He Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) refused to respond about the actions seized from Editora Panamá América, SA (Epasa)as ordered by the criminal judge Baloisa Marquínezconsidering that it is information “restricted access”.
The MEF did not explain how access to information about compliance—or noncompliance—with one of the sentences handed down in a criminal sentence by a Panamanian court can be, in any way, restricted. Another example of the inexhaustible luck of the former president.
The Press submitted a request for information to the minister Philip Chapman to find out what has happened to the 40% of the shares of Epasa that were already delivered to the State, as part of the collaboration agreements that the prosecution agreed with two former partners of Epasa, before the trial of the case New Businessin May 2023.
For this reason, a four-question questionnaire was sent on March 6, invoking the Law 6 of January 22, 2002 (“Transparency Law“).
Since what date has the MEF held these shares? Who represents the Panamanian State before the board of directors or the meeting of shareholders of Epasa?
The MEF did not answer the questions.
In his place, the head of the Seized Assets Administration Directorate of the MEF, Lorenzo Riveraissued Resolution MEF-RES-2026-1130 of March 30, 2026, in which it declares that the requested information has restricted access. No one could be blamed for thinking that this effort to conceal the facts is, in reality, an act of cover-up.
Rivera cites article 65 of the Executive Decree 359 of 2015which says: “The information related to the assets seized and confiscated under the administration of the MEF will be considered restricted access for the purposes of Law 6 of January 22, 2002.”.
This prohibitionIt extends to all the nuances of information thus required, from lists and records to the identification of the consecutive procedural elements of the seized and confiscated assets.”, noted in Resolution MEF-RES-2026-1130.
What Rivera conveniently omitted is that, in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 14 of the Transparency Law itself, access to information about those actions It was no longer restricted when the New Business case was finalized. As on March 30, 2026, the process had been res judicata for more than two years, Resolution MEF-RES-2026-1130 would have been issued in open and indisputable violation of the law.
Who represented the State?
Knowing how the State has acted is especially relevant because, since the New Business ruling became enforceable, at least one meeting of the shareholders’ meeting has been held.
What decisions were approved there and how did the representative vote on the state’s actions?
In it minutes of the extraordinary meeting, held on September 30, 2024it was noted that the holders of “all” of the issued and outstanding shares with voting rights were present (in person, by teleconference or through proxy), “who waived prior summons.” Does that include the Panamanian State? By that date, the MEF must have already owned, if not 100%, at least 40% of the shares that Mizrachi and Francolini handed over as part of their plea deals. Who represented and voted at that meeting on behalf of the shares in custody of the MEF?
At that extraordinary meeting the resignations of Luis Eduardo Camacho González, Gilberto Cruz and Theodoro Theodorou Stefano as president, secretary and treasurer, respectively. In their replacement, they were appointed Eduardo Pinnock Quintero (president), Zelideth Fernandez (secretary), Erika Domínguez (treasurer) and Jorge Gantes (director). The resident agent is the firm Cruz Ríos y Asociados.
Pinnock was a candidate for deputy in the 8-3 circuit in the May 2024 elections. He was nominated by the parties Realizing Goals (RM) -which Ricardo Martinelli founded- and Alliance.
Secrecy
This is not the first time that the MEF has denied The Press information on the New Business ruling.
On April 2, 2025, an attempt was made to find out what had happened to the supposedly seized assets.
Rivera, who at that time was already director of Administration of Seized Assets, denied the request invoking article 65 of Executive Decree 359 of 2015, cited above. It also did so by issuing a resolution: number MEF-RES-2025-1109.
In the conviction of the New Business case, handed down on July 17, 2023, Judge Marquínez also handed down a prison sentence for money laundering against five people, including former President Martinelli, on whom she also imposed a fine of $19.2 million.
In addition, he ordered the dissolution of two instrumental companies used to commit the crimes and the confiscation of Epasa’s shares and assets.
Nothing ordered by Judge Marquínez, ratified by higher courts, has been fulfilled to date.
Next installment: The Press goes to the Supreme Court
