The Judicial Investigation Organization (OIJ) can not locate the whereabouts of the president of Banco de Costa Rica (BCR), Paola Mora, to notify her of a judicial proceeding.
Mora had filed a complaint for alleged falsification of signature, but then never went back to corroborate her story.
According to the prosecution, the fraud section of the OIJ reported that
it was not possible to locate the victim.”
Therefore, the Deputy Prosecutor of San José’s Second Judicial Circuit asked for the case dismissal. However, he reminded it could be reopened.
The investigation did not continue, since the officials could not talk to Mora and because they required signatures’ samples from her.
The OIJ made several appointments and Mora did not show up to any of them.
The woman said she realized through a newspaper that there was a document in which she allegedly authorized a copy of her brother’s record. Therefore, she reviewed it when she already was the president of the BCR, and doubted it was her signature. She then gave instructions for a copy to be made and the original document mysteriously disappeared.
It was obvious she had to stay away from the record because she no longer carried the defense of the case and because of her new position in the bank. However, because of the publication she decided to take a look at the record 99-024320-0170-CA containing a judicial collection process of the BCR against her brother. Mora had led the defense of this case, but resigned in May 2014.
One of the arguments to show that she did not sign the document is that she was abroad, specifically in Miami, with Monica Segnini, one of BCR’s directive members. However, the document is not dated.
The official acknowledged that, as president of the bank, she looked at her brother’s file twice.
Another aspect that stands out in the complaint is that it’s filed against an unknown person, although Mora knew that the false authorization was given in the name of her assistant.
The graphoscopic study was one of the main pieces of evidence presented by Mora to the Governing Council to certify the counterfeit signature, following the Office of the Ethics’ ruling that said there was a probable “conflict of interest”.
The investigation of the Governing Council sought to determine whether Mora had signed the document and finally concluded that she didn’t, but without certainty. The result was validated because the assessment was made on a copy and not the original text.
The only way to know whether or not the signature was Mora’s is with the original paper, as determined by Gustavo Castillo, who besides being a pharmacist, claims to be accredited to do this kind of analysis; which is why Mora hired him, since there was a long waiting list in the OIJ.
The man introduces himself as authorized by the executive management of the Judiciary, and also studied at the Center for Scientific Studies in Rome and was as interim chief at the Forensic Laboratory of the OIJ.
Mora’s defender and former Minister of Justice, José Miguel Villalobos, argued that the allegedly forged document was never in the record (and was never certified by a judge) and authorizations to make a copy are not filed in the document. Therefore, he believes the sheet was placed there on purpose.