Proper application of money laundering offense to concealed cross-border cash from drug traffickingCorrecta aplicación del delito de legitimación de capitales en caso de ingreso oculto de dinero del narcotráfico

NOTE OF JUDGE JOSÉ MANUEL ARROYO GUTIÉRREZ In this matter, although I concur with the conclusion reached by my fellow judges, it is necessary to set forth the different reasons that lead me to affirm that in this case, a correct application was made of numeral 69 of the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism. In this regard, in the sole ground of the appeal in favor of the defendants Ugalde Jiménez and Araya Guadamuz, filed by Public Defender Mariana Brenes León, regarding the seizure of two million four hundred twenty thousand seventy dollars ($2,420,070.00), she claims that it is erroneous to consider the entry of the money into the country as the first phase of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) basically for two reasons: first, because it omits to assess that the handling of the money occurs by reason of the payment for the drug, therefore, it is part of the iter criminis of the drug trafficking crime; second, although the money was being introduced into the country, the purpose it was going to have was unknown, resulting in an error to claim concealment of a self-laundering offense. Furthermore, based on the dissenting vote of the ad quem, she argues that the perpetrator of the money laundering crime must be a person different from the one who obtains the money as a product of drug trafficking. Likewise, in the fourth ground of the appeal in favor of the defendant Araya Guadamuz, presented by private defense attorney Javier Campos Villegas, he also claims that the perpetrator of the money laundering crime cannot be the same active subject of the crime from which the assets originate. Additionally, the private defense attorney warns that the acquisition of assets or financial movements are part of the exhaustion stage of the iter criminis of the drug crime. In relation to said claims, it is necessary to make some clarifications from three different aspects: a) the entry of money into the country as a product of drug trafficking, as an act fitting the criminal type of money laundering; b) the lack of subsumption of the money laundering conduct within the crime of drug trafficking; c) the possibility of the commission of the crime of money laundering by the perpetrator of the prior or predicate offense. A) Entry of money into the country as a product of drug trafficking, as an act fitting the criminal type of money laundering. In general terms, a first approach to the concept of money laundering (legitimación blanqueamiento de capitales) consists of understanding the term as all those actions intended to give an appearance of legality to assets that are the product of a crime. From a strictly normative perspective, Article 69 of Law No. 8204 (hereinafter Law on Psychotropic Drugs) punishes with imprisonment of 8 to 20 years “a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime which, within its range of penalties, can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or conceal the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or conceals the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or the ownership thereof, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime which within its range of penalties can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the assets of economic interest originate from any of the crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering, diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances, and related crimes, conduct classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation, or when the purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations.” Among the multiple typical conducts provided for by the legislator, it is worth highlighting that provided in subsection b), where the active verbs are to hide or conceal any of the following characteristics of the assets: their nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights. The doctrine usually differentiates three different phases of money laundering: a) placement phase or “placement”, understood as the introduction into the financial system of money accumulated by criminal organizations; b) layering phase or “layering”, which corresponds to the masking of the previously introduced money; c) integration phase or “integration”, through which the money is integrated into the legal financial circuit, confused and mixed with other licit assets, giving it the appearance of having been legally obtained (SANCHEZ GARCÍA DE PAZ, Isabel, La criminalidad organizada, aspectos penales, procesales, administrativos y policiales, Editorial Dykinson, first edition, Madrid, 2015, pp. 151-152). In this order of ideas, it is necessary to be clear that the typical conduct can be carried out by the perpetrator in any of the phases of money laundering, whether in the placement, layering, or integration, provided that the conduct fits the objective elements of the criminal type. Precisely at this point lies the difference with the vote subscribed by my fellow judges, who consider that “The acquisition of said assets is sufficient to deem that there is harm to the national economy, since it represents a danger of distortion and financial imbalance.” On the contrary, in the opinion of the undersigned, the reason why the proven facts are considered to fit the criminal type provided in numeral 69 of the Law on Psychotropic Drugs is because the introduction of the money into Costa Rican territory implied the execution of an act of concealment of the illicit origin of the money, in order to cross the customs protection barrier established as a measure against money laundering. In the evolution of the regulations related to the criminalization of drug trafficking, it must be considered that said illicit acts were found in the Penal Code (improper supply of narcotics, regulated in numeral 274) and the General Health Law (article 371, which punishes the cultivation of narcotics), and it is not until the issuance of Law No. 7093 of April 22, 1988, that a specific legal body was enacted regulating the matter (articles 14 to 24), criminalizing in its numeral 15 money laundering with penalties of 8 to 15 years for whoever “performs any act or contract, real or simulated, of acquisition, possession, transfer, or disposal of assets, tending to hide or conceal the origin of economic resources obtained through the illicit trafficking of drugs or crimes related to that activity, regardless of the place where the illicit act was committed. When the act has been committed abroad, its commission may be proven by any means.” Subsequently, through Law No. 7322, called “Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, and Related Activities,” Law No. 7093 of April 22, 1988 was comprehensively reformed, and although money laundering was already considered a crime, one of the changes introduced through the legal reform referred to the establishment of a border control on the entry of money. In this sense, Article 14 provided that: “Every person, national or foreigner, upon entering the country, is obliged to present and declare the cash money they bring with them, if it exceeds one million colones (¢1,000,000) or its equivalent in foreign currency; they must use, for this purpose, the official forms that immigration posts will always have for these purposes. Such statement shall have the value of a sworn statement. For evidentiary purposes, the omission of this declaration shall be considered as an indication, and its falsehood shall constitute the crime referred to in Article 358 of the Penal Code.” In this historical context, it must be considered that the crime of money laundering was only provided for those assets whose origin was in the commission of a crime provided for in the Law on Psychotropic Drugs, while the then Article 358 of the current Penal Code established a penalty for whoever “inserts or has inserted in a public or authentic document false statements, concerning a fact that the document must prove, so that harm may result.” This control measure for money from drug trafficking was included in Article 38 of Law No. 7786 of April 30, 1998, a regulation that through its article 111 repealed laws No. 7093 and No. 7233. Thus, section 38 established in relation to the entry and exit of cash through borders that: “Upon entering or leaving the country, every national or foreign person shall be obliged to present and declare the cash money they carry, if the amount exceeds ten thousand United States dollars (US$10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency; likewise, they must declare the securities they carry for an amount exceeding fifty thousand United States dollars (US$50,000.00). For this purpose, they must use the official forms prepared for this end, which shall be made available to them by the Dirección General de Aduanas, at immigration posts. The statement shall be made in the sworn statement form and the forms shall be sent to the Centro de Inteligencia Conjunto Antidrogas, for the corresponding analysis.” Subsequently, by Law No. 8204 of December 26, 2001, Law No. 7786 was comprehensively reformed, providing in its Article 35 that: “Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to present and declare the cash money they carry, if the amount is equal to or exceeds ten thousand United States dollars (US$10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. Likewise, they must declare the securities they carry for an amount equal to or exceeding fifty thousand United States dollars (US$50,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. For the declaration, they must use the official forms prepared for this end, which shall be made available to them by the Dirección General de Aduanas at immigration posts. Officials of the Dirección General de Aduanas shall be obliged to verify, through the passport or other identification document, the veracity of the personal data entered on the form. The statement shall be recorded on the sworn statement form and the forms shall be sent to the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, for the corresponding analysis.” Finally, the Law for Strengthening Legislation Against Terrorism, issued by Law No. 8719, of March 4, 2009, reformed Article 35 of Law No. 8204, establishing as a penalty for failing to declare the amounts entering or leaving the country the loss of the cash or securities, indicating that: “Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to declare the cash or securities they carry, if the amount is equal to or exceeds ten thousand dollars, currency of the United States of America (US $10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. For the declaration, they must use the official forms prepared for this purpose, which shall be made available to them, by the competent officials of the Administración Aduanera, at immigration posts. Total or partial non-compliance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall result in strict liability and the immediate loss of the money or securities in favor of the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, and they shall be allocated to the fulfillment of its purposes, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 85 and 87 of this Law. The loss shall be based on the simple verification of non-compliance and shall be declared by the Ministry of Finance. The competent officials of the Administración Aduanera shall be obliged to verify, through the passport or any other identification document, the veracity of the personal data entered on the form. The statement shall be recorded on the sworn statement form and the forms shall be sent to the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, for the corresponding analysis. Unjustified non-compliance by the competent officials of the Administración Aduanera with the provisions of this article shall be considered a serious offense within an administrative process, without prejudice to possible criminal liabilities.” These provisions are in accordance with the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF, GAFI), which were adopted by GAFILAT (an international body to which Costa Rica has belonged since the year 2000). In this sense, since 1990, GAFI has been making different recommendations, as an initiative to combat the misuse of financial systems by money launderers. Said body issued in 2001 the Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing, providing in its Recommendation IX that: “Countries should have measures in place to detect the physical cross-border transportation of cash and bearer negotiable instruments, including a declaration system or other disclosure obligation. Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to stop or restrain cash and bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to terrorist financing or money laundering, or that are falsely declared or disclosed. Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are available to deal with persons who make false declaration(s) or disclosure(s). In cases where the cash or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing or money laundering, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative ones, consistent with Recommendation 3 and Special Recommendation III, which would enable the confiscation of such cash or instruments” (underlining not in original). In the interpretive note to recommendation 9 made by GAFI itself, it is indicated that the objective of said measure is to “ensure that terrorists and other criminals cannot finance their activities or launder the proceeds of their crimes through the cross-border physical transportation of cash or any other bearer negotiable instrument” (underlining not in original), defining physical cross-border transportation as: “any physical entry or exit of cash or bearer negotiable instruments from one country to another country. The term includes the following modes of transportation: (1) physical transportation by a natural person, or in that person's luggage or vehicle; (2) the shipment of cash through containerized cargo or (3) the postal shipment of cash or bearer negotiable instruments by a natural or legal person.” To comply with this purpose, the interpretive notes establish that two mechanisms can be chosen: the declaration system, according to which the person performing the physical cross-border transportation of cash, when it exceeds the maximum threshold of $15,000.00, must make a declaration to the designated authorities; the disclosure system, where the person performing the physical transportation of cash must make a reliable disclosure when requested by the competent authority. The 40 FATF Recommendations were reviewed in February 2003, adapted in February 2012, and updated in October 2015, currently providing in Recommendation 32 that: “Countries should have measures in place to detect the physical cross-border transportation of currency and bearer negotiable instruments, including through a declaration and/or disclosure system. Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to stop or restrain currency or bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to terrorist financing, money laundering or predicate offences, or that are falsely declared or disclosed. Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions are available to deal with persons who make false declaration(s) or disclosure(s). In cases where the currency or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing, money laundering or predicate offences, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative measures, consistent with Recommendation 4, to enable the confiscation of such currency or instruments,” reiterating in its interpretive note that the objective of the measure is to ensure that terrorists and other criminals cannot finance their activities or launder the proceeds of their crimes, through the physical cross-border transportation of currency and bearer negotiable instruments. Likewise, in the Mutual Evaluation Report of the Republic of Costa Rica, which sets forth the results of the National Risk Diagnosis of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing carried out by GAFILAT in 2015, when evaluating compliance with FATF Recommendation 32, it concluded that in the case of money laundering related to the declaration of cross-border entry and exit of cash, in addition to the penalty provided in numeral 35 of Law No. 8204, it indicated that: “it would fall under the coverage of Art. 69 and 69 bis of the same Law 8204, for sanctioning purposes, as well as with the corresponding provisions of the said Law for the forfeiture of assets” (Financial Action Task Force of Latin America. Mutual Evaluation Report of the Republic of Costa Rica, 2015, consulted at http://www.gafilat.org/UserFiles/Biblioteca/Evaluaciones/IEM%204ta%20Ronda/IEM_Costa_Rica_Final%20(1).pdf). Although the FATF recommendations, interpretive notes, and evaluations do not constitute a binding norm, they are an informative source that allows clarifying, in relation to its historical context, the nature of the customs declaration system related to the transportation of cash and establishing its relationship with money laundering. From this perspective, based on the analysis of the psychotropic drug regulations, Special Recommendation IX, and FATF Recommendation 32, including their interpretive notes, it can be concluded with absolute clarity that one of the controls to prevent money laundering is that provided in Article 35 of the Law on Psychotropic Drugs, which refers to the declaration of cash amounts exceeding $10,000.00. On the other hand, it should be noted that the actions deployed by the defendants were aimed at evading the first barrier of containment for money laundering established at the Costa Rican borders, that is, the declaration of the amounts of cash transported, by concealing the money from drug trafficking in the double lining of the truck, an action that falls within what in doctrine is known as the placement stage or “placement.” In this sense, judgment 563-2014 of the Criminal Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, when performing the legal analysis of the conduct of Roy Araya Guadamuz, considered that “It can even be seen that there is a specific fact that is located in the first stage of the crime and it is the one that occurred on July 20, 2007, where just as described in the previous considering clause and in the proven facts, Wilberth Valverde Fernández is surprised with a stash of money hidden in a secret compartment inside the truck he was driving from the north of Central America. This fact is typical of the first stage, that is, the physical entry of the money into the country, and the relationship with Roy Araya is total inasmuch as it has been stated, such money entry operation had been arranged by Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny and Roym as payment for the work of transporting cocaine.” Likewise, when performing the legal analysis of the conduct of Antonio Ugalde Jiménez, the a quo considered that: “It should be remembered that there is a specific fact that is located in the first stage of the crime and it is the one that occurred on July 20, 2007, where just as described in the previous considering clause and in the proven facts, Wilberth Valverde Fernández is surprised with a stash of money hidden in a secret compartment inside the truck he was driving from the north of Central America. This fact is typical of the first stage, that is, the physical entry of the money into the country, and the relationship with Roy Araya is total inasmuch as it has been stated, such money entry operation had been arranged by Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny and Roy, as payment for the work of transporting cocaine. A moment which, as stated supra, turns out to be the stage of greatest weakness for the launderers, both due to the people who carry it out, and due to the lack of appearance of legality, which is indeed noticeable in the later stages. It is precisely this weakness that allowed the capture in this initial stage, when it is easier to detect the illicit origin of the money.” Furthermore, in the challenged decision, it was held as proven that “Additionally, the elements of conviction arising from the evidence noted above were collated and linked by the a quo with the material results of the investigation, that is, the seizure of a sum of money close to 2.5 million dollars at the Peñas Blancas border, which was hidden in a special compartment made in a container that was being transported by the co-defendant Wilberth Valverde Fernández on July 20, 2007 […] highlighting that the seizure of such a sum of money is typical of the first phase of money laundering, which consists of the physical entry of the illicit economic assets to subsequently include them in the licit economic flow, in this case, of our country.” From this perspective, it is possible to deduce from the proven facts and the legal considerations of both the Criminal Trial Court and the Sentencing Appeals Court that one of the reasons why Article 69 of Law No. 8204 was applied to the defendants was due to the transportation of two million four hundred twenty thousand dollars ($2,420,000.00) originating from drug trafficking, which were transferred from the northern part of Central America to Costa Rica. In this sense, the doctrine has considered that said physical transportation constitutes a typical action characteristic of money laundering, indicating that “structures are usually formed made up of numerous people – many of whom have no contact with each other – located in various places around the world, through whom the proceeds of the illicit act are passed, subjecting them to successive stages and under countless modalities, including sophisticated financial operations with the intervention of banking entities, interposition of commercial activities, use of companies, simulation of commercial operations, etc. Often, to interconnect these links that together allow simulating the illicit origin, physical transportation of the money is resorted to, at least in some part of the process.” The use of physical transportation as a modality of the crime of money laundering was addressed by the Sentencing Appeals Court of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, through decision 2011-00221, of 2:45 p.m., of June 15, 2011, where on the occasion of the discovery of $510,000.00 in a double lining of a suitcase at the Juan Santa María International Airport, it indicated that: “Money laundering operates, consequently, with the schemes of organized crime. Just as, for example, for drug trafficking, alliances are sought to manufacture the drug, transport it, market it, so also to manage to introduce the profits into the flow of licit activities, a consortium is sought with people of different nature, who act as ‘mules’ that physically move the money between different territories, professionals who move it in their travels or businesses or who introduce it through legal operations into investments; carriers who take merchandise from one country to another, exchange houses or banks in countries with little financial and laundering regulation, known as ‘tax havens’ to move investments and launder capital. […] Mechanisms such as double linings in automobiles, in suitcases or luggage are used, and no reasonable explanation is found for the origin of the money; also currency exchange, especially when one wants to break it down, and operations to change high-denomination money to low-denomination or vice versa.” Likewise, on the occasion of the discovery of $600,000.00 hidden in the battery compartment of a Tica Bus company bus, while trying to leave Costa Rica through the Panama border, the Sentencing Appeals Court of Cartago, through decision 2013-000574 of 3:47 p.m., of December 2, 2013, confirmed that said facts fitted the conduct provided in subsection b) of Article 69 of Law No. 8204, because the defendants concealed the aforementioned sum. In comparative law, other countries like Peru have established specific norms for criminal liability for the physical transfer of money across their borders, when it has a criminal origin. In this sense, through Legislative Decree No. 1106 called “Legislative Decree for the Effective Fight Against Money Laundering and Other Crimes Related to Ilegal Mining and Organized Crime”, the crime of transportation, transfer, entry into, or exit from national territory of money or securities of illicit origin was criminalized in Article 3, which punishes with a penalty of 8 to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 120 to 350 days, whoever “transports or transfers within the national territory money or securities whose illicit origin they know or should have presumed, with the purpose of avoiding the identification of their origin, their seizure, or confiscation; or causes such assets to enter or leave the country with the same purpose.” However, such a legal modification is not necessary in Costa Rican legislation, since the conduct established in subsection b) of Article 69 in correlation with numeral 35 of Law No. 8204 allows the penalty for the physical transfer of money, when it is hidden to be introduced into national territory, evading the controls for the detection of money laundering. Now then, it is not that the simple transfer of money constitutes per se the crime under analysis, but rather that in this specific case, the conduct is configured because precisely said transfer implied the evasion of anti-money laundering controls.

