Perez Roldan case: Ex-tennis player’s father and his wife banned from leaving the country, electronic anklet and asset freeze

Raul Perez Roldan Tried to avoid size. said You are no longer the person you were 40 or 50 years ago. That age affected not only his health but also his personality, he always respected every sign of his safety in the midst of action. But still A federal judge in Azul Gabriel de Giulio banned him from leaving the country, ordered him to be fitted with an electronic vest and to be barred from leaving his home for more than 72 hours. It also issued an order renewing the ban on approaching the victims in any way His property is barred to him and his wife. At this time, the only thing he does not agree to is the order to detain him as requested by the complaint, although that decision can be re-evaluated if the established measures are not complied with. Thus it arises from the judgment which he has admitted infobae It was ordered in the last days in the framework of the reason to investigate it Exploitation, injury, abuse, illegal liberties and money laundering. The complaint against him was publicized by his son Guillermo Perez Roldan Further Graciela PerezAnother former tennis player in his custody.

It’s all part of a case that unfolds in 2022. Guillermo Perez Roldan, who was ranked 13th in the ATP rankings in 1988, was a member of the Argentina Davis Cup team between 1988 and 1993. Coach a few years ago, before the journalist Sebastien Dorok. Later, his story was captured in the documentary “The Perez Roldan Secret”. Along with that documentary came a criminal complaint that—after twists and turns—was filed in federal court in Azul. Not only did the crimes not expire, but money laundering and human trafficking statistics, as well as serious injuries, treacherous administration, independence and abuse, were established to be investigated.

In this context, it is revealed infobae A few weeks ago, the judge ordered the victims to be re-examined under Kessel camera: Guillermo Perez Roldan and Graciela Perez, a student at the school and an athlete who became an assistant at the club. In a new statement to professionals, the former tennis player said she was scared. His main fear is his children: the eldest lives in Italy, the youngest lives with him and his wife in Chile.

“I know what my father is capable of…so I want to have some protection”, he asked in court, his interviewers said. Graciela Perez, for her part, has also asked for protection. It has a panic button. He lives a few blocks from the victim’s home. “I have been living in fear ever since I decided to speak up. I don’t know what he’s capable of.”He confirmed, he could tell infobae.

This may interest you Reason: Perez Roldan: Guillermo will testify against his father again to bring in former tennis players and journalists.

In this case, the complaint filed by the lawyer Juan Ignacio Pascual It emphasized “procedural risk factors, the seriousness of the crimes investigated, the punishment expected as a result of effective compliance, the fear and apprehension expressed by the victims” and “the personality type of the accused, his tendency to violence, manipulation and willful seizing.” He also asserted that there is a flight risk because of “the defendant’s connections in other countries and the financial sums he manages.” He demanded a ban on leaving the territory without prior permission, retention of travel documents, house arrest with surveillance and, secondly, pretrial detention.

For his part, Central Govt Santiago Iherabit It acknowledged the risks of flight and disruption, but pointed out that “there is no factual basis at present. The defendant has no criminal record, crimes against the public are remote in time, and no acts of harassment have been proven to justify the deprivation of liberty precautions.”

He encouraged the ban on leaving the country for 180 days and the retention of travel documents, while his son lives in Chile. He considered it would be premature to order his arrest, although he requested that the defendant wear an electronic bracelet to track his location and reveal if he is near exclusion areas. The accused must give an undertaking that he will not obstruct or approach witnesses, victims or their immediate relatives during the trial.

For its part, the defense understood that any action at this stage of the investigation was premature, and emphasized that restrictive measures had already been taken. In his view, excessive limitations “may not be reasonable, proportionate or necessary.” “The person we are talking about this time is not the person he was 40 or 50 years ago” and that “age affected not only his health but also his personality,” he asserted. Raul Perez Roldan was not a “dangerous person,” he insisted.

On a case-by-case basis, Judge Di Giullo analyzed the case: “In the 1980s violence against children or adolescents was unknown” and emphasized that “now it is a debt society maintains for a vulnerable group”. In this context, the judgment contemplated “the potential ability of the defendant, financially and in terms of relationships, to agree with third parties on possible actions aimed at ensuring impunity or making it difficult to obtain evidence.”

“Giving the duty of the accused to establish an address from which he may remain absent for more than 72 hours without prior permission of the court, he is prohibited from leaving the country for 180 days. He must surrender his passport within 5 days – the judge ordered. This step is necessary to avoid performing or celebrating legal acts abroad such as transferring accounts, investing or disposing of assets. Likewise, I will order a general freeze on the assets of the named party and the company BAKOTA SA, which is a necessary measure to preserve the anonymity of the assets under investigation.. Also, as requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, I will order a public freeze on the assets of Liliana Beatriz Jagersasu, wife of Raul Perez Roldan and mother of the complainant, for the same reasons.

The judge denied the house arrest and pre-trial detention sought by the complaint. But he ordered Graciela Pérez to extend the anti-panic button and to prohibit approaching at a distance of 200 meters, monitoring the defendant under a geo-satellite device (electronic anklet) for both Graciela and Guillermo. “The non-observance or violation of these measures will import the structure of the crime of disobedience and will determine the re-evaluation of the practical situation, especially for verified behavior,” the judgment emphasized.

Continue reading