Julio Herrera Velutini. |. The Silent Banker
Shocking Twist in High-Profile Bribery Case:
Defence Exposes Government's
Flawed Indictment
The indictment against Mr. Herrera alleges his involvement in a bribery scheme with Governor Pierluisi, aimed at influencing the outcome of an examination and evading certain reporting requirements. However, a careful examination of the allegations reveals significant flaws in the government's case.
London | 05:12 PM
7 July 2023
Courtesy: House of Herrera
San Juan — A high-profile bribery case has taken a shocking turn as the defence exposes significant flaws in the government's indictment against Mr. Herrera. The allegations of a bribery scheme involving Governor Pierluisi have been challenged, revealing a lack of evidence and weak connections between events. The defense argues that the government's attempt to create a narrative of corruption is unfounded and lacks solid proof. This sensational article examines the defence's claims, revealing a stunning revelation that could potentially unravel the entire case.
Explosive Allegations Unravel the Case
In a stunning revelation, the defence reveals that the government's indictment is built on a timeline of events orchestrated by the FBI and driven by individuals other than Mr. Herrera or Governor Pierluisi. The defense argues that these events culminated in a legal campaign donation, devoid of any agreement or knowledge on Governor Pierluisi's part.
Shaky Grounds: Lack of Evidence and Misleading Claims
The defense delivers a devastating blow to the government's case by exposing crucial flaws. They highlight that the only explicit references to a "bribe" in the indictment come from Mr. Fuentes, an FBI informant posing as someone with influence over Governor Pierluisi. Shockingly, there is no evidence indicating that Mr. Herrera or anyone acting on his behalf agreed to accept the proposed "bribe" or transferred the requested funds. The government's attempt to mislead by portraying a payment made later for a different amount as the culmination of the alleged scheme is deemed misleading.
Legal Standards and Constitutional Rights
To establish a bribery offense, the government must prove an explicit agreement to exchange money for an official act. The defense argues that the government's indictment fails to meet this standard and relies on speculation and implicit agreements, which are insufficient. They emphasize that the accused must have adequate notice of the charges to ensure their constitutional rights are protected.
Counts 5, 6, and 7 Under Fire
The defense scrutinizes Counts 5, 6, and 7, asserting that they fail to allege an explicit quid pro quo, an essential element of the charged offenses. They claim that the government's reliance on inferences and circumstantial evidence falls short of the required legal standard. Such a weak foundation for establishing a fundamental element of the offense raises concerns about the grand jury process and jeopardizes the defendant's rights.
A Call for Dismissal to Safeguard Constitutional Rights
The defense concludes by stating that the indictment against Mr. Herrera lacks sufficient evidence and fails to establish the essential elements of the charged offenses. They argue that the government's attempt to construct a bribery scheme based on circumstantial evidence and speculation falls short of the required legal standards. The defense boldly calls for the dismissal of Counts 5, 6, and 7 to safeguard the defendant's constitutional rights and ensure a fair trial.
Explosive Revelations Shake Up the Legal Battle
With these explosive revelations and the defense's scathing critique of the government's case, the high-profile bribery case has taken an unexpected turn. The validity of the charges hangs in the balance as the defense's arguments challenge the very foundation of the indictment. Will the court uphold the defense's claims and dismiss the charges, or will the government manage to salvage its case? The legal battle intensifies, and the truth behind the allegations remains shrouded in uncertainty. The world watches as this sensational trial unfolds, with the fate of the accused and the integrity of the justice system at stake.
Shocking Twist in High-Profile Bribery Case:
Defense Exposes Government's
Flawed Indictment
In a recent legal case, allegations of bribery and fraud have been brought forth against Mr. Herrera in connection with Governor Pierluisi's election campaign. The charges, detailed in Count Six and Count Seven, assert that Mr. Herrera attempted to influence Governor Pierluisi through campaign contributions and wire communications. However, the defense argues that the government's indictment fails to establish essential elements of the offenses, including the presence of an explicit quid pro quo. Additionally, they claim that the allegations risk criminalizing constitutionally protected conduct and normal lobbying activities. This article examines the arguments presented by both sides and explores the potential implications of the case.
London | 05:12 PM
7 July 2023
The indictment against Mr. Herrera alleges his involvement in a bribery scheme with Governor Pierluisi, aimed at influencing the outcome of an examination and evading certain reporting requirements. However, a careful examination of the allegations reveals significant flaws in the government's case.