For these reasons, considering that: according to the proven facts, it is held as accredited that on July 20, 2007, in Peñas Blancas, the defendants hid two million four hundred twenty thousand dollars ($2,420,000.00), the product of drug activity, in a double lining; said money was intended to be brought into Costa Rican territory, evading the control over the physical transport of money established in Article 35 of Law No. 8204; as is evident from the evolution of psychotropic substances legislation, as well as the recommendations and interpretive notes of GAFI adopted by GAFILAT, the declaration of sums exceeding $10,000.00 upon entering or leaving the territory constitutes a measure against money laundering (lavado de dinero); and that subsection b) of Article 69 of Law No. 8204 punishes whoever conceals the true nature of assets (bienes) that are the product of a serious crime; it is concluded that the facts conform to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) provided for in Costa Rican legislation. B) the absence of subsumption of the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) conduct within the crime of drug trafficking. Contrary to what was established by the appellants, the conduct of drug trafficking does not subsume the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), since they involve distinct legal interests, protected by different criminal provisions, and in the specific case, the physical transfer of the money does not constitute part of the exhaustion phase of the crime of violating the psychotropic substances law through drug transport. As background, it is opportune to mention that the origin of the concept of money laundering (lavado de dinero) can be divided into four stages: the first, dates back to the U.S.A., when the trade in alcoholic beverages was not permitted and organized criminals trafficking in these goods used laundromats to reinsert the illicitly obtained money into legal commerce, although it should be clarified that the term “money laundering” (lavado de dinero) was first used in the press on the occasion of the “Watergate” case in 1972, when fund movements were made to conceal the true source of financing for the re-election campaign of then U.S. President Richard Nixon, although at that time money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was not yet criminalized and it involved the concealment of licit money; the second, takes place in 1986 with the creation of the “Money Laundering Control Act” in the U.S.A., when a connection between money laundering (lavado de dinero) and a crime is required; the third, with the internationalization of money laundering (lavado de activos), where the issuance of the “United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances” in 1988 stands out, by means of which the obligation was imposed on States to criminalize the offense of money laundering (lavado de activos) in relation to drug trafficking; the fourth, is identified with the concern over money laundering (lavado de activos) related to drug trafficking and the need for banking oversight, which in 1989 gave rise to the creation of the GAFI as an intergovernmental body, with the purpose of setting standards and promoting the implementation of legal, administrative, and operational measures to combat money laundering (lavado de dinero), terrorist financing, and other threats related to the integrity of the international financial system, (WINTER ETCHEBERRY, Jaime, La regulación internacional del lavado de activos y el mismo financiamiento del terrorismo, Lavado de activos y compliance, perspectiva internacional y derecho comparado, Juristas Editories E.I.R.L., first edition, Lima, 2015, pp. 99-107). In relation to the internationalization of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), the Vienna Convention originates from resolution 39/141 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, of December 14, 1984, by which the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations was requested, in turn, to request the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to draft a convention against drug trafficking at its thirty-first session, held in February 1985. Finally, after participating in the United Nations conference for the approval of the Convention in Neue Hofburg, Vienna, from November 25 to December 20, 1988, the cited normative body was approved on December 19, 1988, and the Convention was signed by Costa Rica on April 25, 1989, at the General Secretariat of the United Nations in New York, thus surpassing the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (see the legislative file for Bill 10881, folios 2-3, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=1738). Subsequently, the Vienna Convention of 1988 was ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 7198, of September 25, 1990, recognizing in its preamble that illicit traffic generates considerable financial yields and large fortunes that allow transnational criminal organizations to invade, contaminate, and corrupt the structures of public administration, licit commercial and financial activities, and society at all its levels, with the aim of depriving persons engaged in illicit traffic of the proceeds of their criminal activities, thereby eliminating their main incentive for such activity. Said Convention, in its Article 3, subsection b), point ii), established the obligation of States to criminalize “The concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of property, knowing that such property is derived from an offence or offences established in accordance with subparagraph a) of this paragraph or from an act of participation in such an offence or offences.” While Costa Rica was taking an active part in the process of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, on May 12, 1987, Bill No. 10471 was presented before the Legislative Assembly, through which the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was criminalized for the first time, justified in the statement of motives that “…the project establishes new figures or criminal types and, in general terms, considerably increases all penalties. Among these new crimes, special mention deserves article thirteen, which aims to punish what is commonly called “dollar laundering” (lavado de dólares) or “money laundering” (blanqueo de capitales) (see the legislative file for Bill No. 10471, folio 5, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=2673). Said bill was approved through Law No. 7093, of April 22, 1988, providing in its Article 15 a penalty of 8 to 15 years of imprisonment: “for whoever performs any act or contract, real or simulated, of acquisition, possession, transfer, or disposal of assets, aimed at hiding or concealing the origin of economic resources obtained through the illicit traffic of drugs or crimes related to that activity, regardless of the place where the illicit act was committed. When the act was committed abroad, its commission may be proven by any means.” From the reading of the first version of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and the signing of the Convention cited supra, it is possible to dismiss the thesis posed by the defense, concluding that the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is not subsumed within the crime of drug trafficking (in its transport modality) and rather, it is precisely on the occasion of drug trafficking crimes that the crime of money laundering (lavado de dinero) initially arises, later expanding its scope of coverage to all those crimes considered serious. As stated in the Convention itself, the purpose of criminalizing the offense of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) responds to the need to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their criminal activities, by reason of the invasion, contamination, and corruption of public administration, licit commercial and financial activities, as well as society at all its levels, making it clear that the legal interest protected in this case is the socioeconomic order and not the administration of justice, as some sectors of national doctrine propose (cfr. HERNANDEZ RAMÍREZ, Guillermo, Especiales características de los juicios de antijuridicidad y culpabilidad en el delito de legitimación de capitales, Derecho penal económico y de empresa, Editorial Jurídico Continental, first edition, San José, C.R., 2013, p. 514.; CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, first edition, San José, C.R., 2012, pp. 58-67). Added to the above, in the statement of motives of Law No. 7786, which explicitly repeals, by reference of Article 111, the previous laws on psychotropic substances (Law No. 7093 and Law No. 7233), it is recognized that the legal interest protected by the legislation on money laundering (lavado de activos) does not correspond to the administration of justice, but to the socioeconomic order. Thus, Bill No. 12539, which gave rise to Law No. 7786, indicates that: “One of the problems that has most forcefully penetrated our country is that relating to “dollar laundering” (lavado de dólares). In this present project for law reform, this topic has been addressed with special interest due to the serious consequences that such activity brings to the economic system, and therefore, also to the society in general of our country. It is for this reason that we seek to provide a greater framework of action and competence to two institutions that play a very important role in the control of financial activities carried out in Costa Rica, we refer to the General Audit Office of Financial Entities and the Securities Commission, allowing them the implementation of truly effective measures to prevent the penetration into our economic system of capital from drug trafficking and related activities. Likewise, and perhaps most notably, has been the inclusion of a new criminal offense that punishes the activity of “money laundering” (lavado de dinero) and that leaves aside the imprecisions and obstacles that the previous offense contained and which made the prosecution of these activities a practically unrealizable task” (underlining does not correspond to the original, ff. 5-6 of the legislative file for Bill No. 12539, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=3522). This is not a case of affirming that the simple transport of money, the product of commerce, sale, transport, or any of the other modalities established in Article 58 of Law No. 8204, constitutes the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), but only that transport which implies the evasion of measures established against money laundering (lavado de dinero), such as that referred to in point a) developed supra and established in Article 35 of the Law on Psychotropic Substances. Note that, for example, the sale of a narcotic substance within national territory carried out by an individual and the transfer of the profit or money, the product of the narcotic sale, to their home, is insufficient to constitute the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), since said action does not imply per se an action of concealment or disguise from measures against money laundering (lavado de activos). The situation is different with a narcotic sale carried out abroad, where the proceeds of the crime can remain outside the national territory for enjoyment; however, upon bringing the money into Costa Rica, concealing the origin or nature of the money and evading anti-laundering control measures, a legal interest distinct from Public Health is harmed, in this case the socioeconomic order, therefore it is impossible to consider that the wrongfulness of the action is contained within the narcotics trafficking offense. Nor can it be said that in the scenario under analysis, we find ourselves in the exhaustion phase of the crime, since the defendant could have enjoyed the asset abroad, but decides to introduce it into Costa Rica, generating an abstract impact on the economic market. It must be reiterated, as stated in point a) developed supra, that originally the provisions on money laundering (lavado de dinero) were specifically aimed at punishing the proceeds of drug trafficking, so it becomes contradictory now to exclude the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), when the prior illicit activity is drug trafficking, if precisely the origin of the norm dates back to the need to mitigate the harmful effects related to the economic system and capital trafficking, generated by the profits from drug trafficking. For these reasons, considering that: the wrongfulness of the action is not contained within the criminal offense of drug trafficking; the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) arises precisely to punish the conduct of taking advantage of the profits from drug trafficking; and that the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) contains independent regulation within the legal system; it is concluded that money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is a conduct that is not subsumed within the illicit act of drug trafficking. C) Possibility of committing the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) by the perpetrator of the prior or predicate offense. Once it is accepted that the physical transport of money, the product of drug trafficking, is typical of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and that the latter is not necessarily subsumed within the former, the possibility of applying Article 69 of Law No. 8204 only to scenarios in which the perpetrator of both illicit acts is a different subject must be dismissed. In this sense, it is necessary to highlight that doctrine usually distinguishes between simple self-concealment (autoencubrimiento simple) and qualified self-concealment (autoencubrimiento calificado): the first corresponds to that where the perpetrator of a prior crime carries out the concealment of the action in order to evade punishment for the act or makes the traces, evidence, or instruments of the criminal conduct disappear or secures the profit thereof without committing another typical wrong, actions which are unpunishable; the second occurs when the perpetrator harms several independent criminal laws with the concealment (CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, first edition, San José C.R., 2012, pp. 70-74). In this sense, it is worth clarifying that although the concealment crimes of the Penal Code are defined in an independent criminal offense, which safeguard a different legal interest, specifically the administration of justice, by express provision of the legislator, this cannot be committed by the perpetrator of the primary crime. In this regard, the crime of personal facilitation regulated in Article 329 of the Penal Code punishes whoever “helps someone to evade the investigations of the authority or to elude the action thereof or fails to report the act when obligated to do so”; the crime of receiving stipulated in Article 330 of the substantive legislation has as an active subject one who did not participate in the crime; the crime of receiving goods of suspicious origin, as defined in Article 331 of the aforementioned law, punishes whoever “receives goods which, according to the circumstances, should have been presumed to come from a crime”; while the crime of real facilitation excludes from its application anyone who “in any way participated in the crime.” On this particular point, foreign doctrine has also dealt with the problems of subsumption of both norms, taking as a reference the safeguarded legal interests, indicating that “However, from fundamentally teleological considerations, an attempt has been made to exclude from the scope of possible perpetrators those who participated in the prior crime. This exclusion has been based on the close link between the crime of money laundering (lavado de activos) and the figures of receiving or concealment. [...] The crime of money laundering (lavado de activos) has its own protective purpose and its own criteria of interpretation, so it must be determined if, from its own structuring logic, it is justified to remove from the scope of possible active subjects those who participated in the prior crime. In our opinion, there is no consistent basis for making this exclusion. They are two completely different legal interests, since the punishment for money laundering (lavado de activos) is not a simple reinforcement of the crime generating the assets subjected to an illegal legitimation process, nor does it punish the obscuring of assets done with the purpose of avoiding criminal prosecution. What money laundering (lavado de activos) criminalizes is the fictitious creation of conditions to peacefully enjoy the benefits derived from a criminal activity. The assets are not hidden, therefore, to avoid being discovered or recovered (although this may be achieved), but rather the aim is to obscure their origin in order to later integrate them into the economic system as apparently legal income and to be able to enjoy all their benefits. Consequently, there is no tenable dogmatic reason why the participants in the prior crime cannot be perpetrators of the offense of money laundering (lavado de activos)” (GARCÍA CAVERO, Percy, El delito de lavado de activos, Euros Editores SRL, second edition, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2016, pp. 66-67). On the other hand, as a reference, it can be observed that in the 40 GAFI Recommendations previously mentioned, it is established in point 3 that “Countries should criminalize money laundering (lavado de activos) on the basis of the Vienna Convention and the Palermo Convention. Countries should apply the crime of money laundering (lavado de activos) to all serious offences, with a view to including the widest range of predicate offences.” The interpretive note to said recommendation establishes in point 6 that “Countries may provide that the offence of money laundering (lavado de activos) does not apply to persons who committed the predicate offence, where this is required by fundamental principles of their domestic laws.” However, from a reading of the criminal offense described in Article 69 of Law No. 8204, it is evident that said power of exclusion was not exercised for all the scenarios described by the legislator. In this sense, the second of the actions described in subsection a) of the commented Article establishes that the crime is committed by whoever “helps the person who participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts,” so only that modality cannot be carried out by the perpetrator of the crime, a situation that does not arise in subsection b) of the same article. Note that when the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was provided for in Article 15 of Law No. 7093, an action of unconstitutionality was filed, from which it is extracted that the perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime, provided for at that time in Article 14 of the same normative body, could simultaneously commit the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) in material concurrence. In this vein, through a resolution of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 4:15 p.m., on June 11, 1990, it was indicated that: “The reading of Article 15 challenged herein is clear and does not allow one to understand that it is a simple 'concealment,' but rather that the agent's action is situated within another phase of an entire complex organization dedicated to the international trafficking of drugs. A perpetrator of the crime established in Article 15 does not necessarily incur the one provided for and punished by Article 14 of the law, but nothing prevents both, according to the circumstances, from being able to be committed in material concurrence. In any event, and here it bears repeating the previous note, we are dealing with considerations of mere legality which are not receivable in this constitutional process, although the Chamber formulates them as a required analysis of the thesis sustained in the action. The legislator may well constitute as an autonomous figure an action that, otherwise, would be a type-amplifying provision, and on this particular matter, what is established in Articles 271, 298, and 343 of the Penal Code can be cited as examples” (underlining does not correspond to the original). Subsequently, said Chamber clearly established that the punishment of the same perpetrator for both crimes corresponds to a matter of criminal policy, indicating that: “The Chamber has already ruled that it is a matter of legislative policy to even elevate to a crime what technically could be a matter of concealment [...] Moreover, as also noted supra, one could think of a concurrence of crimes (of the illicit acts contained in Articles 14 and 15), and also in perfectly separable situations, as recent experience itself indicates, in which the persons who participate (for example) in the stage of commercializing illicit drugs entrust others to intervene in the next, and no less important, stage of 'cleaning,' or as it is also said, 'removing suspicion from' the money that comes from that activity” (underlining does not correspond to the original). For these reasons, considering: the distinct nature of the crime of money laundering (lavado de activos) compared to crimes against the administration of justice; the criminal policy of the legislator that is evident from a reading of the criminal offense; and the interpretations of the Constitutional Chamber where the punishment of the perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime as the active subject of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is enabled; it is concluded that the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) through concealment or disguise can be the same perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime. Based on the reasoning presented and therefore, although for different reasons than those indicated by the colleague magistrate and colleague magistrates, Article 69 of Law No. 8204 was correctly applied in the contested decision.” In general terms, a first approach to the concept of money laundering (legitimación blanqueamiento de capitales) consists of understanding the term as all those actions aimed at giving an appearance of legality to assets derived from a crime. From a strictly normative perspective, Article 69 of Ley N° 8204 (hereinafter Ley de Psicotrópicos) punishes with imprisonment of 8 to 20 years *“a) Whoever acquires, converts or transfers assets of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to conceal or disguise the illicit origin, or to assist the person who has participated in the offenses to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever conceals or disguises the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over assets or the ownership thereof, knowing that they derive, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the assets of economic interest originate from any of the crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering, diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances and related crimes, conduct classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when the purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations”*. Among the multiple typical conducts envisaged by the legislator, it is worth highlighting the one provided in subsection b), where the active verbs are to conceal or disguise any of the following characteristics of the assets: their nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights. Legal doctrine usually differentiates three distinct phases of money laundering (legitimación de capitales): a) placement phase or “placement”, understood as the introduction into the financial system of money accumulated by criminal organizations; b) layering phase or “layering”, which corresponds to the masking of the previously introduced money; c) integration phase or “integration”, through which the money is integrated into the legal financial circuit, mixed and blended with other licit assets, giving it the appearance of having been legally obtained (SANCHEZ GARCÍA DE PAZ, Isabel, **La criminalidad organizada, aspectos penales, procesales, administrativos y policiales**, Editorial Dykinson, first edition, Madrid, 2015, pag. 151-152). In this line of thought, it is necessary to be clear that the typical conduct can be carried out by the perpetrator in any of the phases of money laundering, whether in placement, layering or integration, provided the conduct conforms to the objective elements of the criminal offense. Precisely on this point lies the difference with respect to the vote signed by the fellow judge (magistrada) and judges (magistrados), who consider that *“The acquisition of said assets is sufficient to deem that there is damage to the national economy, as the same represents a danger of distortion and financial imbalance”*. On the contrary, in the opinion of the undersigned, the reason why the proven facts are considered to conform to the criminal offense provided in numeral 69 of the Ley de Psicotrópicos is that the introduction of money into Costa Rican territory implied the execution of an act to conceal the illicit origin of the money, in order to cross the customs protection barrier established as a measure against money laundering. In the evolution of the regulations related to the criminalization of drug trafficking, it should be considered that said illicit acts were found in the Código Penal (improper supply of narcotics, regulated in numeral 274) and the Ley General de la Salud (article 371, where the cultivation of narcotics is punished) and it was not until the issuance of Ley N° 7093 of April 22, 1988, that a specific legal body was available where the matter was regulated (articles 14 to 24), criminalizing in its numeral 15 money laundering (legitimación de capitales) with penalties of 8 to 15 years for whoever *“performs any act or contract, real or simulated, of acquisition, possession, transfer or disposition of assets, aimed at concealing or disguising the origin of economic resources obtained through the illicit trafficking of drugs or crimes related to that activity, regardless of the place where the illicit act was committed. When the act was committed abroad, its commission may be proven by any means”*. Subsequently, through Ley N° 7322, called *“Ley de Estupefacientes, Sustancias Psicotrópicas, Drogas de Uso No Autorizado y Actividades Conexas”*, Ley N° 7093 of April 22, 1988, was comprehensively reformed and although money laundering was already provided for as a crime, one of the changes introduced through the legal reform was related to the establishment of a border control on the entry of money. In this sense, article 14 provided that: *“Every person, national or foreign, upon entering the country, is obliged to present and declare the cash money they carry with them, if it exceeds one million colones (¢1,000,000) or its equivalent in foreign currency; they must use, for this purpose, the official forms that migration posts will always have for these purposes. Such statement shall have the value of a sworn declaration. For evidentiary purposes, the omission of this declaration shall be considered as indicia and its falsehood shall constitute the crime referred to in article 358 of the Código Penal”*. In this historical context, it must be considered that the crime of money laundering was only provided for those assets whose origin was found in the commission of a crime provided in the Ley de Psicotrópicos, while the then article 358 of the current Código Penal established a sanction for whoever *“inserted or caused to be inserted in a public or authentic document false statements, concerning a fact that the document must prove, so that harm may result”*. This measure for controlling money from drug trafficking was included in article 38 of Ley N° 7786 of April 30, 1998, a regulation that through its article 111 repealed Leyes N° 7093 and N° 7233. Thus, ordinal 38 established regarding the income and exit of cash money across borders that: *“Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to present and declare the cash money they carry, if the amount exceeds ten thousand United States dollars (US$10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency; likewise, they must declare the negotiable instruments they carry for an amount exceeding fifty thousand United States dollars (US$50,000.00). For this purpose, they must use the official forms prepared for this end, which will be made available to them by the Dirección General de Aduanas at the migration posts. The statement shall be made in the sworn declaration formula and the forms shall be forwarded to the Centro de Inteligencia Conjunto Antidrogas for the corresponding analysis”*. Later, through Ley N° 8204 of December 26, 2001, Ley N° 7786 was comprehensively reformed, providing in its article 35 that: *“Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to present and declare the cash money they carry, if the amount is equal to or exceeds ten thousand United States dollars (US$10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. Likewise, they must declare the negotiable instruments they carry for an amount equal to or exceeding fifty thousand United States dollars (US$50,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. For the declaration, they must use the official forms prepared for this purpose, which will be made available by the Dirección General de Aduanas at the migration posts. Officials of the Dirección General de Aduanas shall be obliged to verify, through the passport or other identification document, the veracity of the personal data entered on the form. The statement shall be noted in the sworn declaration formula and the forms shall be forwarded to the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas for the corresponding analysis”*. Finally, the Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Legislación Contra el Terrorismo, issued through Ley N° 8719 of March 4, 2009, amended article 35 of Ley N° 8204. Faced with non-compliance with the declaration of amounts entering or leaving the country, it established as a sanction the loss of the cash money or negotiable instruments, stating that: *“Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to declare the cash money or negotiable instruments they carry, if the amount is equal to or exceeds ten thousand dollars, currency of the United States of America (US $10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. For the declaration, they must use the official forms prepared for this purpose, which will be made available by the competent officials of the Administración Aduanera at the migration posts. Total or partial non-compliance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall result in objective liability and the immediate loss of the money or instruments in favor of the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, and they shall be used for the fulfillment of its purposes, in accordance with the provisions of articles 85 and 87 of this Law. The loss shall be based on the simple verification of non-compliance and shall be declared by the Ministerio de Hacienda. The competent officials of the Administración Aduanera shall be obliged to verify, through the passport or any other identification document, the veracity of the personal data entered on the form. The statement shall be noted in the sworn declaration formula and the forms shall be forwarded to the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas for the corresponding analysis. Unjustified non-compliance by the competent officials of the Administración Aduanera with the provisions of this article shall be considered a serious offense within an administrative proceeding, without prejudice to possible criminal liabilities”*. These provisions are in accordance with the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force (Grupo de Acción Financiera, GAFI), which were adopted by GAFILAT (an international organization to which Costa Rica has belonged since the year 2000). In this sense, since 1990, GAFI has been making various recommendations as an initiative to combat the misuse of financial systems by money launderers. Said entity issued in 2001 the Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing, providing in its Recommendation IX that: *“Countries should have measures to **detect the physical cross-border transportation of cash** and bearer negotiable instruments, including a declaration system or other disclosure obligation. Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to **stop or restrain cash and bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to terrorist financing or money laundering, or that are falsely declared or disclosed**. Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are available to be applied to persons who make a false declaration or disclosure. In cases where the cash or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing or money laundering, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative ones, consistent with Recommendation 3 and Special Recommendation III, which would enable the confiscation of said cash or instruments”* (underlining not in the original). In the interpretive note to Recommendation 9 made by GAFI itself, it is indicated that the objective of said measure is *“to ensure that terrorists and other criminals cannot finance their activities **or launder the proceeds from their crimes** through the cross-border movement of cash or any other bearer negotiable instrument”* (underlining not in the original), defining physical cross-border transportation as: *“any physical entry or exit of cash or bearer negotiable instruments from one country to another country. The term includes the following modes of transport: (1) physical transport by a natural person, or in that person's luggage or vehicle; (2) the shipment of cash through container cargo or (3) the postal shipment of cash or bearer negotiable instruments by a natural or legal person”*. To fulfill this purpose, the interpretive notes establish that two mechanisms can be chosen: the declaration system, whereby the person carrying out the physical cross-border transportation of cash, when it exceeds the maximum threshold of $15,000.00, must make a declaration to the designated authorities; the disclosure system, whereby the person carrying out the physical transportation of cash must make a faithful disclosure when requested by the competent authority. The 40 GAFI Recommendations were revised in February 2003, adapted in February 2012, and updated in October 2015, currently providing in its Recommendation 32 that: *“Countries should have measures in place to detect the physical cross-border transportation of currency and bearer negotiable instruments, including through a declaration and/or disclosure system. Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to stop or restrain currency or bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to terrorist financing, money laundering or predicate offenses, or that are falsely declared or disclosed. Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are available to deal with persons who make false declaration(s) or disclosure(s). In cases where the currency or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing, money laundering or predicate offenses, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative measures, consistent with Recommendation 4, which would enable the confiscation of such currency or instruments”*, reiterating in its interpretive note that the objective of the measure is to ensure that terrorists and other criminals cannot finance their activities or launder the proceeds of their crimes through the physical cross-border transportation of currency and bearer negotiable instruments. Likewise, in the Mutual Evaluation Report of the República de Costa Rica, which sets forth the results of the National Risk Diagnosis for Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing conducted by GAFILAT in 2015, when evaluating compliance with GAFI Recommendation 32, it concluded that for the case of money laundering related to the declaration of cross-border income and exit of cash, in addition to the sanction provided in numeral 35 of Ley N° 8204, it indicated that: *“it would fall under the coverage of Arts. 69 and 69 bis of the same Ley 8204, for sanctioning purposes, as well as the corresponding provisions of the cited Law for the confiscation of assets”* (Grupo de Acción Financiera de Latinoamérica. **Informe de Evaluación Mutua de la República de Costa Rica**, 2015, consulted at http://www.gafilat.org/UserFiles/Biblioteca/Evaluaciones/IEM%204ta%20Ronda/IEM_Costa_Rica_Final%20(1).pdf). Although the recommendations, interpretive notes and evaluations of GAFI do not constitute a binding norm, they are an informative source that allows one to elucidate, in relation to its historical context, the nature of the customs declaration system related to the transportation of cash and to establish its relationship with money laundering. From this perspective, based on the analysis of the psychotropic substances regulations, Special Recommendation IX and GAFI Recommendation 32, including their interpretive notes, one can conclude with absolute clarity that one of the controls to prevent money laundering is that provided in article 35 of the Ley de Psicotrópicos and which refers to the declaration of cash amounts exceeding $10,000.00. On the other hand, it must be noted that the actions deployed by the accused were aimed at evading the first containment barrier for money laundering established at Costa Rican borders, that is, the declaration of the amounts of cash money transported, by concealing the money from drug trafficking in the double lining of the truck, an action that falls within what is known in doctrine as the placement stage or “placement”. In this sense, judgment 563-2014 of the Tribunal Penal del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, when conducting the legal analysis of the conduct of Roy Araya Guadamuz, considered that *“Even see that there is a specific fact that is located in the first stage of the crime and it is what happened on the 20th of July, 2007, where, as described in the preceding recital and in the proven facts, Wilberth Valverde Fernández was surprised with a stash of money hidden in a secret compartment inside the truck he was driving coming from the north of Central America. This fact is typical of the first stage, that is, the physical entry of money into the country and the relationship with Roy Araya is total insofar as it has been said, such operation of money entry had been arranged by Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny and Roym as payment for the cocaine transportation work”* (f. 5457 of Volume XIII of the investigation file). Likewise, when conducting the legal analysis of the conduct of Antonio Ugalde Jiménez, the a quo considered that: *“Remember that there is a specific fact that is located in the first stage of the crime and it is what happened on the 20th of July, 2007, where, as described in the preceding recital and in the proven facts, Wilberth Valverde Fernández was surprised with a stash of money hidden a* (sic) *secret compartment inside the truck he was driving coming from the north of Central America. This fact is typical of the first stage, that is, the physical entry of money into the country and the relationship with Roy Araya is total insofar as it has been said, such operation of money entry had been arranged by Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny and Roy, as payment for the cocaine transportation work. A moment that, as stated supra, turns out to be the stage of greatest weakness for money launderers, both because of the people who carry it out and the lack of appearance of legality, which is indeed noticeable in later stages. Precisely that weakness allowed the capture at that initial stage, when it is easier to detect the illicit origin of the money”* (5476-5477 of Volume XIII of the investigation file). Also, in the challenged resolution it was held as proven that *“Furthermore, the convincing elements arising from the evidence noted above were collated and linked by the a quo with the material results of the investigation, namely the seizure of a sum of money close to 2.5 million dollars at the border crossing of Peñas Blancas, which was hidden in a special compartment made in a container transported by the co-defendant Wilberth Valverde Fernández on July 20, 2007* […] *highlighting that the seizure of such sum of money is typical of the first phase of money laundering, which consists of the physical entry of the illicit economic assets to then include them in the licit economic system, in this case of our country”* (f. 6192, front and back). From this perspective, it can be deduced from the proven facts and from the legal considerations of both the Tribunal Penal and the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal that one of the reasons why article 69 of Ley N° 8204 was applied to the accused was due to the transport of two million, four hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($2,420,000.00) originating from drug trafficking, which were moved from the northern part of Central America to Costa Rica. In this sense, legal doctrine has considered that such physical transportation constitutes a typical action of money laundering, indicating that *“structures are usually formed made up of numerous people –many of whom have no contact with each other– located in various parts of the world, through whom the proceeds of the illicit act pass, subjecting it to successive stages and under innumerable modalities, including sophisticated financial operations with the intervention of banking entities, intermediation of commercial activities, use of corporations, simulation of commercial operations, etc. Often, to interconnect these links that together allow the illicit origin to be simulated, the physical transportation of money is resorted to, at least in some part of the process”* (ROBIGLIO, Carolina, **Contrabando de dinero**, Ad-Hoc SRL, first edition, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2015, pag.88). The use of physical transportation as a modality of the crime of money laundering was addressed by the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, through resolution 2011-00221, at 14:45 hours, on June 15, 2011, where on the occasion of the discovery of $510,000.00 in a double lining of a suitcase at the Juan Santa María International Airport, it indicated that: *“Money laundering operates, consequently, with the schemes of organized crime. Just as, for example, for drug trafficking alliances are sought to manufacture the drug, transport it, market it, so also to introduce the profits into the course of licit activities, partnerships are sought with people of different natures, who act as “mules” who physically move the money between different territories, professionals who move it on their travels or businesses or who introduce it through legal operations in investments; carriers who take merchandise from one country to another, exchange houses or banks in countries with little regulation in financial and money laundering matters, known as “tax havens” to move investments and launder capital. […] Mechanisms such as double linings in automobiles, in suitcases or luggage are used and no reasonable explanation is found for the origin of the money; also currency exchanges, especially when one wants to split them up and operations to change high-denomination money to low or vice versa”*.

