Prosecutor Faces Potential Charges Over Leaked Information
A prosecutor is facing potential criminal charges related to the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, accordingโฃ to a recent judicialโฃ ruling.โฃ The case centers around aโข leaked email concerningโ aโ fiscal procedure involving the partner of a prominent political โคfigure.
The judge’s decision emphasizes the importance of reserve and confidentiality โขin such matters, citing aโ protocol signedโ by the State Attorneyโ General and the General Council of Advocacy. This protocol mandates discretion and prohibits disseminationโฃ of information to third parties without authorization, to protect the reputation of those involved. The judge specifically noted a “dutyโฃ of discretion”โ was โฃviolated when the โขinformation left it’s intended secure scope.
The leak is also considered โขdamaging toโค the prestige of the institution – the Fiscal โMinistry – and potentially compromises its core โprinciples of legality and impartiality. The judge argues that the unauthorized disclosure could raise โquestions about the Ministry’s objectivity and negativelyโ impact the basic right of defense for those โaffected by the inquiry.
The prosecutor allegedly disclosed confidential information obtained throughโ his position,โข andโข 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 โคthose pertaining to individuals.Popular accusations have โขrequested the maximum prison sentence.
The judge’s ruling acknowledges previousโฃ findings, including that the prosecutor attemptedโ to “winโข the story” after learning the fiscal โขprocedure did โขnot directly effect any citizen, butโค rather the partner of a โขpolitical figure. The ruling details a sequence of events culminating inโ a press release issued on march โค13, 2024, facilitated by communications between the prosecutor and other officials, including โone 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 โwas subsequently leaked to the press. The judge’s decision is based on the facts outlined in a previous โฃresolution, adjusted following review by the Supreme Appeal Room.