EL PACTO DE PORTILLO

Extracto del pacto de Alfonso Portillo con la fiscalía

Gracias al blog Soy502.com de mi colega y amiga Dina Fernández, llegó a mis manos un extracto de la traducción al español del «pacto» que el ex presidente Alfonso Portillo firmó en Nueva York con la fiscalía.

Lo que dice y lo que no; la negociación de Alfonso Portillo en NY
Por Dina Fernández
En el acuerdo firmado con la Fiscalía de Manhattan (Nueva York), Portillo confesó ser culpable porque «verdaderamente lo es». No puede retirar su aceptación de culpa ni puede atacar la condena alegando que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos carece de pruebas.
Soy502 tuvo acceso al documento que recoge la negociación entre la Fiscalía de Nueva York y los abogados de Alfonso Portillo. El acuerdo está fechado el 7 de marzo de 2014, consta de 6 páginas y está calzado con las firmas del ex presidente de Guatemala y sus abogados defensores, y de dos funcionarios del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos, Shane T. Stansbury, Asistente del Fiscal Preet Bharara y Michael Farbiarz, Co-Jefe de la Unidad contra el Terrorismo y Narcóticos Internacionales.

Desde que se informó que Portillo se había declarado culpable en Estados Unidos, se ha especulado mucho acerca de lo que dice, o no, esta negociación.

A continuación un resumen de los puntos medulares del texto, redactado originalmente en inglés:

1. El acuerdo define el delito que ha aceptado Portillo como: «conspiración para lavar dinero» desde 1999 hasta finales de 2009 El delito estipulado implica: a) una sentencia máxima de 20 años de prisión, b) un período de libertad supervisada de un máximo de tres años, c) una multa que puede ascender al doble de los fondos involucrados en el delito y d) un pago adicional de 100 dólares. Es importante mencionar que el delito de conspiración implica, por definición, a dos o más personas.

2. La Fiscalía acuerda que no volverá a acusar penalmente a Portillo por el mismo delito definido en la acusación a la que corresponde el acuerdo, en el mismo período de tiempo. El documento de la acusación al que hace referencia el acuerdo se llama «Count One», «Cargo Uno» e incluye los casos del Crédito Hipotecario Nacional, el Ministerio de la Defensa y los cheques de Taiwan. El acuerdo excluye de manera explícita las violaciones criminales a normas fiscales, por estar fuera del alcance de la Fiscalía.

3. Alfonso Portillo se compromete a entregar a los Estados Unidos 2.5 millones de dólares, el monto involucrado en el delito que aceptó cometer vía los cheques de Taiwán. Además, deberá pagar una multa adicional, cuyo monto deberá establcerse entre 10,000 y 500,000 dólares. Portillo no podrá apelar ni evitar el pago de estos montos.

4. El acuerdo establece el nivel de la ofensa cometida, basándose en una guía/tabla utilizada por los jueces estadounidenses para sentenciar. En este apartado, la Fiscalía acepta beneficiar a Portillo con una reducción en el nivel de ofensa porque el gobierno de los Estados Unidos está satisfecho con la aceptación clara de responsabilidad del expresidente y porque además Portillo manifestó con suficiente tiempo de antelación su voluntad de llegar a un acuerdo con los fiscales, evitándole a la Corte la preparación de un juicio y permitiendo que los recursos del gobierno se usen con eficiencia.

5. Se establece que Portillo no tiene una historia criminal previa en las cortes estadounidenses.

6. El acuerdo define que el rango de la sentencia será de un mínimo de 46 meses y un máximo de 71. Si la Corte le impone a Portillo una sentencia que se encuentra dentro de esos márgenes, el expresidente no podrá apelar la decisión de la Corte.

7. El documento se cuida de aclarar que la negociación es vinculante para las partes, pero no para la Corte. El juez tiene la potestad de imponer la sentencia que él decida conforme a la ley y la Fiscalía no puede garantizar cuál será ésta. Portillo no podrá retirar el acuerdo ni su aceptación de culpabilidad si el fallo del juez se encontrara fuera del rango establecido por el acuerdo.