The government's claims in Counts 5 through 7 are based on a timeline of events orchestrated by the FBI and largely driven by individuals other than Mr. Herrera or Governor Pierluisi. These events culminated in a completely legal campaign donation and do not establish any agreement or knowledge on the part of Governor Pierluisi. The government's attempt to create a bribery scheme by loosely connecting these events is unfounded and lacks evidence.
Crucially, the only explicit references to a "bribe" in the indictment come from Mr. Fuentes, who is an FBI informant posing as someone with influence over Governor Pierluisi. There is no evidence that Mr. Herrera or anyone acting on his behalf agreed to accept the proposed "bribe" or transferred the requested $50,000. The government's attempt to portray a payment made two months later, for a different amount, as the culmination of the alleged scheme is misleading.
To establish a bribery offence under federal law, the government must prove an explicit agreement to exchange money for an official act. Indictments relying on speculation or implicit agreements are insufficient. The accused must have adequate notice of the charges to formulate their defense and ensure their constitutional rights are protected.
In the case at hand, Counts 5, 6, and 7 fail to allege an explicit quid pro quo, which is an essential element of the charged offenses. The government's reliance on inferences and circumstantial evidence falls short of the required standard.
Such a weak basis for establishing a fundamental element of the offence undermines the grand jury process and jeopardises the defendant's rights.
Count Five of the indictment charges a conspiracy involving Mr. Herrera, Mr. Blakeman, Ms. Diaz, and unnamed others. It alleges bribery of Governor Pierluisi to influence an examination by OCIF and willful violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. To prove a conspiracy under Section 371, the government must establish the existence of the agreements specified, the defendant's wilful participation in those agreements, and an overt act committed by one of the co-conspirators. The indictment fails to meet this standard.
Similarly, to prove a bribery offence under Section 666(a)(2), the government must demonstrate a quid pro quo or the specific intent to exchange something of value for an official act. Political contributions are subject to a higher pleading standard to protect First Amendment rights and prevent prosecutors from chilling democratic participation. The indictment must allege an explicit agreement regarding the exchange of campaign contributions for official action, which is not the case here.
In conclusion, the indictment against Mr. Herrera lacks sufficient evidence and fails to establish the essential elements of the charged offenses. The government's attempt to construct a bribery scheme based on circumstantial evidence and speculation falls short of the required legal standards. The charges in Counts 5, 6, and 7 should be dismissed to safeguard the defendant's constitutional rights and ensure a fair trial.
The defence has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the indictment does not meet the necessary legal standards for a conviction. The case involves wire fraud charges under Sections 1343 and 1346 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Section 1343 pertains to wire fraud and states that anyone who uses wire communication to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money or property through false pretenses can be fined or imprisoned. Section 1346 further expands on this by including schemes to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
To establish the crime of wire fraud, the prosecution must prove three elements. First, they must demonstrate the existence of a scheme to defraud or obtain money through fraudulent means. Second, they must establish the defendant's knowing and willful participation in the scheme with the intent to defraud. Finally, they must show that interstate or foreign wire communications were used to further the scheme.
The defense's motion to dismiss the charges argues that the indictment fails to meet these elements and does not provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction. They contend that the allegations do not clearly demonstrate a scheme to defraud or obtain money through false pretenses. Furthermore, they assert that there is no evidence of the defendant's knowing and willful participation in such a scheme with the intent to defraud. Lastly, they argue that the indictment does not sufficiently establish the use of interstate or foreign wire communications in furtherance of the alleged scheme.
The defence maintains that these shortcomings in the indictment warrant the dismissal of the charges. They emphasise the importance of meeting the legal standards for a conviction and protecting the rights of the accused. The court will now review the motion and make a decision on whether to dismiss the charges based on the arguments presented by the defence.
The defence in the wire fraud case has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming that the indictment does not meet the required legal standards. The prosecution must establish the existence of a scheme to defraud, the defendant's knowing and wilful participation in the scheme with the intent to defraud, and the use of interstate or foreign wire communications in furtherance of the scheme. The defence argues that the indictment fails to meet these elements and calls for the charges to be dismissed. The court will now evaluate the motion and determine the next steps in the case.
Government's Failure to Allege Essential Element
in Indictment Raises Concerns
The government has been unable to establish a crucial element of the offence in each count. The specific case under scrutiny is Count Five, which alleges that Mr. Herrera conspired to offer a bribe to Governor Pierluisi through a campaign contribution.
