Spanish
The Espaillat brothers are accused of committing involuntary manslaughter, battery, and unintentional injuries to the detriment of the people who were in the nightclub on the night of April 8th.
Santo Domingo.- In the context of the knowledge of the request for coercive measures against the accused Antonio Espaillat López and Maribel Espaillat de Veras, for the tragic collapse of the roof of the Jet Set Club, which left more than 230 dead and more than 180 injured, the prosecution has until 2:00 p.m. today to establish the imposition of the measures charged.
Said measures presented by the Public Ministry consist of 18 months of preventive prison for Antonio Espaillat and house arrest for Maribel Espaillat, including a ban on leaving the country, periodic reporting, and financial guarantee. The reasons are based on documentary, testimonial, and material evidence which, according to the file, links the accused to the administrative decision-making that led to the tragedy.
You can also read: Who is Manuel Jiménez Mateo and what does he do in the Jet Set case?On what grounds does the MP request pre-trial detention and house arrest?
Regarding Antonio Espaillat, the prosecution identifies him as the main administrative and financial responsible for the nightclub, arguing its request on the grounds that he presents flight risk, possible interference and destruction of evidence relevant to the investigation, requesting preventive detention consisting of 18 months.Among the key actions attributed to Maribel Espaillat, the Public Ministry highlights the obstruction of the investigation, for carrying out actions with the intention of preventing information regarding the history of anomalies from coming to light.
According to the record, a meeting took place on April 14th, between Maribel Espaillat and Gregorio Adames, former employee. In said meeting, Maribel questioned Adames about what he knew about the premises, warning him that any compromising statement could lead to a sentence of 20 years for his brother. The prosecution has requested that the case be declared complex, in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing the number of victims, the plurality of facts, and the need to guarantee the proper development of an investigation that extends across multiple technical, administrative, and criminal fronts.
