”, with 50% believing that the rule of law would apply laxly to the government-linked firm. The poll also showed how the vast majority of respondents (91%) believe that the image of the country had been affected, against 8% who thought all was well.