Likewise, on the occasion of the discovery of the $600,000.00 hidden in the battery compartment of a bus belonging to the company Tica Bus, as they were attempting to leave Costa Rica via the Panama border, the Criminal Sentencing Appeals Tribunal of Cartago, through resolution 2013-000574 at 3:47 p.m., on December 2, 2013, ratified that said facts conformed to the conduct foreseen in subsection b) of Article 69 of Ley N° 8204, because the defendants concealed the aforementioned amount. In comparative law, other countries, such as Peru, have established specific rules for criminal liability for the physical movement of money across their borders when it has a criminal origin. In this regard, through Decreto Legislativo N° 1106 denominated "Decreto Legislativo de Lucha Eficaz Contra el Lavado de Activos y Otros Delitos Relacionado a la Minería Ilegal y Crimen Organizado", the crime of transport, transfer, entry, or exit through national territory of money or securities of illicit origin was typified in Article 3, which punishes with a prison term of 8 to 15 years and a fine of 120 to 350 days, a person who "transports or transfers within the national territory money or securities whose illicit origin he knows or should have presumed, with the purpose of avoiding the identification of its origin, its seizure or confiscation; or causes such goods to enter or leave the country with the same purpose". However, such a legal modification is not necessary in Costa Rican legislation, since the conduct established in subsection b) of Article 69 in correlation with numeral 35 of Ley N° 8204 allows for the sanction of the physical movement of money, when it is hidden to be brought into national territory, evading controls for the detection of money laundering. Now, it is not a matter that the simple movement of money configures per se the crime under analysis, but rather that in this specific case, the conduct is configured precisely because said movement implied the evasion of anti-money laundering controls. For these reasons, considering that: according to the proven facts, it is established that on July 20, 2007, in Peñas Blancas, the defendants concealed in a double lining two million four hundred twenty thousand dollars ($2,420,000.00) produced by drug trafficking (narcoactividad); said money was intended to be brought into Costa Rican territory, evading the control over the physical transport of money established in Article 35 of Ley N° 8204; as is inferred from the evolution of the psychotropic substances regulations, as well as from the recommendations and interpretive notes of GAFI adopted by GAFILAT, the declaration of sums exceeding $10,000.00 when entering or leaving the territory constitutes a measure against money laundering; and that subsection b) of Article 69 of Ley N° 8204 punishes anyone who conceals the true nature of goods derived from a serious crime; it is concluded that the facts fit the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) foreseen in Costa Rican legislation. B) The absence of the subsumption of the conduct of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) into the crime of drug trafficking. Contrary to what was established by the appellants, the conduct of drug trafficking does not subsume the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), since they involve different legal interests, protected through diverse criminal provisions, and in the specific case, the physical movement of money does not constitute part of the exhaustion phase of the crime of violation of the psychotropic substances law for drug transport. As background, it is appropriate to mention that the origin of the concept of money laundering can be divided into four stages: the first, goes back to the USA, when the trade of alcoholic beverages was not permitted and organized criminals trafficking these goods used laundromats to reintroduce the money obtained illicitly into legal commerce, although it must be clarified that the term "money laundering" was first used in the press on the occasion of the "Watergate" case in 1972, when fund movements were made to hide the true source of financing for the re-election campaign of then U.S. President Richard Nixon, although at that time money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was not yet criminalized and it involved the concealment of licit money; the second, takes place in 1986 with the creation of the "Money Laundering Control Act" in the USA, when a connection of money laundering with a crime is required; the third, with the internationalization of money laundering, highlighting the issuance of the "United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances" in 1988, through which the obligation was imposed on States to typify the crime of money laundering in relation to drug trafficking; the fourth, is identified with the concern about money laundering related to drug trafficking and the need for banking supervision, which in 1989 gave rise to the creation of GAFI as an intergovernmental body, with the object of setting standards and promoting the implementation of legal, administrative, and operational measures to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other threats related to the integrity of the international financial system, (WINTER ETCHEBERRY, Jaime, La regulación internacional del lavado de activos y el mismo financiamiento del terrorismo, Lavado de activos y compliance, perspectiva internacional y derecho comparado, Juristas Editories E.I.R.L., first edition, Lima, 2015, pag. 99-107). In relation to the internationalization of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), the Vienna Convention has its origin in resolution 39/141 of the United Nations General Assembly, of December 14, 1984, through which the United Nations Economic and Social Council was requested, in turn, to ask the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to draft a convention against drug trafficking at its thirty-first session, held in February 1985. Finally, after participating in the United Nations conference for the approval of the Convention in Neue Hofburg, Vienna, from November 25 to December 20, 1988, the cited normative body was approved on December 19, 1988, and the Convention was signed by Costa Rica on April 25, 1989, at the United Nations General Secretariat in New York, thus surpassing the Single Convention of 1961 on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention of 1971 on Psychotropic Substances (see file of Proyecto de Ley 10881, folios 2-3, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=1738). Subsequently, the Vienna Convention of 1988 was ratified by Costa Rica through Ley N° 7198, of September 25, 1990, recognizing in its preamble that illicit traffic generates considerable financial yields and large fortunes that allow transnational criminal organizations to invade, contaminate, and corrupt the structures of public administration, licit commercial and financial activities, and society at all its levels, with the purpose of depriving persons dedicated to illicit traffic of the proceeds of their criminal activities, thus eliminating their main incentive for such activity. Said Convention, in its Article 3, subsection b), point ii), established the obligation of States to typify "The concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, or ownership of property, or of rights relating to such property, knowing that such property is derived from any offense or offenses established in accordance with subparagraph a) of this paragraph or from an act of participation in such offense or offenses". While Costa Rica was an active part in the process of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, on May 12, 1987, Proyecto N° 10471 was presented before the Legislative Assembly, through which the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was typified for the first time, justifying in the explanatory memorandum that "... new criminal figures or types are established in the project and in general terms all penalties are considerably increased. Among these new crimes, special mention deserves article thirteen, which intends (sic) to punish what is commonly called 'dollar laundering' or 'money laundering'." (see file of Proyecto de Ley N° 10471, folio 5, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=2673). Said project was approved through Ley N° 7093, of April 22, 1988, foreseeing in its Article 15 a sanction of 8 to 15 years of imprisonment: "for anyone who performs any act or contract, real or simulated, of acquisition, possession, transfer, or disposition of goods, tending to conceal or disguise the origin of economic resources obtained through illicit drug trafficking or related crimes, regardless of the place where the illicit act was committed. When the act was committed abroad, its commission may be proven by any means". From reading the first version of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and the signing of the Convention cited supra, it is possible to dismiss the thesis proposed by the defense, concluding that the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is not subsumed into the crime of drug trafficking (in its transport modality) and, rather, it is precisely on the occasion of drug trafficking crimes that the crime of money laundering initially arises, later expanding its scope of coverage to all those crimes considered serious. As stated in the Convention itself, the purpose of typifying the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is due to the need to deprive individuals of the proceeds of criminal activities, by reason of the invasion, contamination, and corruption of public administration, licit commercial and financial activities, as well as society at all its levels, making it clear that the legal interest protected in this case is the socioeconomic order and not the administration of justice, as some sectors of national doctrine propose (cfr. HERNANDEZ RAMÍREZ, Guillermo, Especiales características de los juicios de antijuridicidad y culpabilidad en el delito de legitimación de capitales, Derecho penal económico y de empresa, Editorial Jurídico Continental, first edition, San José, C.R., 2013, pag. 514.; CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, first edition, San José, C.R., 2012, pag. 58-67). In addition to the above, in the explanatory memorandum of Ley N° 7786, which repeals, through express reference of ordinal 111, the previous psychotropic substances laws (Ley N° 7093 and Ley N° 7233), it is recognized that the legal interest protected by the money laundering legislation does not correspond to the administration of justice, but to the socioeconomic order. Thus, Proyecto de Ley N° 12539, which gave rise to Ley N° 7786, indicates that: "One of the problems that has most strongly penetrated our country is that referring to 'dollar laundering.' In the present law reform project, this issue has been addressed with special interest due to the serious consequences that such activity brings to the economic system, and therefore, also to society in general in our country. That is why we seek to provide a greater framework of action and competence to two institutions that play a very important role in controlling the financial activities carried out in Costa Rica, we refer to the Auditoría General de Entidades Financieras and the Comisión de Valores, allowing them the implementation of truly effective measures to prevent the penetration into our economic system of capital from drug trafficking and related activities. Likewise, and perhaps the most notable has been the inclusion of a new criminal type that punishes the activity of 'money laundering' and that sets aside the imprecisions and obstacles that the previous type contained and which made the prosecution of these activities a practically unrealizable task." (underlining does not correspond to the original, f. 5-6 of the file of Proyecto de Ley N° 12539, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=3522). It is not a matter in this case of affirming that the simple transport of money produced by commerce, sale, transport, or any of the other modalities established in numeral 58 of Ley N° 8204, configures the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), but rather only that transport that implies the evasion of measures established against money laundering, such as the one referred to in point a) developed supra and established in Article 35 of the Psychotropic Substances Law. Note that for example, the sale in national territory of a narcotic drug carried out by an individual and the transfer of the profit or money from the sale of the narcotic drug to his dwelling house, is insufficient to configure the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), since said action does not imply per se an action of concealment or disguise of measures against money laundering. The situation is different with a sale of narcotic drugs carried out abroad, where the proceeds of the crime can remain outside national territory for their enjoyment; however, when entering the money into Costa Rica concealing the origin or nature of the money and evading anti-money laundering control measures, a legal interest other than Public Health is harmed, in this case the socioeconomic order, therefore it is impossible to consider that the disvalue of the action is contained in the crime of drug trafficking. Nor can it be said that in the case under analysis, we are in the exhaustion phase of the crime, since the defendant could have enjoyed the goods abroad, but decides to introduce them into Costa Rica, generating an abstract effect on the economic market. It must be reiterated, as stated in point a) developed supra, that originally the provisions on money laundering were specifically aimed at punishing the profits from drug trafficking, so it becomes contradictory now to exclude the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), when the prior illicit activity is drug trafficking, if precisely the origin of the norm goes back to the need to mitigate the harmful effects related to the economic system and capital traffic, generated by the profits from drug trafficking. For these reasons, considering that: the disvalue of the action is not contained within the criminal type of drug trafficking; the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) arises precisely to punish the conduct of taking advantage of the profits from drug trafficking; and that the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) contains an independent regulation in the legal system; it is concluded that money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is a conduct that is not subsumed into the crime of drug trafficking. C) Possibility of committing the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) by the perpetrator of the previous or predicate offense. Once it is accepted that the physical transport of money derived from drug trafficking is typical of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and that the latter is not necessarily subsumed within the former, the possibility must be dismissed of applying Article 69 of Ley N° 8204 only to cases in which the perpetrator of both illicit acts is a different subject. In this sense, it is necessary to highlight that doctrine usually distinguishes between simple self-concealment (autoencubrimiento simple) and qualified self-concealment (autoencubrimiento calificado): the first corresponds to that where the perpetrator of a prior crime carries out the concealment of the action, with the aim of evading the sanction for the act or makes the traces, evidence, or instruments of the criminal conduct disappear or secures the benefit thereof without committing another typical wrong, actions that are unpunished; the second occurs when the perpetrator harms several independent criminal laws through the concealment (CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, first edition, San José C.R., 2012, pag. 70-74). In this sense, it is worth clarifying that although the crimes of concealment in the Criminal Code are defined in an independent criminal type, which protect a different legal interest, specifically the administration of justice, by express provision of the legislator, this cannot be committed by the perpetrator of the primary crime. In this regard, in the crime of personal facilitation (favorecimiento personal) regulated in Article 329 of the Criminal Code, it punishes anyone who "helps someone to evade the investigations of the authority or to elude its action or omits to report the act being obliged to do so"; the crime of receiving (receptación) established in Article 330 of the substantive regulations, has as its active subject someone who did not participate in the crime; the crime of receiving goods of suspicious origin, typified in ordinal 331 of the law in question, punishes anyone who "receives goods that according to the circumstances, he should presume come from a crime"; while the crime of real facilitation (favorecimiento real), excludes from its application anyone who "in any way, has participated in the crime". On this particular, foreign doctrine has also dealt with the problems of subsumption of both norms, taking as a reference the protected legal interests, indicating that "However, from fundamentally teleological considerations, it has been intended to exclude from the scope of possible perpetrators the participants in the predicate crime. This exclusion has been based on the close link of the crime of money laundering with the figures of receiving or concealment. [...] The crime of money laundering has its own protection purpose and its own criteria of interpretation, so that it will be necessary to determine if, from its own structuring logic, it is justified to remove participants in the predicate crime from the scope of possible active subjects. In our opinion, there is no consistent basis for making this exclusion. They are two completely different legal interests, because the punishment for money laundering is not a simple reinforcement of the crime that generates the goods subjected to an illegal process of legitimization, nor does it punish the shadowing of the assets done with the purpose of avoiding criminal prosecution. What money laundering criminalizes is the fictitious creation of conditions to peacefully enjoy the benefits proceeding from a criminal activity. The assets are not hidden, therefore, to avoid being discovered or recovered (although that may be achieved), but rather the aim is to obscure their origin in order to later integrate them into the economic system as apparently legal income and be able to enjoy all their benefits. Consequently, there is no acceptable dogmatic reason why the participants in the predicate crime cannot be perpetrators of the crime of money laundering" (GARCÍA CAVERO, Percy, El delito de lavado de activos, Euros Editores SRL, second edition, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2016, pag. 66-67). On the other hand, as a reference, it can be observed that in the 40 Recommendations of GAFI previously mentioned, it is established in point 3 that "Countries should criminalise money laundering on the basis of the Vienna Convention and the Palermo Convention. Countries should apply the crime of money laundering to all serious offences, with a view to including the widest range of predicate offences". The interpretive note of said recommendation establishes in its point 6 that "Countries may provide that the offence of money laundering does not apply to persons who committed the predicate offence, where this is required by fundamental principles of their domestic law". However, from a reading of the criminal type described in numeral 69 of Ley N° 8204, it is inferred that said power of exclusion was not exercised for all the cases described by the legislator. In this sense, the second of the actions described in subsection a) of the commented numeral, establishes that the crime is incurred by anyone who "helps the person who has participated in the infractions, to evade the legal consequences of his acts", so only this modality cannot be carried out by the perpetrator of the crime, a situation that does not arise in subsection b) of the same numeral. Note that when the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was foreseen in Article 15 of Ley N° 7093, an action of unconstitutionality was presented from which it is extracted that the perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking foreseen at that time in Article 14 of the same normative body, could in turn commit the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) in real concurrence. In this order of ideas, through resolution of the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, at 4:15 p.m., on June 11, 1990, it was indicated that: "The reading of numeral 15 challenged here is clear and does not allow us to understand that it is a simple 'concealment', but rather that the agent's action is placed within another phase of an entire complex organization that is dedicated to international drug trafficking. A perpetrator of the crime established in Article 15 does not necessarily incur the one foreseen and punished by Article 14 of the law, but nothing prevents both, according to the circumstances, from being able to be carried out in real concurrence. In any event, and here it is appropriate to reiterate the prior indication, we are before considerations of mere legality that are not receivable in this constitutional process, although the Sala formulates them as an obligatory analysis of the thesis sustained in the action." The legislator can perfectly well constitute as an autonomous offense an action that, otherwise, would be an amplifying element of the statutory definition, and on this point, by way of example, one may cite the provisions set forth in articles 271, 298, and 343 of the Penal Code” </i>(emphasis not in original)<i>.