8. El contrato afirma que Portillo reconoce que «ha aceptado el acuerdo y que se ha declarado culpable porque verdaderamente es culpable».  Portillo renuncia en el documento al derecho de retirar su aceptación de responsabilidad y atacar la condena que su admisión de culpa implica. No podrá apelarla o cuestionarla diciendo que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha sido incapaz de probarla aportando evidencia.

9. Portillo acepta su probable deportación y además que el acuerdo firmado podría tener consecuencias en materia migratoria.

10. El documento señala en su último párrafo que no existen cláusulas adicionales en la negociación fuera de las estipuladas y que cualquier «entendimiento, promesa o condición» para ser tomada en cuenta, deberá adjuntarse por escrito y contar con la firma de todas las partes.

11. El acuerdo no dice en ningún momento si el tiempo de prisión que ya sirvió Portillo en Guatemala y en Nueva York será tomado en cuenta para establecer la sentencia. La negociación no contiene ningún compromiso respecto a restar o no el tiempo purgado.

12. El acuerdo tampoco señala en párrafo alguno que Portillo tenga algún impedimento para ejercer sus derechos políticos una vez cumplida la sentencia. (Fin del artículo en Soy502.com)

El texto del acuerdo en inglés

Para beneficio de quienes lean inglés, este es el texto completo en su idioma original:

