The law provides criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government generally did not implement the law effectively. Corruption in all branches and at all levels of government remained widespread, with investigative journalists and NGOs reporting on hundreds of cases of embezzlement, tax evasion, illicit enrichment, breach of public confidence, falsifying documents, and criminal association. Criminal cases typically spent several years in the courts. Under a law that prohibits court cases from lasting longer than four years, politicians and influential individuals convicted in lower courts routinely avoided punishment by filing appeals and motions until reaching the statute of limitation or by successfully requesting the removal or suspension of judges and prosecutors working on their cases. Although indictments and convictions for corruption of low- and mid-level public officials occurred more frequently, high-ranking public officials enjoyed a high degree of impunity. Sometimes such officials were indicted or forced to resign or repay embezzled funds, but formal complaints rarely led to active prosecutions or convictions. Public protests forced the resignation of three legislative officials, but the congress raised the minimum number of votes to invoke a sanction against a corrupt member of congress from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority, making already rare sanctions even more unreachable.
Politicization and corruption were pervasive throughout the judicial branch, hampering the institution’s effectiveness and undermining public trust. As of September 5, the Supreme Court had not ruled on outstanding cases concerning the recusals of the 13 prosecutors working on the Megalavado money-laundering case, more than one year after their recusal. In the first eight months of the year, the Justice Tribunal, which ostensibly provides disciplinary oversight for judges and prosecutors, ruled to apply sanctions in only seven of 476 cases brought before it. NGOs, legal associations, government officials, and the press reported repeated instances in which the Justice Tribunal refused to discipline judges and prosecutors who had released or absolved defendants with ties to narcotics trafficking and financial crime. Although the new president of the tribunal began to make meeting agendas public, voting records for individual tribunal members were not available to the public.
Corruption: Impunity was endemic for former and current high-level government officials accused of crimes. There were no convictions of high-profile officials during the year, but NGOs and the press continued to report on several former government ministers, mayors, governors, and current elected officials accused of, and indicted for, corruption and other crimes who had avoided prosecution in the justice system. As of September 5, there were unresolved cases involving four indicted former ministers and nine indicted current members of congress.
On August 28, a court convicted Ruben Quesnel, former president of the National Institute of Indigenous Persons, of misappropriation of public funds and breach of public trust.
In December 2017 prosecutors opened investigations of two members of congress and the Justice Tribunal, Oscar Gonzalez Daher and Jorge Oviedo Matto, for influence peddling, bribery, and criminal association. The Senate removed Gonzalez Daher from his position but allowed Oviedo Matto to resign. Both returned to the congress in the new period, which began on July 1, as a result of being placed on the respective parties’ fixed candidate list. Following large-scale public pressure, Gonzalez Daher resigned in August and Oviedo Matto in September. In January prosecutors opened an investigation of Carlos Portillo, a member of congress, for influence peddling, bribery, and criminal association. During the year prosecutors opened an investigation of Enrique Garcia, former comptroller general, for use of fraudulent documents. All four cases were pending as of August 24.
Financial Disclosure: The constitution requires all public employees, including elected officials and employees of independent government entities, to disclose their income and assets within 15 days of taking office or receiving an appointment and again within 15 days of finishing their term or assignment. Public employees must also disclose assets and income of spouses and dependent children. There is no requirement to make similar disclosures during a person’s appointment, and it was common for public officials to serve for years without updating their disclosure statement.
The law mandates the Comptroller’s Office monitor and verify disclosures; the comptroller may make income and asset disclosures public only at the request of the executive branch, congress, the Attorney General’s Office, or judicial authorities. The Attorney General’s Office opened several investigations for inconsistencies related to these disclosures.
The law bars public employees from holding government positions for up to 10 years for failure to comply with financial disclosure laws and imposes monetary fines of up to 19.1 million guaranies (Gs.) ($3,240), but this was generally not enforced. Legislators generally ignored the law with impunity, using political immunity to avoid investigation or prosecution. The Comptroller’s Office did not investigate cases with incriminating financial information.