</i> Subsequently, that Chamber clearly established that sanctioning the same perpetrator for both crimes is a matter of criminal policy, stating that: <i>“<st1:PersonName ProductID=\"la Sala\" w:st=\"on\">La Sala</st1:PersonName> has already held that <b><u>it is a matter of legislative policy even to elevate to a crime what could technically be considered concealment (encubrimiento)</u></b></i> <i>[…]Furthermore, as also noted supra, <b><u>one could contemplate a concurrence of offenses (of the illicit acts contained in articles 14 and 15)</u></b></i> <i>, and also in perfectly distinguishable situations, as recent experience itself shows us, in which the persons who participate (for example) in the commercialization stage of illicit drugs, commission others to intervene in the next, no less important, stage of "cleaning," or as it is also said, "removing suspicion from," the money derived from that activity” </i>(emphasis not in the original). For these reasons, considering: the distinct nature of the crime of money laundering (lavado de activos) compared to crimes against the administration of justice; the criminal policy of the legislator that emerges from a reading of the criminal statute; and the interpretations of <st1:PersonName ProductID=\"la Sala Constitucional\" w:st=\"on\">la Sala Constitucional</st1:PersonName> in which it is possible to sanction the perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking as the active subject of money laundering (legitimación de capitales); it is concluded that the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) by concealment or covering up (ocultación o encubrimiento), may be the same perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking. Based on the reasoning set forth and therefore, although for different reasons than those pointed out by our colleague magistrate (magistrada) and fellow magistrates, Article 69 of <st1:PersonName ProductID=\"la Ley N\" w:st=\"on\">la Ley <span class=\"SpellE\">N</span></st1:PersonName><span class=\"SpellE\">°</span> 8204 was correctly applied in the challenged resolution.”</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=\"MsoNormal\"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> To this end, they must use the official forms prepared for this purpose, which will be made available to them by the Dirección General de Aduanas at immigration checkpoints. The declaration will be made on the sworn declaration form and the forms will be sent to the Centro de Inteligencia Conjunto Antidrogas for the corresponding analysis.” Subsequently, through Law N° 8204 of December 26, 2001, Law N° 7786 was comprehensively reformed, providing in its Article 35 that: “Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to present and declare the cash money they are carrying, if the amount is equal to or greater than ten thousand United States dollars (US$10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. Likewise, they must declare any securities they are carrying for an amount equal to or greater than fifty thousand United States dollars (US$50,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. For the declaration, they must use the official forms prepared for this purpose, which will be made available to them by the Dirección General de Aduanas at immigration checkpoints. Officials of the Dirección General de Aduanas shall be obliged to verify, through the passport or other identification document, the veracity of the personal data entered on the form. The declaration will be noted on the sworn declaration form and the forms will be sent to the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas for the corresponding analysis.” Finally, the Law for Strengthening Legislation Against Terrorism, enacted through Law N° 8719 of March 4, 2009, reformed Article 35 of Law N° 8204; in the event of failure to declare the amounts entering or leaving the country, it established as a penalty the loss of the cash money or securities, stating that: “Upon entering or leaving the country, every person, national or foreigner, shall be obliged to declare the cash money or securities they are carrying, if the amount is equal to or greater than ten thousand dollars, currency of the United States of America (US$10,000.00) or its equivalent in another currency. For the declaration, they must use the official forms prepared for that purpose, which will be made available to them by the competent officials of the Administración Aduanera at immigration checkpoints. Total or partial non-compliance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall result in strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) and the immediate loss of the money or securities in favor of the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, and they shall be used to fulfill its purposes, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 85 and 87 of this Law. The loss shall be based on the simple verification of non-compliance and shall be declared by the Ministerio de Hacienda. The competent officials of the Administración Aduanera shall be obliged to verify, through the passport or any other identification document, the veracity of the personal data entered on the form. The declaration will be noted on the sworn declaration form and the forms will be sent to the Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas for the corresponding analysis. Unjustified non-compliance by the competent officials of the Administración Aduanera with the provisions of this article shall be considered a serious fault within an administrative proceeding, without prejudice to possible criminal liabilities.” These provisions are consistent with the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force (Grupo de Acción Financiera, GAFI), which were adopted by GAFILAT (an international body to which Costa Rica has belonged since the year 2000). In this regard, since 1990, GAFI has been making various recommendations as an initiative to combat the misuse of financial systems by persons who launder money. Said entity issued the Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing in 2001, providing in its Recommendation IX that: “Countries should have measures in place to detect the cross-border physical transport of cash and bearer negotiable instruments, including a declaration system or other disclosure obligation. Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to stop or restrain currency and bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to terrorist financing or money laundering, or that are falsely declared or disclosed. Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are available to apply to persons who make a false declaration or disclosure. In cases where the cash or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing or money laundering, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative ones, consistent with Recommendation 3 and Special Recommendation III, that would enable the confiscation of such cash or instruments” (underlining not in original). In the interpretative note to recommendation 9 made by GAFI itself, it is stated that the objective of said measure is to “ensure that terrorists and other criminals cannot finance their activities or launder the proceeds of their crimes through the cross-border movement of cash or any other bearer negotiable instrument” (underlining not in original), defining cross-border physical transport as: “any physical entry or exit of cash or bearer negotiable instruments from one country to another country. The term includes the following modes of transport: (1) physical transport by a natural person, or in that person's luggage or vehicle; (2) the shipment of cash through containerized cargo or (3) the postal shipment of cash or bearer negotiable instruments by a natural or legal person.” To fulfill this purpose, the interpretative notes establish that two mechanisms can be chosen: the declaration system, under which the person carrying out the cross-border physical transport of cash, when it exceeds the maximum threshold of $15,000.00, must make a declaration to the designated authorities; and the disclosure system, where the person carrying out the physical transport of cash must make a truthful disclosure when requested by the competent authority. The 40 Recommendations of GAFI were revised in February 2003, adapted in February 2012, and updated in October 2015, currently providing in its Recommendation 32 that: “Countries should have measures in place to detect the cross-border physical transport of currency and bearer negotiable instruments, including through a declaration and/or disclosure system. Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to stop or restrain currency or bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to terrorist financing, money laundering or predicate offenses, or that are falsely declared or disclosed. Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions are available to deal with persons who make false declaration(s) or disclosure(s). In cases where the currency or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing, money laundering or predicate offenses, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative measures, consistent with Recommendation 4, that would enable the confiscation of such currency or instruments,” reiterating in its interpretative note that the objective of the measure is to ensure that terrorists and other criminals cannot finance their activities or launder the proceeds of their crimes through the cross-border physical transport of currency and bearer negotiable instruments. Likewise, in the Mutual Evaluation Report of the República de Costa Rica, which presents the results of the National Risk Diagnosis of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing carried out by GAFILAT in 2015, when evaluating compliance with Recommendation 32 of GAFI, it concluded that for the case of money laundering related to the declaration of cross-border income and outflow of cash, in addition to the penalty provided in numeral 35 of Law N° 8204, it indicated that: “it would fall under the coverage of Art. 69 and 69 bis of the same Law 8204, for sanctioning purposes, as well as with the corresponding provisions of said Law for the confiscation of assets” (Financial Action Task Force of Latin America. Mutual Evaluation Report of the República de Costa Rica, 2015, consulted at http://www.gafilat.org/UserFiles/Biblioteca/Evaluaciones/IEM%204ta%20Ronda/IEM_Costa_Rica_Final%20(1).pdf). Although the recommendations, interpretative notes, and evaluations of GAFI do not constitute a binding rule, they are an informative source that allows for the elucidation, in relation to its historical context, of the nature of the customs declaration system related to the transport of cash and for establishing its relationship with money laundering. From this perspective, based on the analysis of the psychotropic substances legislation, Special Recommendation IX, and Recommendation 32 of GAFI, including their interpretative notes, it can be concluded with absolute clarity that one of the controls to prevent money laundering is that provided for in Article 35 of the Ley de Psicotrópicos, which refers to the declaration of cash amounts exceeding $10,000.00. On the other hand, it should be noted that the actions carried out by the defendants were aimed at evading the first containment barrier for money laundering established at Costa Rican borders, that is, the declaration of the amounts of cash transported, by concealing the money from drug trafficking in the double lining of the truck, an action that falls within what is known in doctrine as the placement stage or “placement”. In this sense, judgment 563-2014 of the Tribunal Penal of the Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, when carrying out the legal analysis of the conduct of Roy Araya Guadamuz, considered that “One can even see that there is a specific event located in the first stage of the crime and it is the one that occurred on July 20, 2007, where, as described in the preceding considerando and in the proven facts, Wilberth Valverde Fernández was surprised with a stash of money hidden in a secret compartment inside the truck he was driving coming from the north of Central America. This event is characteristic of the first stage, that is, the physical entry of money into the country, and the connection with Roy Araya is total insofar as it has been stated that such operation for entering the money had been arranged by Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny, and Roym as payment for the work of transporting cocaine” (f. 5457 of volume XIII of the investigation file). Likewise, when conducting the legal analysis of the conduct of Antonio Ugalde Jiménez, the lower court (a quo) considered that: “Recall that there is a specific event located in the first stage of the crime and it is the one that occurred on July 20, 2007, where, as described in the preceding considerando and in the proven facts, Wilberth Valverde Fernández was surprised with a stash of money hidden in a (sic) secret compartment inside the truck he was driving coming from the north of Central America. This event is characteristic of the first stage, that is, the physical entry of money into the country, and the connection with Roy Araya is total insofar as it has been stated that such operation for entering the money had been arranged by Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny, and Roy, as payment for the work of transporting cocaine. A moment which, as stated supra, turns out to be the stage of greatest weakness for money launderers, both because of the people who carry it out and because of the lack of appearance of legality, which is indeed noticeable in the later stages. Precisely that weakness allowed the capture at that initial stage, when it is easier to detect the illicit origin of the money” (5476-5477 of volume XIII of the investigation file). Furthermore, in the contested resolution, it was held as proven that “Moreover, the elements of belief arising from the evidence noted above were collated and linked by the lower court with the material results of the investigation, namely the seizure of a sum of money close to 2.5 million dollars at the border with Peñas Blancas, which was hidden in a special compartment made in a container transported by the co-defendant Wilberth Valverde Fernández on July 20, 2007 […] highlighting that the seizure of such sum of money is characteristic of the first phase of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), which consists of the physical, material entry of illicit economic assets for the subsequent purpose of introducing them into the licit economic cycle, in this case of our country” (f. 6192, front and back). From this perspective, it can be inferred from the proven facts and the legal considerations of both the Tribunal Penal and the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal that one of the reasons why Article 69 of Law N° 8204 was applied to the defendants was due to the transport of two million, four hundred twenty thousand dollars ($2,420,000.00) originating from drug trafficking, which were moved from the northern part of Central America to Costa Rica. In this sense, doctrine has considered that such physical transport constitutes a typical action of money laundering, stating that “Structures are often formed, made up of numerous people – many of whom have no contact with each other – located in various places in the world, through whom the proceeds of the illicit act pass, subjecting it to successive stages and under innumerable modalities, including sophisticated financial operations with the intervention of banking entities, intermediation of commercial activities, use of companies, simulation of mercantile operations, etc. Often, to interconnect those links that together allow the illicit origin to be simulated, physical transport of the money is resorted to, at least in some segment of the process” (ROBIGLIO, Carolina, Contrabando de dinero, Ad-Hoc SRL, first edition, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2015, p. 88). The use of physical transport as a modality of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was addressed by the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, through resolution 2011-00221, at 2:45 p.m., of June 15, 2011, where, on the occasion of the discovery of $510,000.00 in a double lining of a suitcase at the Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santa María, it stated that: “Money laundering operates, consequently, with the schemes of organized crime. Just as, for example, for drug trafficking, alliances are sought to manufacture the drug, transport it, and commercialize it, so too, to manage to introduce the profits into the cycle of licit activities, a consortium is sought with people of different natures, who act as ‘mules’ to physically move the money between different territories, professionals who move it during their travels or businesses or who introduce it through legal operations into investments; carriers who take merchandise from one country to another, exchange houses or banks in countries with little regulation in financial and laundering matters, known as ‘tax havens,’ to move investments and launder capital. […] Mechanisms are used such as double linings in automobiles, suitcases, or luggage, and no reasonable explanation is found for the origin of the money; also currency exchanges, especially when one wants to break them down and operations for exchanging high-denomination money for low or vice versa.” Likewise, on the occasion of the discovery of $600,000.00 hidden in the battery compartment of a bus belonging to the company Tica Bus, when they were trying to leave Costa Rica through the Panama border, the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal of Cartago, through resolution 2013-000574 at 3:47 p.m., of December 2, 2013, ratified that said events fit the conduct provided for in subsection b) of Article 69 of Law N° 8204, because the defendants concealed the previously indicated sum. In comparative law, other countries such as Peru have established specific rules for criminal liability for the physical transfer of money across their borders when it has a criminal origin. In this sense, through Legislative Decree N° 1106 called “Decreto Legislativo de Lucha Eficaz Contra el Lavado de Activos y Otros Delitos Relacionado a la Minería Ilegal y Crimen Organizado,” the crime of transport, transfer, entry, or exit through national territory of money or securities of illicit origin was defined in Article 3, which punishes with penalties of 8 to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 120 to 350 days, anyone who “transports or transfers within the national territory money or securities whose illicit origin they know or should have presumed, with the purpose of avoiding the identification of their origin, their seizure or confiscation; or causes such goods to enter or leave the country with the same purpose.” However, such a legal modification is not necessary in Costa Rican legislation, since the conduct established in subsection b) of Article 69 in correlation with numeral 35 of Law N° 8204 allows for the punishment of the physical transfer of money when it is hidden to be entered into national territory, evading the controls for detecting money laundering. Now, it is not that the simple transfer of money constitutes per se the crime under analysis, but rather that in this specific case, the conduct is configured because precisely that transfer implied the evasion of anti-money laundering controls. For these reasons, considering that: according to the proven facts, it is accredited that on July 20, 2007, in Peñas Blancas, the defendants hid in a double lining two million four hundred twenty thousand dollars ($2,420,000.00) proceeds from drug activity (narcoactividad); said money was intended to be entered into Costa Rican territory, evading the control over the physical transport of money established in Article 35 of Law N° 8204; as is clear from the evolution of the psychotropic substances legislation, as well as from the recommendations and interpretative notes of GAFI adopted by GAFILAT, the declaration of sums exceeding $10,000.00 upon entering or leaving the territory constitutes a measure against money laundering; and that subsection b) of Article 69 of Law N° 8204 punishes anyone who conceals the true nature of assets from a serious crime; it is concluded that the events fit the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) provided for in Costa Rican legislation. B) The absence of subsumption of the money laundering conduct within the crime of drug trafficking. Contrary to what was established by the appellants, the conduct of drug trafficking does not subsume the crime of money laundering, since they involve different legal interests (bienes jurídicos), protected through different criminal provisions, and in the specific case, the physical transfer of the money does not constitute part of the exhaustion phase of the crime of violating the psychotropic substances law for drug transport. As background, it is appropriate to mention that the origin of the concept of money laundering can be divided into four stages: the first, dates back to the USA, when the trade of alcoholic beverages was not permitted and organized criminals trafficking these goods used laundromats to reinsert into legal trade the money obtained licitly, although it should be clarified that the term “money laundering” (lavado de dinero) was used for the first time in the press on the occasion of the “Watergate” case in 1972, when funds were moved to hide the true source of financing for the re-election campaign of then US president Richard Nixon, although at that time money laundering was not yet criminalized and it involved the concealment of licit money; the second, took place in 1986 with the creation of the “Money Laundering Control Act” in the USA, when a connection of money laundering with a crime became required; the third, with the internationalization of money laundering, where the issuance of the “United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances” in 1988 stands out, through which the obligation was imposed on States to criminalize the crime of money laundering in relation to drug trafficking; the fourth, is identified with the concern over money laundering related to drug trafficking and the need for banking supervision, which in 1989 gave rise to the creation of GAFI as an intergovernmental body, with the aim of setting standards and promoting the implementation of legal, administrative, and operational measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other threats related to the integrity of the international financial system (WINTER ETCHEBERRY, Jaime, La regulación internacional del lavado de activos y el mismo financiamiento del terrorismo, Lavado de activos y compliance, perspectiva internacional y derecho comparado, Juristas Editories E.I.R.L., first edition, Lima, 2015, pp. 99-107). In relation to the internationalization of money laundering, the Convención de Viena originates from United Nations General Assembly resolution 39/141 of December 14, 1984, through which the United Nations Economic and Social Council was requested, in turn, to request the Comisión de Estupefacientes to draft a convention against drug trafficking at its thirty-first session, held in February 1985.

