“Carlos de Ory, de Forbes al foco de la UDEF: Investigado por falsas villas en la playa de Sumba y fraude de 15 millones”

What the other side says

I personally gave a statement in connection with the proceedings last year. During that process, it became apparent that the judge did not have information concerning a number of relevant facts about the project, including the acquisition and status of the land, the existence of guests and operational activity, the infrastructure and facilities already developed, and other evidence relating to the actual situation of the project on the ground. Following my statement, we did not receive any further information or communication that would allow us to conclude that these matters had been fully considered by the court. The proceedings in question took place last year, and it would therefore be inappropriate to present an incomplete understanding of the circumstances at that stage as though it were a definitive judicial finding about the current reality of the project. If the newspaper has access to a judicial document establishing that specific offences were formally determined or that particular conduct was judicially established, it should identify the case number, the relevant order or decision, its date and the precise wording relied upon. Until then, allegations concerning criminal offences should be clearly distinguished from established judicial findings. A judicial proceeding, investigation or allegation is not, by itself, proof that a criminal offence has been committed.