Convicted Former 'Super Cop' And Wife To Pay Mexico Over $2.4 Billion
Mexico:
A US court on Thursday ordered a former Mexican security chief convicted of drug trafficking and his wife to pay more than $2.4 billion to their country, Mexico's government said.
Mexico sued Genaro Garcia Luna, who is imprisoned in the United States, for alleged corruption and money laundering involving dozens of public contracts.
The ruling is the latest twist in the saga of the former high-flying minister who earned himself the nickname of "supercop" but instead aided and abetted drug traffickers.
The money awarded by a Florida court is three times the amount that the Mexican government had originally sought, a government statement said.
It said Garcia Luna was ordered to pay nearly $749 million and his wife Linda Cristina Pereyra is to pay a staggering $1.74 billion.
"The judgment is consistent with seven guilty verdicts previously issued and enforced against Garcia Luna, his wife, and his five companies as a result of their failure to appear at trial," the statement added.
It said that nearly $3 million had already been recovered from assets, including a company owned by the couple, as well as real estate.
Garcia Luna, 56, was convicted by a US court in 2023 of taking millions of dollars in bribes to allow the Sinaloa Cartel to smuggle tons of cocaine.
A New York judge sentenced him to more than 38 years in prison and a $2 million fine.
Garcia Luna, who held high-ranking security positions in his country from 2001 until 2012, was the highest-ranking Mexican government figure ever to face trial in the United States.
He served as chief of the Mexican equivalent of the FBI from 2001 until 2006, when he was elevated to secretary of public security, essentially running the federal police force and most counter-drug operations.
Garcia Luna is considered an architect of the US-backed war on drugs launched in 2006 by Mexico's then president Felipe Calderon.
In 2012, after retiring from public service, he moved to the United States and used his extensive contacts to win lucrative contracts with the Mexican government.
He was arrested in December 2019 in Dallas, Texas.
The Mexican government accused a business conglomerate belonging to Garcia Luna's family of obtaining 30 public contracts and obtaining funds totaling more than $745 million.
Mexico's Financial Intelligence Unit alleged that the money was transferred abroad through the use of tax havens and the acquisition of property and other assets in Florida.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
New normal amid a new cold war
The effect of Donald Trump's return to the White House is being felt in capitals all over the world. At the recently-concluded Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, the spectre of a new cold war rose once again to dominate discussions. In his ASEAN chairman's statement, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim categorically asserted the return of a cold war to systemic interstate relations. The reference does not augur well for the ASEAN, which has been trying to build resilience within while maintaining a degree of balance between the US and China. The second important aspect of this year's dialogue has been the tough stand India has placed on its recent military stand-off with Pakistan following the devastating terror attack at Pahalgam. The subsequent Indian political and military action against Pakistan has highlighted what the political leadership is calling the 'new normal', signalling that tolerance has its limits. Both these indicated a changed environment at the Shangri-La Dialogue, especially as they implied certain defining shifts. First, the very definition of the term 'cold war' and how this period will be different from the earlier cold war. Second, the Trump administration's impact on the wider Indo-Pacific and what it expects from the region vis-á-vis the US-China rivalry. Third, the choices for ASEAN states, particularly in light of the extending US-China rivalry. And finally, how this affects the role India plays within multilateral forums and how India's definition of the new normal affects the region. First, the reference to a new cold war is not new. Even during the first Trump term, a National Security Strategy paper released by the administration in November 2017 clearly reiterated that the foremost threats to American interests and leadership in the global order were from China and Russia, articulating the tensions at systemic levels.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
India.com
39 minutes ago
- India.com
Can Russia fight NATO countries alone? If war happens, which countries will support Russia?
US President Trumps vs Russian President Russia vs NATO: Amid the raging Russia-Ukraine war and the massive Ukrainian attack on the defence assets of Russia, tensions between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Russia are growing by leaps and bounds. For those unversed, Russia recently faced a massive attack after Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) struck at least 41 aircraft, which it claimed were used to bomb Ukrainian cities. As a response to attack, Russia is expected to take a much-stronger action against Ukraine, which may lead to a NATO-Russia conflict in the near future. However, the question is, can Russia fight all of the NATO countries alone? After Ukraine attacked Russia in its drone attack, several countries of Europe including UK are already preparing for war. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also noted that he was confident that members of the NATO alliance would sign up to Donald Trump's demand for a major boost in defence spending (possibly indicating of a war scenario). If Russia goes to war against US-led NATO, only countries like Belarus and China are expected to help it. Can Russia defeat NATO alone? As per media reports, Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal (5,580 warheads), along with 1.5 million soldiers, 12,500 tanks, and 6,500 artillery units. However, NATO, for a comparison, has over 3.5 million troops, along with 6,000 nuclear weapons distributed among 31 countries. Therefore, analysts believe that Russia may not be able to defeat NATO alone, and that too in a scenario where it has been engaged in the Ukraine war for almost three years. US President on Russia-Ukraine war progression In a significant development on the progression of the Russia-Ukraine war, the White House informed that US President Donald Trump remains optimistic about the progress being seen amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and urged his counterparts from Russia and Ukraine to talk directly with one another, as per a report by news agency ANI. Leavitt noted during press briefing that Russia handed over a peace plan to the Ukrainian side and the two nations agreed on the exchange of prisoners from each other's nations. She said that Trump is a realist and knows that the two nations have been engaged in the conflict due to former US President Joe Biden's 'weakness and incompetence.' (With inputs from agencies)
