The buyers who were named as victims filed statements saying they had no claim against her, that she had taken nothing from them and that the relationship was contractual. The figures in the alert did not match the charging decision. The Commission maintained the data anyway, and required only that the file cite the arrest warrant that was actually in force.
The case as each side described it
The allegation was large-scale fraud in a residential development financed by the people who were to receive the flats. Her account was that construction had been organised and funded by another person, that she had signed the contracts with the buyers only as his representative under a power of attorney, and that she could not have known he would later refuse to transfer ownership. The buildings existed and the buyers were living in them; what remained was a registration of title, which the buyers were already pursuing in the civil courts.
The bureau’s account was that she and a co-accused had organised construction without the required permits, knew the structures could be declared unauthorised, and concluded contracts with buyers while aware that ownership could not be transferred to them.
Why the victims’ statements did not help
The Commission treated those statements exactly as it treats every document that bears on guilt: as material for the national criminal court. Whether she signed in a representative capacity, whether she knew what would follow, whether the buyers consider themselves harmed — each of those is a question of evidence, and the mandate does not extend to deciding them. The reasoning went further and noted that the statements supported this conclusion rather than undermining it, since they were precisely the kind of evidence a trial court would have to assess.
- A withdrawal of civil claims does not convert a described criminal allegation into a contractual disagreement.
- Where the criminal provision relied on has deception and financial harm as its elements, and the file describes both, the facts are read as criminal in nature.
- Harm was found in the fact that the buyers’ ownership had been rendered contestable, forcing them to litigate to secure it — possession of the flats did not answer the point.
- The case being at the investigation stage cut against her: the investigation exists to examine those facts, and the arguments remain available in it.
The discrepancies, and the one that mattered
She had also identified genuine inconsistencies: the charging decision described offences within a period that did not sit with the date of the last count attributed to her, and the total loss in that document differed from the figure in the alert. The Commission checked both. On the first it found the chronology reconciled once the counts were read in order, and noted that the alert faithfully reflected the document she was challenging. On the second it held that where the description of the conduct is clear, a difference in the amount of harm does not affect the overall accuracy of the data for police cooperation purposes.
One inconsistency did produce an order. Her first arrest warrant had been cancelled on appeal because she had been denied the lawyer she chose, and a new one was issued later — meaning that for a period the request rested on a warrant no longer in force. That did not affect the validity of the proceedings, but accuracy obligations required the file to be amended to identify the correct warrant, failing which the data were to be deleted.
Where the argument had to go first
Read as a sequence rather than as a defeat, the decision maps out the order in which these cases have to be run. Every point she made about her role was capable of being decided — by the investigator, by the court that would rule on the charge, by the appeal court that had already found in her favour once on the question of counsel. None of them was capable of being decided by the Commission, which said so in as many words when it noted that the investigation exists precisely to examine those facts and that she retains her arguments in it.
The practical order is therefore: obtain the finding at home, then bring it here. A ruling that the contracts were performed in a representative capacity, a decision closing part of the case, a reclassification of the charge, a judicial finding on the amount of loss — any of those changes what the file says and gives the Commission something it can act on. Filed the other way round, the same documents read as a request to try the case, and that request is refused every time.
What this decision teaches
- Statements from victims are evidence, not a remedy. They may matter a great deal at trial and almost nothing before the Commission, so file them with the national court first.
- A parallel civil case does not make a criminal file civil. Where deception is alleged and the file describes it, the existence of a contract and of civil litigation is treated as background.
- Choose one discrepancy and make it structural. Wrong totals rarely move the analysis; a cited warrant that no longer exists produces an order with a deadline attached.
- An arrest warrant issued in absence is not itself a defect. Where the person’s whereabouts are unknown and the file shows counsel was present when the warrant was reissued, this ground closes.
Written from one of our own decisions. The requesting state, the city, the project, the cooperative, the sums and the dates are all withheld, and the allegation is given only by category.
If the people named as victims in your case are on your side, their statements are worth having, but they belong in the criminal file at home before they are worth anything internationally. Show us what they signed and where it was filed and we will say what it can do at each stage.
Victim statements and civil disputes
The victims say they have no claim against me. Will the notice be deleted?
Not on that basis. Statements of that kind are evidence for the criminal court, and the Commission does not decide questions of guilt. They can be decisive at home and still carry no weight in this procedure.
There is a civil case about the same facts. Does that make the matter private?
Not where the criminal allegation describes deception and financial harm. Parallel civil litigation is treated as context, and the file is read as criminal if its elements are described.
The sums in my notice and in the charging decision are different. Is that a ground?
On its own, generally not. Where the conduct, the period and the role are clearly described, a difference in the amount of harm has been held not to affect the accuracy of the data.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.