The SCJN acquitted the former secretary general of the PRI of embezzlement

By a unanimous vote of four votes, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) rejected as unacceptable the protection promoted by the government of Chihuahua during the government of Javier Corral, which will continue the force of accusation of embezzlement. for the alleged diversion of 250 million pesos charged as part of the so-called Osapphire peration to Alejandro Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, former deputy general secretary of the PRI.

Ministers Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena (who presented the project), Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, Arturo Zaldívar and Juan Luis González Alcántara, voted in favor of removing the amparo trial initiated by the Ministry of Finance of the Executive Branch of Chihuahua against the decision that was handed down in May 2018 and benefited the former member of the PRI Executive Committee.

When resolving the amparo examined in the file number 921/2019, the four ministers that make up the First Chamber (due to the fact that Minister Alana Margarita Ríos Farjat was not in the session), approved the project which is proposed to be withdrawn. the appealed sentence and which benefited Alejandro Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, because the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic (FGR) considered that the accusation of corruption against him was not proven because he was not a public servant and therefore could not be accused to him.

During the government of Javier Corral (2016-2021), it was discovered that during the mandate of César Duarte in that entity (2010-2016), PRI members participated in the diversions of resources intended for health and education, through shell companies and They were allegedly used for proselytizing activities during 2015.

In the same way, the Federal Public Ministry withdrew the accusation considering that the government of Chihuahua, the PGR requested the dismissal of the criminal case against the former general secretary of the tricolor by arguing that the State Prosecutor’s Office did not provide enough evidence to support the accusation and The testimonies offered contain contradictions.