fiscal

Prosecutor Faces Potential Charges Over Leaked Information

A prosecutor is facing potential criminal charges related to the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, according⁣ to a recent judicial⁣ ruling.⁣ The case centers around a⁢ leaked email concerning‌ a‍ fiscal procedure involving the partner of a prominent political ⁤figure.

The judge’s decision emphasizes the importance of reserve and confidentiality ⁢in such matters, citing a‌ protocol signed‌ by the State Attorney‍ General and the General Council of Advocacy. This protocol mandates discretion and prohibits dissemination⁣ of information to third parties without authorization, to protect the reputation of those involved. The judge specifically noted a “duty⁣ of discretion”​ was ⁣violated when the ⁢information left it’s intended secure scope.

The leak is also considered ⁢damaging to⁤ the prestige of the institution – the Fiscal ‍Ministry – and potentially compromises its core ‍principles of legality and impartiality. The judge argues that the unauthorized disclosure could raise ​questions about the Ministry’s objectivity and negatively‌ impact the basic right of defense for those ‍affected by the inquiry.

The prosecutor allegedly disclosed confidential information obtained through‌ his position,⁢ and⁢ the judge believes this could constitute a crime under articles 417.1 and 2 of the Criminal Code. These articles prescribe penalties ranging from fines and disqualification from public office to two to four years in prison for revealing secrets,notably ⁤those pertaining to individuals.Popular accusations have ⁢requested the maximum prison sentence.

The judge’s ruling acknowledges previous⁣ findings, including that the prosecutor attempted​ to “win⁢ the story” after learning the fiscal ⁢procedure did ⁢not directly effect any citizen, but⁤ rather the partner of a ⁢political figure. The ruling details a sequence of events culminating in‍ a press release issued on march ⁤13, 2024, facilitated by communications between the prosecutor and other officials, including ‌one pulled from a personal event to participate.

Evidence suggests the prosecutor personally received the confidential information outside of official channels, as evidenced by requests to send communications through personal email accounts, before it ‍was subsequently leaked to the press. The judge’s decision is based on the facts outlined in a previous ⁣resolution, adjusted following review by the Supreme Appeal Room.