Finally, after participating in the United Nations conference for the approval of the Convention in Neue Hofburg, Vienna, from November 25 to December 20, 1988, the aforementioned normative body was approved on December 19, 1988, and the Convention was signed by Costa Rica on April 25, 1989, at the United Nations Secretariat General in New York, thus surpassing the Single Convention of 1961 on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (see file of Legislative Bill 10881, folios 2-3, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=1738). Subsequently, the 1988 Vienna Convention was ratified by Costa Rica through Law 7198, of September 25, 1990, recognizing in its preamble that illicit traffic generates considerable financial yields and large fortunes that enable transnational criminal organizations to invade, contaminate, and corrupt the structures of public administration, legitimate commercial and financial activities, and society at all its levels, for the purpose of depriving persons engaged in illicit traffic of the proceeds of their criminal activities, thus eliminating their principal incentive for such activity. Said Convention, in its article 3, subsection b), point ii), established the obligation of the States to criminalize “The concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of property, knowing that such property is derived from an offence or offences established in accordance with subparagraph a) of this paragraph or from an act of participation in such an offence or offences”. While Costa Rica was an active part in the process of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, on May 12, 1987, Bill 10471 was presented before the Legislative Assembly, through which the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was criminalized for the first time, justified in the explanatory memorandum stating that “… the bill establishes new figures or criminal types and, in general terms, considerably increases all penalties. Among these new crimes, special mention deserves article thirteen, which has (sic) to sanction the commonly called ‘dollar laundering’ or ‘capital bleaching’” (see file of Bill 10471, folio 5, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=2673). Said bill was approved through Law 7093, of April 22, 1988, providing in its article 15 a penalty of 8 to 15 years of imprisonment: “to anyone who carries out any act or contract, real or simulated, of acquisition, possession, transfer, or disposal of property, tending to conceal or disguise the origin of economic resources obtained through the illicit traffic of drugs or crimes related to that activity, regardless of the place where the illicit act was committed. When the act was committed abroad, its commission may be proven by any means”. Based on the reading of the first version of the crime of money laundering and the signing of the Convention cited supra, it is possible to discard the thesis proposed by the defense, concluding that the crime of money laundering is not subsumed within the crime of drug trafficking (in its transportation modality) and rather, it is precisely on the occasion of drug trafficking crimes that the crime of money laundering initially arises, later expanding its scope of coverage to all those crimes considered serious. As set forth in the Convention itself, the purpose of criminalizing the illicit act of money laundering obeys the need to deprive individuals of the proceeds of criminal activities, due to the invasion, contamination, and corruption of public administration, legitimate commercial and financial activities, as well as society at all its levels, making it clear that the legally protected interest (bien jurídico protegido) in this case is the socio-economic order and not the administration of justice, as some sectors of the national doctrine propose (cfr. HERNANDEZ RAMÍREZ, Guillermo, Especiales características de los juicios de antijuridicidad y culpabilidad en el delito de legitimación de capitales, Derecho penal económico y de empresa, Editorial Jurídico Continental, first edition, San José, C.R., 2013, p. 514.; CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, first edition, San José, C.R., 2012, p. 58-67). In addition to the above, in the explanatory memorandum of Law 7786, which expressly repeals through ordinal 111 the previous psychotropic laws (Law 7093 and Law 7233), it is recognized that the legally protected interest by money laundering legislation does not correspond to the administration of justice, but to the socio-economic order. Thus, Bill 12539, which gave rise to Law 7786, indicates that: “One of the problems that has most forcefully penetrated our country is that related to ‘dollar laundering.’ In this law reform bill, said theme has been addressed with special interest due to the serious consequences that such activity brings to the economic system, and therefore, also to society in general in our country. That is why it seeks to provide a greater framework of action and competence to two institutions that play a very important role in controlling the financial activities carried out in Costa Rica, we refer to the Auditoría General de Entidades Financieras and the Comisión de Valores, allowing them the implementation of truly effective measures to prevent the penetration into our economic system of capital from drug trafficking and related activities. Likewise, and perhaps most notable has been the inclusion of a new criminal type that sanctions the activity of ‘money laundering’ and that leaves aside the imprecisions and obstacles that the previous type contained and that made the prosecution of these activities a practically unrealizable task” (underline does not correspond to the original, f. 5-6 of the file of Bill 12539, consulted at http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=3522). This is not a case of affirming that the simple transportation of money, the product of commerce, sale, transportation, or any of the other modalities established in numeral 58 of Law 8204, constitutes the crime of money laundering, but only that transportation that implies the evasion of measures established against money laundering, such as the one referred to in point a) developed supra and established in article 35 of the Psychotropic Law. Note that, for example, the sale of a narcotic drug in national territory carried out by an individual and the transfer of the gain or money, product of the narcotic sale, to their dwelling house, is insufficient to constitute the crime of money laundering, since said action does not imply per se an action of concealment or disguise of anti-money laundering measures. The situation is different with a drug sale carried out abroad, where the proceeds of the crime can remain outside the national territory for enjoyment; however, upon the money entering Costa Rica, concealing the origin or nature of the money and evading anti-money laundering control measures, a legally protected interest distinct from Public Health (Salud Pública) is harmed, in this case the socio-economic order, so it is impossible to consider that the disvalue (disvalor) of the action is contained within the illicit act of drug trafficking. Neither can it be said that in the scenario under analysis, we are in the exhaustion phase of the crime, since the defendant could enjoy the property abroad but decides to introduce it to Costa Rica, generating an abstract impact on the economic market. It must be reiterated, as set forth in point a) developed supra, that originally the money laundering provisions were specifically aimed at sanctioning the profits from drug trafficking, so it becomes contradictory now to exclude the crime of money laundering, when the prior illicit activity is drug trafficking, if precisely the origin of the norm goes back to the need to mitigate the harmful effects related to the economic system and capital flows, generated by the profits from drug trafficking. For these reasons, considering that: the disvalue of the action is not contained within the drug trafficking criminal type; the crime of money laundering arises precisely to sanction the conduct of taking advantage of profits from drug trafficking; and the crime of money laundering contains independent regulation in the legal system; it is concluded that money laundering is conduct that is not subsumed within the illicit act of drug trafficking. C) Possibility of commission of the crime of money laundering, by the perpetrator of the prior or predicate offense. Once it is accepted that physical transportation of money, the product of drug trafficking, is typical of the crime of money laundering and that the latter is not necessarily subsumed within the former, the possibility of applying article 69 of Law 8204 solely to cases in which the perpetrator of both illicit acts is a different subject must be discarded. In this sense, it is necessary to highlight that doctrine usually distinguishes between simple self-concealment (autoencubrimiento simple) and qualified self-concealment (autoencubrimiento calificado): the first corresponds to that where the perpetrator of a prior crime carries out the concealment of the action, in order to evade punishment for the act or makes the traces, evidence, or instruments of the criminal conduct disappear or secures the benefit thereof without carrying out another typical injustice, actions that are unpunished; the second occurs when the perpetrator, through the concealment, harms several independent criminal laws (CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, first edition, San José C.R., 2012, p. 70-74). In this sense, it is worth clarifying that although the concealment crimes of the Penal Code are defined in an independent criminal type, which protect a distinct legally protected interest, specifically the administration of justice, by express provision of the legislator, this cannot be committed by the perpetrator of the primary crime. In this sense, in the crime of personal aiding (favorecimiento personal) regulated in article 329 of the Penal Code, it sanctions whoever “helps someone to evade the investigations of the authority or to withdraw from its action or omits to report the act when obligated to do so”; the crime of receiving stolen property (receptación) established in article 330 of the substantive regulation, has as an active subject one who did not participate in the crime; the crime of receiving property of suspicious origin, criminalized in ordinal 331 of the law in question, sanctions whoever “receives property that according to the circumstances, should be presumed to come from a crime”; while the crime of real aiding (favorecimiento real), excludes from its application whoever “in any way, participated in the crime”. On this particular point, foreign doctrine has also addressed the problems of subsumption (subsunción) of both norms, taking as reference the protected legally protected interests, indicating that “Nevertheless, from fundamentally teleological considerations, an attempt has been made to exclude those involved (intervinientes) in the prior crime from the scope of possible perpetrators. This exclusion has been based on the close link between the crime of money laundering and the figures of receiving stolen property or concealment. […] The crime of money laundering has its own protection purpose and its own criteria of interpretation, so it will be necessary to determine if, from its own structural logic, it is justified to remove those involved in the prior crime from the scope of possible active subjects. In our opinion, there is no consistent basis for making this exclusion. These are two completely different legally protected interests, since the punishment for money laundering is not a simple reinforcement of the crime that generates the property subjected to an illegal legitimization process, nor does it sanction the darkening of the assets with the purpose of avoiding criminal prosecution. What money laundering criminalizes is the fictitious creation of conditions to quietly enjoy the benefits proceeding from a criminal activity. The assets are not hidden, therefore, to avoid being discovered or recovered (although this may be achieved), but the aim is to darken their origin so as to later integrate them into the economic system as apparently legal income and to be able to enjoy all their benefits. Consequently, there is no dogmatic reason worth considering for those involved in the prior crime not to be perpetrators of the crime of money laundering” (GARCÍA CAVERO, Percy, El delito de lavado de activos, Euros Editores SRL, second edition, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2016, p. 66-67). Furthermore, as a reference, it can be observed that in the 40 Recommendations of GAFI previously mentioned, point 3 establishes that “Countries should criminalise money laundering on the basis of the Vienna Convention and the Palermo Convention. Countries should apply the crime of money laundering to all serious offences, with a view to including the widest range of predicate offences”. The interpretive note of said recommendation establishes in its point 6 that “Countries may provide that the offence of money laundering does not apply to persons who committed the predicate offence, where this is required by fundamental principles of their domestic law”. However, from the reading of the criminal type described in numeral 69 of Law 8204, it is inferred that said faculty of exclusion was not exercised for all the cases described by the legislator. In this sense, the second of the actions described in subparagraph a) of the commented numeral, establishes that the crime is committed by whoever “helps the person who has participated in the infractions, to elude the legal consequences of their acts”, therefore, only said modality cannot be carried out by the perpetrator of the crime, a situation that does not arise in subparagraph b) of the same numeral. Note that when the crime of money laundering was provided for in article 15 of Law 7093, an unconstitutionality action was filed from which it is extracted that the perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime, then provided for in article 14 of the same normative body, could in turn commit the crime of money laundering in material concurrence (concurso material). In this line of thought, through resolution of the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, at 16:15 hours, on June 11, 1990, it was indicated that: “The reading of numeral 15 challenged here is clear and does not allow one to understand that it is a simple ‘concealment’, but that the agent's action is located within another phase of an entire complex organization dedicated to international drug trafficking. A perpetrator of the crime established in article 15 does not necessarily incur the one provided for and sanctioned in article 14 of the law, but nothing prevents both, according to the circumstances, from being carried out in material concurrence. In any case, and it is worth reiterating the previous point, we are before considerations of mere legality that are not admissible in this constitutional process, although the Sala formulates them as a required analysis of the thesis sustained in the action. The legislator may well constitute as an autonomous figure an action that, otherwise, would be an amplifying device of the type, and on this particular, one can cite, by way of example, what is established in articles 271, 298, and 343 of the Penal Code” (underline does not correspond to the original). Subsequently, said Chamber clearly established that the sanction of the same perpetrator for both crimes corresponds to a criminal policy situation, indicating that: “The Sala has already stated that it is a matter of legislative policy even to elevate to a crime what technically could be subject matter of concealment […] Furthermore, as was also recorded supra, one could think of a concurrence of crimes (concurso de delitos) (of the illicit acts contained in articles 14 and 15), and also in situations perfectly separable, as recent experience itself shows us, in which the persons who participate (for example) in the stage of commercialization of illicit drugs, entrust others to intervene in the next and no less important stage of ‘cleaning’, or as is also said, ‘removing from suspicion’ the money that comes from that activity” (underline does not correspond to the original). For these reasons, considering: the distinct nature of the crime of money laundering compared to crimes against the administration of justice; the criminal policy of the legislator inferred from the reading of the criminal type; and the interpretations of the Sala Constitucional where the sanction of the perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime as an active subject of money laundering is made possible; it is concluded that the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering by concealment or disguise, may be the same perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime. Based on the reasoning set forth and therefore, although for different reasons than those pointed out by the fellow magistrate (magistrada) and fellow magistrates (magistrados), article 69 of Law 8204 was correctly applied in the contested resolution.”