Arthur G. Jakoby, Esq.
David M. Rosenfield, Esq.
Steven D. Feldman, Esq.
Herrick, Feinstein LLP
2 Park A venue
New York, NY 10016
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Tl•e Sllvio J. Mollo B11ilding
One Safm Andrew’s Pfo::a
New York. NtlP York 10007
March 7, 2014
Re: United States v. Alfonso Portillo, 09 Cr. 1142 (RPP)
Dear Counsel:
On the understandings specified below, the Office of the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York («this Office») will accept a guilty plea from Alfonso Portillo
(«thy defendant») to Count One of the above-referenced Indictment. Count One charges the
defendant with conspiracy to commit money laundering from in or about 1999 up to and
including in or about 2009, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h), and
carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years, a maximum term of supervised release of
three years, a maximum fine, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956, of the greatest of $500,000 or twice
the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or
transfer, and a $100 mandatory special assessment. In addition to the foregoing, the Court must
order restitution .as specified below.
In consideration of the defendant’s plea to the above offense, the defendant will not be
further prosecuted criminally by this Office (except for criminal tax violations as to which this
Office cannot, and does not, make any agreement) for his participation in a conspiracy to commit
money laundering from in or about 1999 up to and including in or about 2009, as charged in
Count One of the Indictment, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent
prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. In
addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Count(s)
against the defendant. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges
he is not a «prevail ing party» within the meaning ofthe «Hyde Amendment,» Section 617, P.L.
105-119 (Nov. 26, 1997), and will not file any claim under that law.
The defendant hereby admits the forfeiture allegation with respect to Count One of the
Indictment and agrees to forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 982, a sum of money equal to $2,500,000.00 in United States currency, representing the
property, real and personal, involved in the money laundering offense and all property traceable
Rev. 10.22.2013
Page 2
to such property (the «Money Judgment»). It is further understood that any forfeiture of the
defendant’s assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any tine, restitution, cost of
imprisonment, or any other penalty the Court may impose upon him in addition to forfeiture.
The defendant further agrees to make restitution in an amount ordered by the Court in
accordance with Title 1&; United States Code, Sections 3663, 3663A, and 3664.
In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines
(«U.S.S.G.» or «Guidelines») Section 6B I .4, the parties hereby stipulate to the following:
A. Offense Level
1. The United States Sentencing Guidelines («Guidelines» or «U.S.S.G.») provisions
in effect as of November I, 2013, apply in thi-s case.
2. The Guideline applicable to the offense in Count One of the Indictment is
U.S.S.G. § 2Sl.l. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Sl.l(a)(2), the base offense level is 8
plus the number of offense levels from the table in U.S.S.G. § 2B I .1. Because the
value of the laundered funds was more than $1,000,000 and not more than
$2,500,000, the offense level is increased by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
28 1.1 (b )(1 )(I), yielding a base offense level of 24.
3. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 281.1 (b)(2)(B), because the defendant was convicted
under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, the base offense level is increased by 2 levels.
4. There is no stipulation regarding the propriety of an adjustment pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The Government believes that an adjustment is appropriate
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3. The defendant believes that no adjustment is
appropriate pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The parties agree not to appeal or
otherwise to challenge the Court’s determination on this issue of the applicability
vel non ofU.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.
5. Assuming the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, to the
satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and subsequent conduct
prior to the imposition of sentence, a two-level reduction will be warranted,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). Furthermore, assuming the defendant has
accepted responsibility as described in the previous sentence, an additional onelevel
reduction is warranted, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E 1.1 (b), because the
defendant gave timely notice of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby
permitting the Government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to
allocate its resources efficiently.
In accordance with the above, both parties agree that the applicable offense level is either
25 (if the Court finds that the defendant qualities for the application of U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3), or 23
(if the Court finds that U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3 does not apply).
Rev. 10.22.2013
Page 3
B. Criminal History Category
Based upon the information now available to this Office (including representations by the
defense), the defendant has no criminal history points.
In accordance with the above, the defendant’s Criminal History Category is I.
C. Sentencing Range
Based upon the calculations set forth above, the defendant’s Guidelines range at offense
level 25 is 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment, and the defendant’s Guidelines range at offense level
23 is 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, the Stipulated Guidelines range is 46 to 71
months’ imprisonment («the Stipulated Guidelines Range»). In addition, after determining the
defendant’s ability to pay, the Court may impose a fine pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5El.2. At
Guidelines level 23 or 25, the applicable fine range is $10,000 to $500,000.
The parties agree that neither a downward nor an upward departure from the Stipulated
Guidelines Range set forth above is warranted. Accordingly, neither party will seek any
departure or adjustment pursuant to the Guidelines that is not set forth herein. Nor will either
party suggest that the Probation Office consider such a departure or adjustment under the
Guidelines, or suggest that the Court sua sponte con.sider any such departure or adjustment.
The parties agree that either party may seek a sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines Range, suggest that the Probation Office consider a sentence outside of the Stipulated
Guidelines Range, and suggest that the Court sua sponte consider a sentence outside of the
Stipulated Guidelines Range, based upon the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).
Except as provided in any written Proffer Agreement(s) that may have been entered into
between this Office and the defendant, nothing in this Agreement limits the right of the parties
(i) to present to the Probation Office or the Court any facts relevant to sentencing; (ii) to make
any arguments regarding where within the Stipulated Guidelines Range (or such other range as
the Court may determine) the defendant should be sentenced and regarding the factors to be
considered in imposing a sentence pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a);
(iii) to seek an appropriately adjusted Guidelines range if it is determined based upon new
