Attorney requested the annulment of the sentence against the Nule

The Attorney General's Office asked the judge 38 Bogotá Circuit Criminal decreeing the nullity of the sentence against Mr. Miguel Eduardo Nule Velilla, Velilla Nule Manuel Francisco, Guido Alberto Marino and Mauritius Galofre Nule Amin, issued by the judicial office last December 15, 2011, sentencing them to the main penalties of 90 months in prison, the first 3 and 72, the last, ignoring the context of the allegation as to the circumstances of greater criminality enshrined in Article 58 numeral 9 and 10 of the Criminal Code. Accused accepts the charges of embezzlement by appropriation in homogeneous competition thereafter.

Within the legal approaches outlined by the Public Ministry, the High Court seeking Judicial District of Bogotá mainly decreed the cancellation of first-degree failure ensures that due process were violated. A second possibility, the agency requested control to increase the quantum punitive, ie, the circumstances surrounding existing and increased criminality in this case, which were not taken into account by the official body.

In the analysis by the Office of the sentence, it becomes mind the illegality of the decision to have approved the raid on charges that benefited the Nule and Galofre gentlemen, without them having returned the value of what is appropriate and which were sentenced to a term that does not correspond to a penalty worthy and proportionate to the damage caused.

Also requests the High Court to decide the appeal proceed to reset the fault in the sense of increasing the penalty for taking such circumstances greater criminality charged by the Attorney General's Office, within which they are to have acted in the unlawful activity and taking advantage of sharing criminal that those sentenced distinguished position in society occupied by office, property, artwork, power or occupation as construction companies that made them worthy of being awarded several contracts beneficiaries.

With the above request, the PGN for the reestablishment of law, protection of public property and defense of the fundamental guarantees in the action, expressing disagreement with a court decision that does not correspond to the role of grief and legal fight against white collar crime that affects the interests of the state and citizenship.