Alex Bravo case (Ecuador/Panama)

The investigations into this case arose from the leak of confidential documents known as the Panama Papers in mid-2016. Among other revelations, the leak exposed a contract signed by offshore companies that linked Alex Bravo Panchano to a company that had received several contracts from the state oil company, totaling $30.3 million. Subsequent inspections uncovered the transfer of money to the account of Carlos Pareja Yannuzzelli's offshore company, Capaya, among others.

Ecuador’s Attorney General’s office requested Panama, through international criminal assistance, to confiscate and repatriate the value of the convicted persons' accounts related to this case, based on a confiscation order issued in 2018. Ecuador seeks to recover USD 37,813,886.60 from Panama. Panama has to date refused Ecuador's request citing a pending decision by Panama’s judicial authorities related to the matter. 

Confiscation Order: on July 20, 2018, at 3:17 p.m., the Court of the Specialized Criminal, Military Criminal, Police Criminal and Traffic Court, of the National Court of Justice of Ecuador, unanimously resolved:

“Therefore, the existence of the crime of bribery, as described and punished in the second paragraph of Article 285 of the Criminal Code (CP), is hereby declared. The aggravating circumstances of cunning and fraud, as provided for in Article 30.1 of the CP, are present, as well as the involvement of multiple actors. In accordance with the principle of applying the most favorable law, the accused shall be subject to all the provisions of the previous Criminal Code, including a custodial sentence, a monetary penalty, and other applicable sanctions.

Therefore, it is imposed on the authors, the former public servants Carlos Eugenio Pareja Yanuzzelli, Alex Bravo Panchano, Paquita Isabel De Mora and Arturo Escobar Domínguez, and the strangers Glenda Marianela Meza Bracho, Ramiro Andrés Luqye Flores, Humberto Edmundo Guarderas Córdova, Juan Andrés Baquerizo Escobar, Jaime Baquerizo Escobar, Arturo Emilio Pinzón Domador and Sonia Yolanda Calero Silva were sentenced to five years of imprisonment, while the defendants who have been declared accomplices, Yolanda Rosa Pareja and Carlos Andrés Pareja Avilés, are sentenced to approximately two and a half years in prison. Furthermore, as has already been explained, due to the effect of the application of the Criminal Code and its entire punitive framework, this does not constitute an infringement of the guarantee of non-reformatio in pejus. (art. 77.14 CRE and art. 652.7 COIP), since that there is a PE resource. Petroecuador, the components of the consistent sentence are imposed on all defendants, consisting of the monetary penalty of USD 31, restitution of three times what was received, that is, the sum of USD 37,813,886.60 that they must pay pro-rata, differentiating between authors and accomplices. In accordance with arts. 51 and 65 CP ratifies the confiscation of the assets of the accused that have been used for the consummation of the crime. Based on art. 52 CP, the obligation is established for the defendants to jointly pay the procedural costs. The suspension of citizenship rights is ordered for the duration of the sentence, in accordance with art. 60 CP. In addition, the publication of the ratio decidendi of the sentence is planned in accordance with articles 78CRE, art. 78 COIP and art. 71 CP.

The error originated from the improper application of article 43 of the Criminal Code (now article 43 of the COIP). The correct rule applicable to the specific case concerning Mrs. Jelice Alejandra Herrera Ferrín is found in article 44 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes concealment. However, in the case of spouses, there is an exemption from punishment according to article 45 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, as a consequence of applying the principle of favorability, since concealment within criminal participation has been removed in the COIP and is now treated as an autonomous criminal offense in the second paragraph of article 272 of the COIP, the criminal action against Herrera Ferrín should cease, and the precautionary and other measures issued against her in the present case should be lifted. The error derives from an express contravention of article 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. Therefore, correcting the error that the ad quem court committed when ruling on comprehensive reparation, it is established, differentiating between material and immaterial damages, that the accused are obligated to compensate Petroecuador in the amount of USD 12,604,979.56. This is distinct from the component of the penalty called restitution, described above. Likewise, as immaterial reparation, the content of this sentence and its ratio decidendi shall be published in a newspaper with wide national circulation, at the expense of the convicted persons (…).”