Zamir Villaverde admitted facts that are considered crimes by the prosecution

Zamir Villaverde admitted facts that are considered crimes by the prosecution

This was reported by his legal defender, Julio Rodríguez. The lawyer also indicated that the businessman is seeking a benefit from the Public Ministry.

  • Manuel Merino: Amnesty International asks the Subcommission to reconsider filing the complaint
  • Silva to Villaverde: “Zamir, just in case you don't know me, we don't know each other, stand firm”

Zamir Villaverde admitted facts that are considered crimes by the prosecution

The investigated businessman Zamir Villaverde acknowledged that he has committed acts that, according to the thesis of the Public Ministry, would constitute crimes related to the Puente Tarata Case. This was stated yesterday by his lawyer Julio Rodríguez.

In an interview with RPP, Rodríguez was questioned about whether his client has acknowledged that he committed crimes. The lawyer replied that the prosecution attributes facts to him that – according to his thesis – constitute crimes.

“We have accepted some facts that are not fully subsumed in everything that the Public Ministry is establishing. […] These facts, according to the prosecutor, constitute a crime, but not all the facts are ultimately accepted, “he said.

 Zamir Villaverde admitted acts that are considered crimes by the prosecution

Pedro Castillo inaugurates Chota Bicentennial Hospital

He added that the list “is long” and that they impute facts related to crimes such as collusion and influence peddling.

Seeks benefit

Consulted directly on whether his client seeks to be an effective collaborator, he indicated that “he is aspiring to be a person who obtains a benefit from the prosecution.”

He also admitted that Villaverde recorded conversations and that this information is being delivered to the prosecution, but that “he does not have any conversations with Mr. [Pedro] Castillo.”

Regarding whether he allocated money to the president, he stated that his client has acknowledged that there were deliveries of money whose true recipient it was “someone else”.