information that the defendant’s criminal history category is different from that set forth above;
and (iv) to seek an appropriately adjusted Guidelines range or mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment if it is subsequently determined that the defendant qualifies as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l. Nothing in this Agreement limits the right of the Government to seek
denial of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3El.l, regardless of any
stipulation set forth above, if the defendant fails clearly to demonstrate acceptance of
responsibility, to the satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and subsequent
conduct prior to the imposition of sentence. Similarly, nothing in this Agreement limits the right
of the Government to seek an enhancement for obstruction of justice, see U.S.o?.G. § 3CI .l,
regardless of any stipulation set forth above, should it be determined that the defendant has either
(i) engaged in conduct, unknown to the Government at the time of the signing of this Agreement,
Rev. 10.22.2013
Page 4
that constitutes obstruction of justice or (ii) committed another crime after signing this
Agreement. Jt is understood that pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 6B 1.4(d), neither the Probation Office nor the Court is bound by the above Guidelines stipulation, either as to questions of fact or as to the determination of the proper Guidelines to apply to the facts. In the event that the Probation
Office or the Court contemplates any Guidelines adjustments, departures, or calculations
different from those stipulated to above, or contemplates any sentence outside of the stipulated
Guidelines range, the pat1ies reserve the right to answer any inquiries and to make all appropriate arguments concerning the same.
It is understood that the sentence to be impol!ed upon the defendant is determined solely
by the Court. It is further understood that the Guidelines are not binding on the Court. The
defendant acknowledges that his entry of a guilty plea to the charged offenses authorizes the
sentencing court to impose any sentence, up to and including the statutory maximum sentence.
This Office cannot, ·and does not, make any promise or representation· as to what sentenc·e the
defendant will receive. Moreover, it is understood that the defendant will have no right to
withdraw his plea of guilty should the sentence imposed by the Court be outside the Guidelines
range set forth above.
It is agreed (i) that the defendant will not file a direct appeal; nor bring a collateral
challenge, including but not limited to an application under Title 28, United States Code, Section
2255 and/or Section 2241; nor seek a sentence modification pursuant to Title 18, United States
Code, Section 3582(c), of any sentence within or below the Stipulated Guidelines Range of 46 to
71 months’ imprisonment, and (ii) that the Government will not appeal any sentence within or
above the Stipulated Guidelines Range. This provision is binding on the parties even if the Court
employs a Guidelines analysis different from that stipulated to herein. Furthermore, it is agreed
that any appeal as to the defendant’s sentence that is not foreclosed by this provision will be
limited to that portion of the sentencing calculation that is inconsistent with (or not addressed by) the above stipulation. The parties agree that this waiver applies regardless of whether the term of imprisonment is imposed to run consecutively to or concurrently with the undischarged portion of any other sentence of imprisonment that has been imposed on the defendant at the time of sentencing in this case. The defendant further agrees not to appeal any term of supervised
release that is less than or equal to the statutory maximum. The defendant also agrees not to
appeal any fine that is less than or equal to $500,000 and not to appeal any forfeiture amount that is less than or equal to $ 2,500,000. The Government agrees not to appeal any fine that is greater than or equal to $10,000 and not to appeal any forfeiture amount that is greater than or equal to $2,500,000.
The defendant hereby acknowledges that he has accepted this Agreement and decided to
plead guilty because he is in fact guilty. By entering this plea of guilty, the defendant waives any
and all right to withdraw his plea or to attack his conviction, either on direct appeal or
collaterally, on the ground that the Government has failed to produce any discovery material,
Jencks Act material, exculpatory material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
other than information establishing the factual innocence· of the defendant, and impeachment
Rev. 10.22.2013
Page 5
material pursuant to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), that has not already been
produced as of the date of the signing of this Agreement.
The defendant recognizes that because he is not a citizen of the United States, his guilty
plea and conviction make it very likely that his deportation from the United States is
presumptively mandatory and that, at a minimum, he is at risk of being depo1ted or suffering
other adverse immigration consequences. The defendant acknowledges that he has discussed the
possible immigration consequences (including deportation) of his guilty plea and conviction with
defense counsel. The defendant affirms that he wants to plead guilty regardless of any
immigration consequences that may result from the guilty plea and conviction, even if those
consequences include deportation from the United States. It is agreed that the defendant will
have no right to withdraw his guilty plea based on any actual or perceived adverse immigration
consequences (including deportation) resulting from the guilty plea and conviction. It is fmther
agreed that the defendant will not challenge his conviction or sentence on direct appeal, or
through litigation under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 and/or Section 2241, on the
basis of any actual or perceived adverse immigration consequences (including deportation)
resulting from his guilty plea and conviction.
It is further agreed that should the conviction following the defendant’s plea of guilty
pursuant to this Agreement be vacated for any reason, then any prosecution that is not timebarred by the applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of this agreement
(including any counts that the Government has agreed to dismiss at sentencing pursuant to this
Agreement) may be commenced or reinstated against the defendant, notwithstanding the
expiration of the statute of limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the
commencement or reinstatement of such prosecution. It is the intent of this Agreement to waive
all defenses based on the statute of limitations with respect to any prosecution that is not timebarred on the date that this Agreement is signed.
It is further understood that this Agreement does not bind any federal, state, or local
prosecuting authority other than this Office.
Rev. 10.22.2013
Page 6
Apart from any written Proffer Agreement(s) that may have been entered into between
this Office and defendant, this Agreement supersedes any prior understandings, promises, or
conditions between this Office and the defendant. No additional understandings, promises, or
conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this Agreement, and none will be
entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties.
Arthur G. Jakoby, Esq.
David M. Rosenfield, Esq.
Steven D. Feldman, Esq.
Attorneys for Alfonso Portillo
Rev. 10.22.2013
By:
Very truly yours,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney
Adam Fee I Shane T. Stansbury
Assistant_ United States Attorney
(212) 637-1589 I -2641
Michael Farbiarz
Co-Chief, Terrorism and International
Narcotics Unit

