The progress of the trial against Nicolás Petro Burgos, son of President Gustavo Petro, took a key turn after the judge in the case rejected the defense’s request to exclude the cell phone that Day Vásquez, his ex-partner, voluntarily handed over to the Prosecutor’s Office.
With this decision, All messages, audios and documents extracted from the device may be used as evidence in the trial for alleged illicit enrichment and money laundering.
You can now follow us on Facebook and in our WhatsApp Channel
The ruling represents a setback for defense attorney Alejandro Carranza, who had insisted that the cell phone was obtained irregularly and that it should be discarded as evidence.
However, the judge considered that the device was delivered legally and voluntarily by Vásquez, who since 2023 has collaborated with justice as a key witness in the process.
The defense had alleged that the content of the cell phone was manipulated and that part of the information is not directly related to the facts investigated.
Nevertheless, The judge dismissed those arguments by pointing out that any question about the authenticity or context of the messages must be debated at the trial stage. Not in high school.
The chats between Nicolás Petro and Day Vásquez are a central piece of the criminal file.
In several conversations, the couple discusses the handling of large sums of cash, allegedly coming from irregular contributions to the 2022 presidential campaign and from contracts in the Atlantic.
According to Weekone of the messages most cited by the Prosecutor’s Office shows Petro asking for “greater secrecy” about the origin of the money, which has been interpreted by investigators as an instruction to hide possible illicit income.
The validation of the telephone reinforces the probative power of the material provided by Vásquez, which had already been accepted by the Prosecutor’s Office and will now also be taken into account by the Attorney General’s Office, which recently opened a new disciplinary investigation against Nicolás Petro.
The latter focuses on alleged irregularities in the awarding of contracts to the Social Conscience Foundation (Fucoso), an entity that would have received more than three billion pesos during his tenure as deputy of the Atlantic.
In this investigation, the messages extracted from the same cell phone are also fundamental.
There appear conversations between Vásquez, Petro and Gustavo de la Ossa, representative of the foundation, in which they talk about inflated payments, simulated contracts and personal benefits derived from public contracting.
Meanwhile, the preparatory hearing for the trial continues to be marked by tensions between the defense and the Prosecutor’s Office. Carranza, lawyer for the president’s son, has asked to review the principle of opportunity granted to Day Vásquez, alleging contradictions in his testimony.
She, for her part, maintains that her cooperation was decisive in revealing the acts of corruption and has accused the defense of trying to stop the process.
The inability of Nicolás Petro to acquire an air ticket from Bogotá to Barranquilla has generated concern in the judicial process faced by the son of the president of Colombia.
The restriction, which prevented him from appearing in person at the trial preparatory hearing scheduled for this Tuesday, November 4 in the Atlantic capital, originates from his recent inclusion in the so-called Clinton list, a registry of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (Ofac) of the United States Department of the Treasury that sanctions people for alleged links with drug trafficking or criminal organizations.
Lawyer Alejandro Carranza explained that the impossibility of purchasing the ticket in the name of Nicolás Petro is due to the restrictions imposed by his presence on the list, which even affect the acquisition of tickets on national airlines.
“When a person is listed, no third party can do business for him. It is a rule. It’s something we’re getting around. This topic on the list is new for Nicolás, for the defense and for everyone. If we had known this months ago, we would have applied another alternative. It cannot be said that we do business for Nicolás,” Carranza explained.
