Farías Laguna case contradiction claims, Digi Mart USA News (Mexico City, Mexico): The defense of the Farías Laguna brothers, led by attorney Epigmenio Mendieta, has accused the Attorney General’s Office (FGR) of contradicting itself by stating it lacks sufficient data to investigate Andrés Manuel López Beltrán in the huachicol fiscal case, even though a protected witness mentioned him.
The FGR recently reiterated that it is not investigating the son of former president López Obrador or Adán Augusto López Hernández in this case. It described those who name them as merely “hearsay witnesses.” The defense responded that a Public Ministry representative had also presented these mentions during a court hearing.
According to a report published by Infobae, during a recent proceeding against Fernando Farías Laguna, FGR prosecutor Adín Jacobo Castellanos Franco presented to the control judge the statements of a protected witness, identified as “JCSP,” who referred to “Andy.”
According to the defense, that reference corresponds to Andrés Manuel López Beltrán, who has always been nicknamed “Andy.” The mention links him to the discharge of illegal fuel from the vessel TORM AGNES in Guaymas, Sonora. The defense questioned why the witness’s statements are sufficient to charge the former marines but not to investigate the former president’s son.
The defense stated: “The FGR cannot demand as if they were nonexistent evidence that is already in its possession and, at the same time, seek to use it when it suits its theory of the case. The question is unavoidable: why do these same elements serve to sustain an accusation against the marines, but seem insufficient when it comes to clarifying the participation of other actors or reconstructing the full chain of responsibilities?”
The defense added that the FGR should not confuse the insufficiency of testimony to establish criminal liability with a lack of grounds to verify a possible investigative line in the case.
Given the FGR’s reiterated position of not investigating Andrés Manuel López Beltrán, the defense asked its head, Ernestina Godoy Ramos, whether the references to “Andy” will be clarified. “One thing is that an accusation is not approved,” the defense said, “and another, very different, is that it does not deserve investigation.
So the question for Ernestina Godoy is simple: will the Prosecutor’s Office clarify the references to ‘Andy’ that appear in the testimony incorporated into its own case files, or will it close the matter without explaining what it verified?”
