[ad_1]
Because the events occurred between 2005 and 2006, and the law only allows investigating alleged irregularities that occurred in the last three years, the National Electoral Council closed the case against the senator and former presidential candidate Gustavo Petro for the sounded video in which he was go get some bags with cash.
(We invite you to read: They ask to declare a former official of ‘Petrovideo’ as absent)
You may be interested in: ‘There is no illicit act there’: Petro on video receiving money)
Through a resolution known today, the CNE determined that in the face of this specific event, the legal phenomenon of expiration operated and, consequently, decided not to advance in its investigations, in the middle of an administrative process initiated against the leader of Human Colombia in 2018, when the video scandal broke out, which was recorded between 2005 and 2006 by a Petro collaborator, Juan Carlos Montes Fernández. That video was revealed by Senator Paloma Valencia, from the Democratic Center, in a plenary session.
Pasture: Petro’s explanations about the video in which he receives money)
For the same case, Senator Petro has a process in the Supreme Court. That investigation has not yet reached a decision-making body and the main witness in the case, Montes, left the country shortly after the scandal broke.
Also read: For the case of ‘Petrovideo’ they raided the house of Juan Carlos Montes)
The magistrates considered that there are no reasons in the process to doubt the statement that Montes gave to the Prosecutor’s Office about the time of the events. There he said that it was about 20 million pesos that corresponded to the sum of small contributions – even from 5,000 pesos – that he was collecting for the 2006 Petro campaign to the Senate. Montes also assured that it had not been a surreptitious recording.
Also read: Petro says that the Prosecutor’s Office leaked video in which he appears counting money)
At the time, Petro said that it was a loan from a renowned architect, who denied that version.
What the CNE did decide on was two promissory notes, for 100 million pesos, that the Prosecutor’s Office found in Montes’s apartment and that led to another investigation for alleged illegal financing of the 2018 campaign.
Also read: ‘They wanted to incriminate Petro in conducts that did not happen’)
What the magistrates found was that those two loans did appear in the electoral expenses list, that the documents were signed by Petro’s campaign manager and that all the regulations were met. The declarations of the beneficiaries of the promissory notes confirmed the version of the campaign.
“No irregularity was found with respect to the due reporting of the two promissory notes regarding the financing of Gustavo Petro Urrego’s presidential campaign for the period 2018-2022,” says the Electoral Council.
See the document below.
ELTIEMPO.COM