Fin del texto original en inglés del «pacto» o «regateo» o arreglo que firmó el ex presidente Alfonso Antonio Portillo Cabrera con los fiscales del Distrito de Manhattan al declararse culpable de los delitos que le imputan

Mi comentario:  Este acuerdo, o «regateo» o pacto de parte de la fiscalía con el acusado no necesariamente obliga al juez Patterson a acatar lo establecido en él porque está en libertad de hacer otra sentencia haciendo caso omiso del arreglo o «regateo» que aceptó el ex mandatario guatemalteco para ver si así obtiene una sentencia menos dura. Tanto en la corte como en la confesión de Portillo se ha calificado de «soborno» de parte del gobierno de Taiwan el dinero que él recibió como si fuese girado a su favor, en lo personal, y no para el gobierno de Guatemala, para que durante su gobierno nuestro país continuara teniendo relaciones diplomáticas con Taiwan, pero a raíz de esa confesión de Portillo el gobierno de Taiwan ha declarado que no se le concedió ese dinero como soborno para que continuase teniendo relaciones con Taiwan, sino como una contribución para un proyecto de bibliotecas estudiantiles que él dijo que deseaba realizar, el cual nunca se llevó a cabo.

Después de esta aclaración del gobierno de Taiwan, me inclino a sospechar que a pesar de haberse declarado culpable, Portillo no será dejado en libertad tan pronto como algunas personas creen. Lo que es una barbaridad es que se diga en el punto número 5 que «Portillo  sí debe quedar claro (como puede verse en el punto número 5) es que «Se establece que Portillo no tiene una historia criminal previa en las cortes estadounidenses», porque en Nueva York se le está juzgando exclusivamente por el delito de «conspiración de lavado de dinero» y no por el delito de robo, o de peculado, ni, mucho menos, por los homicidios que cometió en Chilpancingo, Guerrero (México) y que después fue prófugo de la justicia mexicana hasta que el caso prescribió y una jueza que era amiga de la familia de su ex esposa, la escritora y maestra universitaria María Eugenia Padua, lo cerró. Por cierto que la señora Padua se suicidó de un balazo en la cabeza en la casa de su hermana en Chilpancingo cuando se percató de que tanto ella como su hija Otilia iban a resultar involucradas en el delito de conspiración de lavado de dinero porque parte de los US$2.5 millones que Portillo se embolsó de los cheques donados por Taiwan y había depositado originalmente en el banco Hamilton de Miami fueron posteriormente depositados a nombre de ellas en cuentas bancarias en Europa, principalmente en Francia, país que reclama también la extradición del ex mandatario guatemalteco. Pero es poco probable que de Nueva York sea llevado a Francia para ser juzgado. Lo cual les convirtió en cómplices de ese delito. En esta corte de Manhattan tampoco se ha investigado los constantes viajes a Panamá en el avión presidencial de Guatemala de parientes y personeros del entonces presidente, viajes de los que se sospechaba que eran para llevar a depositar dinero en los bancos panameños. De esta «operación Panamá» podría dar amplia información, de serle requerida, el actual embajador plenipotenciario de Guatemala en Estados Unidos de América, Julio Ligorría Carballido.

Twitter@jorgepalmieri