NOTA DEL MAGISTRADO JOSÉ MANUEL ARROYO GUTIÉRREZ “En este asunto, a pesar que concuerdo con la conclusión a la cual arriban mis compañeros magistrados y compañera magistrada, es necesario exponer las razones distintas que me llevan a afirmar que en este caso, se realizó una correcta aplicación del numeral 69 de la Ley Sobre Estupefacientes, Sustancias Psicotrópicas, Drogas de Uso No Autorizado, Actividades Conexas, Legitimación de Capitales y Financiamiento al Terrorismo. En este sentido, en el único motivo del recurso en favor de los encartados Ugalde Jiménez y Araya Guadamuz, planteado por la Defensora Pública Mariana Brenes León, en relación con el decomiso de dos millones cuatrocientos veinte mil setenta dólares ($2.420.070, 00), reclama que es erróneo considerar el ingreso del dinero al país, como la primera fase del delito de legitimación de capitales básicamente por dos razones: primero, porque omite valorar que el manejo del dinero se da razón del pago de la droga, por lo tanto, es parte del iter críminis del delito de tráfico de drogas; segundo, si bien el dinero estaba siendo introducido al país, no se conocía el fin que iba a tener, resultando que deviene en un error pretender un encubrimiento de un delito propio. Además, con base en el voto de minoría del ad quem, expone que el autor del delito de legitimación, debe ser una persona distinta de quien obtiene el dinero producto del narcotráfico. Asimismo, en el cuarto motivo del recurso a favor del encartado Araya Guadamuz, presentado por el defensor particular Javier Campos Villegas, también reclama que el autor del delito de legitimación de capitales, no puede ser el mismo sujeto activo del delito de donde provienen los bienes. Adicionalmente, el defensor particular advierte que la adquisición de bienes o movimientos financieros, son parte de la etapa de agotamiento del iter críminis del delito de droga. En relación con dichos reclamos, es necesario realizar algunas precisiones desde tres distintas vertientes: a) el ingreso de dinero al país producto del narcotráfico, como adecuación al tipo penal de legitimación de capitales; b) la ausencia de subsunción de la conducta de legitimación de capitales, en el delito de tráfico de estupefacientes; c) la posibilidad de la comisión del delito de legitimación de capitales, por el autor del delito anterior o precedente. A) Ingreso de dinero al país producto del narcotráfico, como adecuación al tipo penal de legitimación de capitales. En términos generales, una primera aproximación al concepto de legitimación blanqueamiento de capitales, consiste en entender el término como todas aquellas acciones tendientes a dar apariencia de legalidad, a los bienes producto de un delito. Desde una perspectiva estrictamente normativa, el artículo 69 de la Ley N° 8204 (en adelante Ley de Psictrópicos), sanciona con prisión de 8 a 20 años “a) Quien adquiera, convierta o transmita bienes de interés económico, sabiendo que estos se originan en un delito que, dentro de su rango de penas, puede ser sancionado con pena de prisión de cuatro (4) años o más, o realice cualquier otro acto para ocultar o encubrir el origen ilícito, o para ayudarle a la persona que haya participado en las infracciones, a eludir las consecuencias legales de sus actos. b) Quien oculte o encubra la verdadera naturaleza, el origen, la ubicación, el destino, el movimiento o los derechos sobre los bienes o la propiedad de estos, a sabiendas de que proceden, directa o indirectamente, de un delito que dentro su rango de penas puede ser sancionado con pena de prisión de cuatro (4) años o más. La pena será de diez (10) a veinte (20) años de prisión, cuando los bienes de interés económico se originen en alguno de los delitos relacionados con el tráfico ilícito de estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, legitimación de capitales, desvío de precursores, sustancias químicas esenciales y delitos conexos, conductas tipificadas como terroristas, de acuerdo con la legislación vigente o cuando se tenga como finalidad el financiamiento de actos de terrorismo y de organizaciones terroristas”. Entre las múltiples conductas típicas previstas por el legislador, conviene destacar la prevista en el inciso b), en donde los verbos activos son ocultar o encubrir alguna de las siguientes características de los bienes: su naturaleza, el origen, la ubicación, el destino, el movimiento o los derechos. La doctrina, suele diferenciar tres distintas fases de la legitimación de capitales: a) fase de colocación o “placement”, entendida como la introducción en sistema financiero del dinero acumulado por las organizaciones criminales; b) fase de ensombrecimiento o “layering ”, la cual corresponde al enmascaramiento del dinero previamente introducido; c) fase de integración o “integration”, a través de la cual se integra el dinero al circuito financiero legal, confundido y mezclado con otros activos lícitos, otorgándole apariencia de haber sido obtenidos legalmente (SANCHEZ GARCÍA DE PAZ, Isabel, La criminalidad organizada, aspectos penales, procesales, administrativos y policiales, Editorial Dykinson, primera edición, Madrid, 2015, pag. 151-152). En este orden de ideas, es necesario tener claro que la conducta típica puede ser llevada a cabo por el autor en cualquiera de las fases de la legitimación de capitales, sea en la colocación, en el ensombrecimiento o en la integración, siempre que la conducta se adecúe a los elementos objetivos del tipo penal. Precisamente en este punto, radica la diferencia frente al voto suscrito por la compañera magistrada y los compañeros magistrados, quienes consideran que “Basta, para estimar que hay un daño a la economía nacional, la adquisición de dichos bienes, pues la misma representa un peligro de distorsión y desequilibrio financiero”. Por el contrario, a criterio del suscrito, la razón por la cual se considera que los hechos probados se adecúan al tipo penal previsto en el numeral 69 de la Ley de Psicotrópicos, se da por cuanto la introducción del dinero a territorio costarricense, implicó la ejecución de un acto de encubrimiento del origen ilícito del dinero, para traspasar la barrera de protección aduanera establecida como medida contra el lavado de dinero. En la evolución de la normativa relacionada con la tipificación del narcotráfico, se debe considerar que dichos ilícitos se encontraban en el Código Penal (suministro indebido de estupefacientes, regulado en el numeral 274) y la Ley General de la Salud (artículo 371, donde se sanciona el cultivo de estupefacientes) y no es hasta la emisión de la Ley N° 7093 del 22 de abril de 1988, cuando se dispone de un cuerpo legal específico donde se regule la materia (artículos 14 a 24), tipificando en su numeral 15 la legitimación de capitales con penas de 8 a 15 años a quien “ realice cualquier acto o contrato, real o simulado, de adquisición, posesión, transferencia o disposición de bienes, tendente a ocultar o a encubrir el origen de recursos económicos obtenidos por medio del tráfico ilícito de drogas o de delitos relacionados con esa actividad, independientemente del lugar en donde el acto ilícito se haya cometido. Cuando el hecho se hubiere cometido en el extranjero, su comisión podrá acreditarse por cualquier medio”. Posteriormente, mediante Ley N° 7322, denominada “Ley de Estupefacientes, Sustancias Psicotrópicas, Drogas de Uso No Autorizado y Actividades Conexas”, se reformó de manera integral la Ley N° 7093, del 22 de abril de 1988 y si bien ya se preveía como delito la legitimación de capitales, uno de los cambios introducidos mediante la reforma legal, estaba referido al establecimiento de un control fronterizo al ingreso de dinero. En este sentido, el artículo 14 dispuso que: “Toda persona, nacional o extranjera, al ingresar en el país, está obligada a presentar y declarar el dinero efectivo que traiga consigo, si supera un millón de colones (¢1.000.000) o su equivalente en moneda extranjera; deberá usar, al efecto, los formularios oficiales que, para esos fines, tendrán siempre los puestos migratorios. Tal manifestación tendrá el valor de declaración jurada. Para fines probatorios, la omisión de esta declaración se considerará como indicio y su falsedad constituirá el delito a que se refiere el artículo 358 del Código Penal”. En este contexto histórico, debe considerarse que el delito de legitimación de capitales, únicamente se encontraba previsto para aquellos bienes cuyo origen se encontraba en la comisión de un delito previsto en la Ley de Psicotrópicos, mientras que el entonces artículo 358 del Código Penal vigente, establecía una sanción a quien “insertare o hiciere insertar en un documento público o auténtico declaraciones falsas, concernientes a un hecho que el documento deba probar, de modo que pueda resultar perjuicio”. Esta medida de control de dinero proveniente del narcotráfico, se incluyó en el artículo 38 de la Ley N° 7786 del 30 abril de 1998, normativa que mediante su artículo 111 derogó las leyes N° 7093 y N° 7233. Así, el ordinal 38 estableció en relación con los ingresos y egresos de dinero en efectivo a través de las fronteras que: “Al ingresar al país o salir de él, toda persona nacional o extranjera estará obligada a presentar y declarar el dinero en efectivo que porte, si la cantidad superare los diez mil dólares estadounidenses (US$10.000,00) o su equivalente en otra moneda; asimismo, deberá declarar los títulos valores que porte por un monto superior a los cincuenta mil dólares estadounidenses (US$50.000,00). Para tal efecto, deberá emplear los formularios oficiales elaborados con este fin, los cuales serán puestos a su disposición por la Dirección General de Aduanas, en los puestos migratorios. La manifestación se hará en la fórmula de declaración jurada y los formularios serán remitidos al Centro de Inteligencia Conjunto Antidrogas, para el análisis correspondiente”. Posteriormente, mediante Ley N° 8204 del 26 de diciembre de 2001, se reformó integralmente la Ley N° 7786, previendo en su artículo 35 que: “Al ingresar al país o salir de él, toda persona, nacional o extranjera, estará obligada a presentar y declarar el dinero efectivo que porte, si la cantidad es igual o superior a los diez mil dólares estadounidenses (US$10.000,00) o su equivalente en otra moneda. Asimismo, deberá declarar los títulos valores que porte por un monto igual o superior a los cincuenta mil dólares estadounidenses (US$50.000,00) o su equivalente en otra moneda. Para la declaración, deberá emplear los formularios oficiales elaborados con este fin, los cuales pondrá a su disposición la Dirección General de Aduanas en los puestos migratorios. Los funcionarios de la Dirección General de Aduanas estarán obligados a constatar, mediante el pasaporte u otro documento de identificación, la veracidad de los datos personales consignados en el formulario. La manifestación se anotará en la fórmula de declaración jurada y los formularios serán remitidos al Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, para el análisis correspondiente”. Finalmente, la Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Legislación Contra el Terrorismo, emitida mediante Ley N° 8719, del 4 de marzo de 2009, reformó el artículo 35 de la Ley N° 8204, ante el incumplimiento de la declaración de los montos ingresados o salidos del país, estableció como sanción la pérdida del dinero en efectivo o títulos valores, indicando que: “Al ingresar en el país o salir de él, toda persona, nacional o extranjera, estará obligada a declarar el dinero efectivo o los títulos valores que porte, si la cantidad es igual o superior a los diez mil dólares moneda de los Estados Unidos de América (US $10.000,00) o su equivalente en otra moneda. Para la declaración, deberá emplear los formularios oficiales elaborados con ese fin, los cuales serán puestos a su disposición, por los funcionarios competentes de la Administración Aduanera, en los puestos migratorios. El incumplimiento, total o parcial, de lo establecido en el párrafo anterior, traerá como consecuencia la responsabilidad objetiva y la pérdida inmediata del dinero o los valores a favor del Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, y se destinarán al cumplimiento de sus fines, de conformidad con lo establecido en los artículos 85 y 87 de la presente Ley. La pérdida se fundamentará en la simple constatación del incumplimiento y será declarada por el Ministerio de Hacienda. Los funcionarios competentes de la Administración Aduanera estarán obligados a constatar, mediante el pasaporte o cualquier otro documento de identificación, la veracidad de los datos personales consignados en el formulario. La manifestación se anotará en la fórmula de declaración jurada y los formularios serán remitidos al Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, para el análisis correspondiente. El incumplimiento injustificado por parte de los funcionarios competentes de la Administración Aduanera, de lo prescrito en este artículo, se considerará falta grave dentro de un proceso administrativo, sin perjuicio de las posibles responsabilidades penales”. Estas disposiciones, resultan acordes con las recomendaciones realizadas por el Grupo de Acción Financiera (GAFI), la cuales fueron adoptadas por GAFILAT (organismo internacional la cual pertenece Costa Rica desde el año 2000). En este sentido, desde el año 1990, GAFI ha venido realizando distintas recomendaciones, como una iniciativa para combatir los usos indebidos de los sistemas financieros por parte de personas que lavan dinero. Dicho ente, emitió en el año 2001 las Recomendaciones Especiales Sobre el Financiamiento del Terrorismo, disponiendo en su recomendación IX que: “Los países deberían tener medidas para detectar el transporte físico transfronterizo de dinero en efectivo e instrumentos negociables al portador, incluyendo un sistema de declaración u otra obligación de revelación. Los países deberían asegurarse que sus autoridades competentes tienen la atribución legal para detener o retener dinero en efectivo e instrumentos negociables al portador que se sospecha están relacionados con el financiamiento del terrorismo o lavado de activos, o que son falsamente declarados o revelados. Los países deberían asegurarse que sanciones efectivas, proporcionadas y disuasivas estén disponibles para ser aplicadas a las personas que realizan una falsa declaración o revelación. En aquellos casos que el dinero en efectivo o los instrumentos negociables al portador estén relacionados con el financiamiento del terrorismo o lavado de activos, los países también deberían adoptar medidas, incluyendo las legislativas, consistentes con la Recomendación 3 y la Recomendación Especial III, que habilitarían el decomiso de dicho dinero en efectivo o instrumentos” (subrayado no corresponde al original) . En la nota interpretativa de la recomendación 9 realizada por el mismo GAFI, se indica que el objetivo de dicho medida es “asegurar que los terroristas y otros criminales no puedan financiar sus actividades o lavar las ganancias procedentes de sus delitos a través del cruce transfronterizo de dinero en efectivo o cualquier otro título negociable al portador” (subrayado no corresponde al original), definiendo el transporte físico transfronterizo como: “cualquier entrada o salida física de dinero en efectivo o instrumentos negociables al portador de un país a otro país. El término incluye los siguientes modos de transporte: (1) el transporte físico por una persona natural, o en el equipaje o vehículo de esa persona; (2) el envío de dinero en efectivo a través de una carga en container o (3) el envío postal de dinero en efectivo o instrumentos negociables al portador por una persona natural o legal”. Para cumplir con dicha finalidad, la notas interpretativas establecen que se puede optar por dos mecanismos: el de declaración, según el cual la persona que realiza el transporte físico transfronterizo de dinero en efectivo, cuando exceda el umbral máximo de $15.000,00, debe realizar una declaración a las autoridades designadas; el de revelación, donde quien realiza el transporte físico del dinero en efectivo, debe realizar la revelación fehaciente, cuando la autoridad competente lo solicite. Las 40 Recomendaciones de GAFI, fueron revisadas en febrero del 2003, adaptadas en febrero año 2012 y actualizadas octubre de 2015, disponiendo actualmente en su recomendación 32 que: “Los países deben contar con medidas establecidas para detectar el transporte físico transfronterizo