However, the indictment falls short of proving that any explicit agreement was made between the parties involved, as required by Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court has long recognised that campaign contributions are protected by the First Amendment and can only be considered as potential charges if they are made in connection with an explicit agreement between the parties, with the promise of the public official to perform or refrain from performing an official act. The reasoning behind this requirement is to safeguard the freedom of speech and conduct inherent in campaign contributions, even if they are intended to influence a public official's actions.
Despite mentioning Mr. Herrera's name numerous times in Count Five, the government fails to allege or even suggest an agreement between Mr. Herrera and Governor Pierluisi to exchange a bribe for an official act. The indictment provides little evidence of illegal conduct by Mr. Herrera and does not establish any actual agreement by him to bribe a public official. The paragraphs that supposedly detail Mr. Herrera's conduct do not implicate any criminal behaviour, but rather reflect legitimate frustrations or normal interactions within the political system.
Moreover, the indictment lacks specific evidence to support the government's theory. It relies on sequential inferences and speculation to link unrelated events and attempts to establish a conspiracy based on vague expectations of future benefits. The timing of the alleged campaign contribution also undermines the government's case, as it suggests that Mr. Herrera made no commitment to donate during the relevant period.
Additionally, the indictment includes paragraphs that purport to allege indirect conduct by Mr. Herrera. However, these paragraphs also fail to demonstrate any overt acts that would support the government's claim. They rely on incomplete or one-sided communications without providing the necessary context or evidence of Mr. Herrera's state of mind.
The indictment heavily relies on the actions of Mr. Fuentes, a confidential informant working under FBI direction, to establish a conspiracy. However, none of the alleged conduct by Mr. Fuentes implicates Mr. Herrera in an explicit agreement to offer or give a bribe. The government's case rests on Mr. Fuentes' demands and suggestions, rather than any actions or statements made by Mr. Herrera or Governor Pierluisi.
In conclusion, the government's failure to allege an essential element of the offence raises significant concerns about the validity of Count Five in the indictment. The lack of explicit agreements and the reliance on speculative inferences undermine the credibility of the charges. The indictment seems to portray legitimate attempts by Mr. Herrera to engage with the political system as illegal actions. As the government has not met the necessary burden of proof, Count Five should be dismissed.
Allegations of Bribery and Fraud in Political Campaigns:
Examining the Case of Count Six and Count Seven
In a recent legal case, allegations of bribery and fraud have been brought forth against Mr. Herrera in connection with Governor Pierluisi's election campaign. The charges, detailed in Count Six and Count Seven, assert that Mr. Herrera attempted to influence Governor Pierluisi through campaign contributions and wire communications. However, the defence argues that the government's indictment fails to establish essential elements of the offenses, including the presence of an explicit quid pro quo. Additionally, they claim that the allegations risk criminalizing constitutionally protected conduct and normal lobbying activities. This article examines the arguments presented by both sides and explores the potential implications of the case.
Count Six: Alleged Violation of Section 666(a)(2)
Count Six accuses Mr. Herrera of offering $25,000 in funding to Governor Pierluisi's election campaign, with the intent to influence the governor regarding the Bank's examination by OCIF. The defence contends that the government's indictment falls short on multiple fronts. Firstly, they argue that Mr. Herrera did not understand the proposal as a bribe and did not agree to its terms. Moreover, they assert that the payment in question was a legitimate campaign contribution, and there is no evidence linking it to any official conduct by Governor Pierluisi. The defense maintains that the described actions resemble typical interactions between constituents and elected representatives, involving the expression of concerns and seeking change through politically connected individuals.
Count Seven: Scheme to Defraud and Deprive Honest Services
In Count Seven, Mr. Herrera is accused of devising a scheme to defraud and deprive the citizens of Puerto Rico of Governor Pierluisi's honest services through bribery. The defence argues that the indictment fails to meet the foundational requirement of an "explicit quid pro quo." They emphasize that Governor Pierluisi's alleged involvement in the scheme is implicated without any indication that he was aware of Mr. Herrera's actions. The defense further contends that even if an agreement existed with a person of influence like Mr. Fuentes (a government informant), it does not constitute honest services fraud. They highlight that engaging with lobbyists of influence is a common practice in politics and does not automatically imply fraudulent conduct.
