Jose Luis Taveras, executive editor of Gaceta Judicial, the leading local lawyer targeted publication, in a Diario Libre an op-ed article, “Odebrecht: Damn…!” laments that political power is often at odds with the pursuit of justice. He writes about former Attorney General Jean Alain Rodriguez (2016-2020) and his handling of the Odebrecht bribes case that made international headlines after key Odebrecht officials admitted to the bribes in a New York court, including US$92 million to Dominican businesspeople and government officials.
Taveras’ article published in Diario Libre on 14 August 2024:
“It was an opportunity to break a history of impunity. We had everything: the confession from the construction company admitting to bribery, international judicial cooperation, a regional context of related investigations, two international treaties (UN and OAS) supporting the exchange of information on transnational corruption, the goodwill of Latin American governments and judicial authorities, Odebrecht’s global operations department (Structured Operations) operating in the country, and the mastermind of the Lava Jato “mechanism,” Joao Santana, just meters from the presidential office.
“Everything was set up to build a solid case, perhaps the most robust in the annals of judicial pursuit against corruption in Latin America. But there was a problem: the investigator. Jean Alain Rodríguez could not present a case of the scale required because it would implicate his government and his political boss, Danilo Medina.
“He not only implicated people without causal links to the incrimination but also excluded officials from his administration, those who received nearly US$56 of the US$92 million admitted by the construction company as bribes through overvaluations, including those intended to secure the award and overcost of the most expensive project built by Odebrecht outside Brazil: Punta Catalina. The idea was to dismantle rather than build; to omit rather than do; to hide rather than reveal.
“The task entrusted to Jean Alain Rodríguez was not for the inept but for the servile. It involved subverting his own accusation and pretending to investigate what he didn’t want to find and…, according to him, he didn’t find it! I remember that pathetic press conference where he excluded Punta Catalina from his investigation on the unexplained basis that there was no compelling evidence to implicate anyone. He did not present a single document from that supposed exonerative investigation.
“The Dominican Republic was the only country (among the nine in Latin America where Odebrecht operated) that did not sign a commitment with the Brazilian Public Ministry to obtain cooperation. Clearly, there was no interest; instead, it was the first to hasten an agreement with the Brazilian construction company to relieve it early from a judicial process that could become unmanageable, and that was politically dangerous.
“Thus, while the Dominican Republic made only three requests to Brazil during the investigation, Peru, for example, made 68, including several on-site testimonies. In total, between 2017 and 2018, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Guatemala, Mexico, and Panama made 115 cooperation requests to Brazilian authorities. The difference was in political determination, rigor in the investigation, and commitment to conducting a responsible inquiry.
“Despite the fact that, according to the sinister agreement, the construction company was supposed to cooperate with the Public Ministry [prosecutors], it failed to fulfill its obligation, and the prosecutor did nothing to force it. He could have opposed payments for cubic meters, seized bank accounts, and taken all necessary precautionary measures domestically and abroad; but no, the idea was to keep Odebrecht off to the side.
“As a political artisan, Jean Alain performed a fine dissection of a deliberately weak accusation. If he strengthened the investigation of businessmen and former officials who were not from his government, he had to do the same when circumstances pushed him to act against those from his administration. He did, for the latter, an anticipatory job in case things went wrong, but first ensured their free exclusion.
“The strategy was to isolate the process, incubate it, and handle it behind closed doors. Avoid letting it get out of control and prevent the intervention of external or impartial agents from other states who might provide the evidence he did not want to see or find. Thus, the Attorney General’s Office conducted a superficial investigation at discretion to present a sandy accusation that crumbled in the judicial process until it was left without defendants. This process began with the dismissal of most of the accused and ended with the acquittal of the last two by mandate of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
“Thus, the story is confirmed; once again, impunity prevails. In the end, we happily celebrate the déjà vu! Nothing has happened here. The only thing that exists is a lawfare, says the eminent club of procedural guarantors; obviously, only when there are accusations of white-collar crimes. Let the apologists of this guarantism now tell us that judicialization of politics prevails in the Dominican Republic. The only thing we have seen, as a recurring narrative, is a sovereign politicization of justice due to a Public Ministry’s docile submission to political power. But beware of talking about it! Any opinion is anathematized under suspicion of judicial populism.
“To ignore that the political strategy dominates the accusatory management is to pretend blindness; and in terms of corruption, a consistent pattern of low investigative standards, weak evidence, anticipatory exclusions, and scant rigor in qualification or application of typifications has prevailed.
“It’s possible that those scholars explain such failures as a consequence of social pressures pushing the Public Ministry to present light accusations just to weary public curiosity or quiet the delirious cries of popular outrage. That’s not the case. It never has been. Such an idea only exists in the imagination of those who think that there is no corruption in this country, that judicial processes against corruption are political retaliation or circus distractions of judicial populism, and that we live in an insular Switzerland. Instead, we have a history of gross omissions that disproves this, with Public Ministry representatives surrendering to their rulers, who rarely or never could present an accusation motu proprio aside from unavoidable denunciations or scandals. It happened in the Tucano case, in the Three Brazos process, and in a dozen forgotten files. Odebrecht has just crowned that history with glory of firecrackers and lights. We should congratulate ourselves. Damn…!”
Read more in Spanish:
Diario Libre
19 August 2024