Failure to Establish a Quid Pro Quo
The defence asserts that the government's indictment fails to demonstrate the explicit quid pro quo required to distinguish criminal activity from legitimate campaign contributions. They argue that innuendo and a sequence of events are insufficient to meet this requirement. The prosecution must specify evidence showing that the accused conditioned their campaign contribution on official action, that the contribution preceded the action, and that both parties intended to be bound by the condition. The defense contends that the indictment lacks these essential elements, placing Mr. Herrera's state of mind and intent into question.
Criminalising Constitutionally Protected Conduct
The defence raises concerns that the government's case risks criminalizing constitutionally protected conduct and normal lobbying activities. They argue that campaign contributions are an exercise of one's expressive and associational rights under the First Amendment. Ingratiation and access to elected officials are recognized as fundamental aspects of democracy, enabling constituents to support candidates who align with their beliefs and interests. The defense asserts that attempting to criminalize such interactions would have a chilling effect on lawful interactions between elected officials and constituents, thereby impeding the democratic process.
The case against Mr. Herrera, as detailed in Count Six and Count Seven, presents allegations of bribery and fraud related to campaign contributions. However, the defence contends that the government's indictment fails to establish essential elements and relies on ambiguous third-party statements. Furthermore, they argue that the allegations risk criminalising constitutionally protected conduct and normal political interactions. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the interpretation of bribery laws and the exercise of First Amendment rights in the context of political campaigns.
In conclusion, the case against Mr. Herrera presents a crucial intersection between political contributions, lobbying activities, and allegations of bribery and fraud. The defense argues that the government's indictment fails to meet the required standard of proof and raises concerns about potential infringement on constitutionally protected conduct.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of political contributions as a means for individuals to express their beliefs and interests and for candidates to be responsive to their constituents. The government's attempt to equate ingratiation and access with corruption is contrary to the Court's stance. Furthermore, the judiciary has consistently upheld a higher pleading standard in campaign contribution cases, reinforcing the need for explicit evidence rather than circumstantial indications.
The defense contends that the government's case lacks the necessary elements to establish a quid pro quo agreement between Mr. Herrera and Governor Pierluisi. The absence of explicit evidence of an agreement and Governor Pierluisi's alleged ignorance of the scheme undermines the bribery charges. As such, the defense argues for the dismissal of Counts Five, Six, and Seven, as they fail to charge essential elements of the offenses and risk criminalizing constitutionally protected conduct.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the interpretation of bribery laws, the exercise of First Amendment rights in political campaigns, and the boundaries between legitimate political activities and criminal conduct. It remains to be seen how the court will weigh these factors and reach a decision.
In light of these arguments, Mr. Herrera respectfully requests the court to dismiss Counts Five, Six, and Seven of the Indictment pending against him.
< JULIO HERRERA VELUTINI ARTICLES
An Icon of Conservative Capitalism, Traditional Private Banking Principles and Unprecedented Influence Over Latin America and Europe.
Politically, Julio Herrera Velutini occupies a unique position. Without ever holding public office, he wields significant political influence. His connections span from presidents to prime ministers, from the left to the right of the political spectrum. Julio's influence is often a matter of public debate, given his ability to sway policy decisions, his role in shaping economic policies, and his support for Latin America's entry into the world markets
London | 04:39 PM
3 June 2023
Few individuals have made a more profound and lasting impact than Julio Martin Herrera Velutini Von Uslar in the vast tableau of Latin American history.
Julio Herrera Velutini was born into the illustrious Herrera-Velutini banking dynasty in 1971. At the young age of 28, he became the venerable patriarch of the family's banking empire. He became a towering figure in the Latin American economy and society in just three years.
The Herrera family were conquerors, rulers and merchants who later became reputable bankers, with the setting up of the first Central Banks across Latin America.
Continuing the family's legacy, his traditional leadership style and worldwide influence transcend the realm of the banking industry. He single-handedly shaped modern-day Latin American politics by unifying incorrigible leaders and elevating the national identities of Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
His banking expertise – imbibed as a youngster playing in the corridors of his family's banks – and his business acumen serviced the needs of Latin American entrepreneurs, thereby reversing communist trends and consequently promoting capitalism and democratic values in Latinos to escape the grips of communism.
These selfless acts yielded substantial returns, resulting in Julio Herrera Velutini and his family-owned trusts and banks acquiring significant holdings across diverse sectors and industries. At their zenith, these partnerships accounted for nearly 6% of Latin America's GDP and served a significant portion of its population. The success of Julio Herrera's banking empire not only underpinned the "Latin American economic miracle" between 2002 and 2006 but also paved the way for Latin America's transformation into an industrial powerhouse.
The Family Crest of House of Herrera
The House of Herrera is a union of eminent families with diverse nationalities, that have left their mark throughout various parts of Europe and Latin America for over six centuries.
The House of Herrera has extensively influenced international trade and was largely responsible for pioneering the earliest known banking system in Latin America. The long-standing influence of the Herrera Dynasty has been acknowledged by the high levels of trust harboured over generations
Julio Herrera Velutini is often compared to Gianni Agnelli.
As the patriarch of the Agnelli dynasty, Gianni was inherently influential, his family's wealth and power positioning him as a critical player in Italian society. Yet, Agnelli transcended this privileged position to become an emblematic figure of Italian resurgence in the post-WWII era, through his leadership of Fiat.
Gianni Agnelli firmly believed in the principles of democracy and actively defended them throughout his life. He understood the importance of democratic values in fostering a free and prosperous society. Agnelli played a crucial role in the Italian political landscape, supporting democratic institutions and demonstrated an uncanny ability to blend tradition and modernity, coupling longstanding commitment to quality and design with innovations in technology and management.
Politically, Julio Herrera Velutini occupies a unique position. Without ever holding public office, he wields significant political influence.
Like Gianni, Julio has connections that span from various presidents to prime ministers, and from the left to the right of the political spectrum. Julio's influence over governments, is often a matter of public debate, given his ability to sway policy decisions, his role in shaping economic policies, and his support for Latin America's entry into the world markets.
The Prince of Latam
As the patriarch of the Herrera dynasty, Julio Herrera Velutini's inherent influence permeates Latin America's present-day politics, culture, and society. As a descendant of Lord of Ampudia I, Mr Velutini officially holds the title of The Prince of Latam. His nobility, family influence across two continents, immense wealth, calm demeanour, and trademark silence position this humble billionaire as a crucial voice in Latin American economics and politics. This multifaceted individual is beloved by many, feared by most, and misunderstood by a few against whom he tirelessly fights, seeking to end their injustice, corruption, and political exploitation.
He is a modern-day powerhouse, embodying tradition, modernity, and glamour – symbolising financial might and global relevance.
Julio Herrera Velutini, Private Dinner at V&A Museum in London (Source: House of Herrera)
His traditional approach to banking, though not without criticism from the other leaders who favoured a shift towards a more socialist economic model, largely contributed to stabilising a potentially volatile labour force during Venezuela's turbulent years of social unrest and terrorism.
In addition to his industrial and political impact, Herrera Velutini is a cultural icon in Latin America, epitomising the Italian flair for style and sophistication.
His sartorial elegance and his persona as a stylish banker are complemented by his reputation as an art connoisseur, animal rights activist, and, notably, as the financial moghul who selflessly supported the British Government during the Coronavirus pandemic to ensure unhindered government operations, maintaining the rule of law and securing people's livelihood.
Julio was also instrumental in supporting Buckingham Palace to produce a larger-than-life tribute for the Queen, marking 70 years of service to her people and staging an occasion befitting Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee celebrations. The Italian Banker and his family have always supported the Queen and the members of the Royal Family, underlining the Herrera family's longstanding partnership and multifaceted relationships with major European Heads of State.
Julio Herrera Velutini, however, is not without criticism from liberals and left-leaning politicians. His latest controversy relates to the aftermath of his questioning the dire economic situation in Puerto Rico and raising awareness about the corruption prevalent on the island. Julio has also exposed corrupt officials for misusing excessive powers without any accountability. He has fearlessly fought against injustice and corruption and continues to expose corrupt officials.
The mystery around his silence and placid character has made him a quintessential figure of fascination and emulation. His trials and tribulations, such as the tragic collateral casualty of political attacks, added a layer of human complexity and sympathy to his largely enigmatic persona. Whether one views him as a figure of admiration or controversy, his strong sense of social responsibility and philanthropy extends far beyond his wealth and fortune.
The Agnellis and the Herreras
Julio Herrera Velutini is known for unifying leaders of Latin American countries under a common goal of empowering people with jobs and improving their standards of living, and to fight communism.
(Source: House of Herrera)