de moneda e instrumentos negociables, incluyendo a través de un sistema de declaración y/o revelación. Los países deben asegurar que sus autoridades competentes cuenten con la autoridad legal para detener o restringir moneda o instrumentos negociables al portador sobre los que se sospecha una relación con el financiamiento del terrorismo, el lavado de activos o delitos determinantes, o que son declarados o revelados falsamente. Los países deben asegurar que se disponga de sanciones eficaces, proporcionales y disuasivas para tratar a las personas que hacen una declaración(es) o revelación(es) falsa(s). En los casos en los que la moneda o los instrumentos negociables al portador estén relacionados al financiamiento del terrorismo, el lavado de activos o delitos determinantes , los países deben además adoptar medidas, incluyendo medidas legislativas, de acuerdo con la Recomendación 4, que permitan el decomiso de dicha moneda o instrumentos”, reiterando en su nota interpretativa que el objetivo de la medida, consiste en asegurar que los terroristas y otros criminales no puedan financiar sus actividades o lavar el producto de sus crímenes, mediante el transporte físico transfronterizo de moneda e instrumentos negociables al portador. Asimismo, en el Informe de Evaluación Mutua de la República de Costa Rica, en el cual se exponen los resultados del Diagnóstico Nacional de Riesgos de Lavado de Activos y Financiamiento del Terrorismo realizado por GAFILAT en el año 2015, al evaluar el cumplimiento de la recomendación 32 de GAFI, concluyó que para el caso del lavado de activos relacionada con la declaración de ingresos y egresos transfronterizos de dinero efectivo, además de la sanción prevista en el numeral 35 de la Ley N° 8204, indicó que: “entraría en la cobertura de los Art. 69 y 69 bis de la misma Ley 8204, para efectos sancionatorios, así como con las disposiciones correspondientes de la cita Ley para el comiso de bienes” (Grupo de Acción Financiera de Latinoamérica. Informe de Evaluación Mutua de la República de Costa Rica , 2015, consultado en http://www.gafilat.org/UserFiles/Biblioteca/Evaluaciones/IEM%204ta%20Ronda/IEM_Costa_Rica_Final%20(1).pdf). Si bien las recomendaciones, notas interpretativas y evaluaciones de GAFI no constituyen una norma de carácter vinculante, si son una fuente informativa que permite dilucidar en relación con su contexto histórico, la naturaleza del sistema declarativo aduanera relacionado con el transporte de efectivo y establecer su relación con el lavado de activos. Desde esta óptica, a partir del análisis de la normativa de psicotrópicos, la Recomendación Especial IX y la Recomendación 32 de GAFI, incluyendo sus notas interpretativas, se puede concluir con meridiana claridad que uno de los controles para evitar el lavado de dinero, es aquel previsto en el artículo 35 de la Ley Psicotrópicos y que se refiere a la declaración de los montos en dinero superiores a los $10.000,00 en efectivo. Por otra parte, debe notarse que las acciones desplegadas por los encartados, estaban dirigidas a evadir la primera barrera de contención para el lavado de activos establecida en las fronteras costarricenses, es decir, la declaración de los montos de dinero transportados en efectivo, mediante el ocultamiento del dinero proveniente del narcotráfico en el doble forro del camión, acción que se enmarca dentro de lo que en doctrina se conoce como la etapa de colocación o “placement”. En este sentido, la sentencia 563-2014 del Tribunal Penal del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, al realizar el análisis jurídico de la conducta de Roy Araya Guadamuz, consideró que “Incluso véase que hay un hecho específico que se ubica en la primera etapa de la delincuencia y es el acontecido el día 20 julio del 2007, en donde tal cual se describió en el considerando anterior y en los hechos probados, se sorprende a Wilberth Valverde Fernández con un alijo de dinero oculto en un compartimiento secreto dentro del camión que conducía procedente del norte de América Central. Este hecho es propio de la primera etapa, sea la del ingreso físico del dinero al país y la relación con Roy Araya es total en cuanto se ha dicho, tal operación de ingreso del dinero había sido gestada por Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny y Roym como pago de la labor del transporte de cocaína” (f. 5457 del tomo XIII del legajo de investigación). Asimismo, al realizar el análisis jurídico de las conductas de Antonio Ugalde Jiménez, el a quo consideró que: “Recuérdese que hay un hecho en específico que se ubica en la primera etapa de la delincuencia y es el acontecido el día 20 julio del 2007, en donde tal cual se describió en considerando anterior y en los hechos probados, se sorprende a Wilberth Valverde Fernández con un alijo de dinero oculto un (sic) compartimiento secreto dentro del camión que conducía procedente del norte de América Central. Este hecho es propio de la primera etapa, sea la del ingreso físico del dinero al país y la relación con Roy Araya es total en cuanto se ha dicho, tal operación de ingreso del dinero había sido gestada por Wilberth, Antonio, Jhonny y Roy, como pago de la labor de transporte de cocaína. Momento que según se ha dicho supra, resulta ser la etapa de mayor debilidad de los lavadores, tanto por las personas que la llevan a cabo, cuanto por la falta de apariencia de legalidad, la que sí se nota en las etapas posteriores. Precisamente esa debilidad permitió la captura en esa etapa inicial, cuando es más fácil detectar el origen ilícito del dinero” (5476-5477 del tomo XIII del legajo de investigación). Asimismo, en la resolución impugnada se tuvo por probado que “Además, los elementos de convicción surgidos de las probanzas antes apuntadas, se cotejaron y vincularon por el a quo con los resultados materiales de la investigación, sean el decomiso de una suma de dinero cercana a los 2.5 millones de dólares en la frontera con de Peñas Blancas, la que estaba oculta en un compartimiento especial hecho en un contenedor que transportaba el co encartado Wilberth Valverde Fernández el 20 de julio de 2007 […] destacando que la incautación de tal suma de dinero es propia de la primera fase de la legitimación de capitales, la cual consiste en el ingreso físico a material de los haberes económicos ilícitos para de seguido incluirlos al giro económico lícito, en este caso de nuestro país” (f. 6192, frente y vuelto). Desde esta perspectiva, se logra desprender de los hechos probados y de las consideraciones jurídicas tanto del Tribunal Penal como del Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal, que una de las razones por las cuales aplicó a los encartado el artículo 69 de la Ley N° 8204, se debió al transporte de dos millones, cuatrocientos veinte mil dólares ($2.420.000,00) originados del narcotráfico, que fueron trasladados desde la parte norte de América Central, hasta Costa Rica. En este sentido, la doctrina ha considerado que dicho transporte físico, constituye una acción típica propia del lavado de dinero, indicando que “ se suelen conformar estructuras integradas por numerosas personas –muchas de las cuales no tienen contacto entre sí- ubicadas en diversos lugares del mundo, a través de quienes va pasando el producto del ilícito, sometiéndolo a la sucesivas etapas y bajo innumerables modalidades, incluyendo sofisticadas operaciones financieras con intervención de entidades bancarias, interposición de actividades comerciales, utilización de sociedades, simulación de operaciones mercantiles, etc. Muchas veces, para interconectar esos eslabones que en conjunto permiten simular el origen ilícito, se recurre al transporte físico del dinero, al menos en algún tramo del proceso” (ROBIGLIO, Carolina, Contrabando de dinero, Ad-Hoc SRL, primera edición, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2015, pag.88). La utilización del transporte físico como modalidad del delito de legitimación de capitales, fue abordada por el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, mediante resolución 2011-00221, de las 14:45 horas, del 15 de junio de 2011, donde con ocasión del descubrimiento del $510.000,00 en un doble forro de una maleta en el Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santa María, indicó que: “El blanqueo opera, en consecuencia, con los esquemas del crimen organizado. Así como, por ejemplo, para el tráfico de drogas se buscan alianzas para fabricar la droga, transportarla, comercializarla, así también para lograr introducir las ganancias en el giro de actividades lícitas se busca el consorcio con personas de distinta naturaleza, que fungen como “burros” que trasladen físicamente el dinero entre distintos territorios, profesionales que lo movilicen en sus viajes o negocios o que lo introduzcan mediante operaciones legales en inversiones; transportistas que llevan mercadería de un país a otro, casas de cambio o bancos en países de escasa regulación en materia financiera y de blanqueo, conocidos como “paraísos fiscales” para mover las inversiones y lavar los capitales. […] Se utilizan mecanismos como dobles forros en los automóviles, en las maletas o equipaje y no se encuentra explicación razonable para el origen del dinero; también los cambios de divisas, especialmente cuando se quieren fraccionar y las operaciones de cambio de dinero de alta denominación a baja o viceversa”. Asimismo, con ocasión del descubrimiento del $600.000,00 ocultos en el compartimiento de la batería de un autobús de la empresa Tica Bus, cuando trataban de salir de Costa Rica por la frontera de Panamá, el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal de Cartago, mediante resolución 2013-000574 de las 15:47 horas, del 2 de diciembre de 2013, ratificó que dichos hechos se adecuaban a la conducta prevista en el inciso b) del artículo 69 de la Ley N° 8204, por cuanto los encartados ocultaron la suma antes indicada. En derecho comparado, otros países como Perú, han establecido normas concretas para la responsabilidad penal por el traslado físico del dinero a través de sus fronteras, cuando éste tiene un origen delictivo. En este sentido, mediante el Decreto Legislativo N° 1106 denominado “ Decreto Legislativo de Lucha Eficaz Contra el Lavado de Activos y Otros Delitos Relacionado a la Minería Ilegal y Crimen Organizado”, se tipificó en el artículo 3 el delito de transporte, traslado, ingreso o salida por territorio nacional de dinero o títulos valores de origen ilícito, el cual sanciona con una penas de 8 a 15 años de prisión y multa de 120 a 350 días, a quien “transporta o traslada dentro del territorio nacional dinero o títulos valores cuyo origen ilícito conoce o debía presumir, con la finalidad de evitar la identificación de su origen, su incautación o decomiso; a hace ingresar o salir del país tales bienes con igual finalidad”. Sin embargo, dicha modificación legal no es necesaria en la legislación costarricense, toda vez que la conducta establecida en el inciso b) del artículo 69 en correlación con el numeral 35 de la Ley N° 8204, permite la sanción por el traslado físico del dinero, cuando este se oculta para ser ingresado en territorio nacional, evadiendo los controles para la detección del lavado de dinero. Ahora bien, no se trata de que el simple traslado del dinero configura per se el delito objeto de análisis, sino que en este caso concreto, la conducta se configura porque precisamente dicho traslado implicó la evasión de los controles anti-lavado de dinero. Por estas razones, considerando que: según los hechos probados se tiene por acreditado que el 20 de julio de 2007, en Peñas Blancas, los encartados ocultaron en un doble forro dos millones cuatrocientos veinte mil dólares ($2.420.000,00) producto de la narcoactividad; dicho dinero, pretendía ser ingresado a territorio costarricense, evadiendo el control sobre el transporte físico de dinero establecido en el artículo 35 de la Ley N° 8204; según se desprende de la evolución de la normativa de psicotrópicos, así como de las recomendaciones y notas interpretativas de GAFI asumidas por GAFILAT, la declaración de sumas superiores a los $10.000,00 al ingresar o salir del territorio constituye una medida contra el lavado de dinero; y que el inciso b) del artículo 69 de la Ley N° 8204 sanciona a quien oculta la verdadera naturaleza de bienes producto de un delito grave; se concluye que los hechos se adecúan del delito de legitimación de capitales previsto en la legislación costarricense. B) la ausencia de subsunción de la conducta de legitimación de capitales, en el delito de tráfico de estupefacientes. Contrario a lo establecido por los recurrentes, la conducta del tráfico de estupefaciente no subsume el delito de legitimación de capitales, toda vez que se trata de bienes jurídicos distintos, protegidos mediante disposiciones penales diversas y en el caso concreto, el traslado físico del dinero no constituye parte de la fase agotamiento del delito infracción a la ley de psicotrópicos por transporte de droga. Como antecedente, es oportuno mencionar que el origen del concepto de lavado de dinero se puede dividir en cuatro etapas: la primera, se remonta a los EE. UU., cuando el comercio de bebidas alcohólicas no estaba permitido y los criminales organizados traficantes de estos bienes, usaban lavanderías para reinsertar en el tráfico legal el dinero obtenido lícitamente, aunque debe aclararse el término “lavado de dinero”, fue utilizado por primera vez en la prensa con ocasión del caso “Watergate” en 1972, cuando se hicieron movimientos de fondos para ocultar la verdadera fuente de financiamiento de la campaña de reelección del entonces presidente de EE.UU. Richard Nixon, aunque para dicho momento aún no se penalizaba la legitimación de capitales y se trataba del ocultamiento de dinero lícito; la segunda, tiene lugar 1986 con la creación “Money Laundering Control Act” en EE.UU., cuando se requiere una conexión del lavado de dinero con un delito; la tercera, con la internacionalización del lavado de activos, donde resalta la emisión de la “Convención de las Naciones Unidas Contra el Tráfico Ilícito de Estupefacientes y Sustancias Psicotrópicas” en 1988, mediante la cual se impuso la obligación a los Estados de tipificar el delito de lavado de activos en relación con el tráfico de estupefacientes; la cuarta, se identifica con la preocupación del lavado de activos relacionado con el tráfico de estupefacientes y la necesidad de fiscalización bancaria, lo que en 1989 dio origen a la creación GAFI como cuerpo intergubernamental, con el objeto de fijar estándares y promover la implementación de medidas legales, administrativas y operacionales, para combatir el lavado de dinero, financiamiento del terrorismo y otras amenazas relacionadas con la integridad del sistema financiero internacional, (WINTER ETCHEBERRY, Jaime, La regulación internacional del lavado de activos y el mismo financiamiento del terrorismo, Lavado de activos y compliance, perspectiva internacional y derecho comparado, Juristas Editories E.I.R.L., primera edición, Lima, 2015, pag. 99-107). En relación con la internacionalización de la legitimación de capitales, la Convención de Viena tiene como origen la resolución 39/141 de la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, del 14 de diciembre de 1984, mediante la cual se solicitó al Consejo Económico y Social de las Naciones Unidas que a su vez, solicitara a la Comisión de Estupefacientes redactar un proyecto de convención contra el narcotráfico en su trigésimo primer periodo de sesiones, celebrado en febrero de 1985. Finalmente, luego de participar en la conferencia de Naciones Unidas para la aprobación de la Convención en Neue Hofburg, Viena, del 25 de noviembre al 20 de diciembre de 1988, el citado cuerpo normativo fue aprobado 19 de diciembre de 1988 y la Convención fue firmada por Costa Rica el 25 de abril de 1989 en la Secretaría General de las Naciones Unidas en New York, superando de esta forma la Convención Única de 1961 Sobre Estupefacientes y el Convenio de 1971 Sobre Sustancias Psicotrópicas (ver expediente del Proyecto de Ley 10881, folios 2-3, consultado en http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc=1738). Posteriormente, la Convención de Viena de 1988, fue ratificada por Costa Rica mediante Ley N° 7198, del 25 septiembre de 1990, reconociendo en su preámbulo que el tráfico ilícito, genera considerables rendimientos financieros y grandes fortunas que permiten a las organizaciones delictivas transnacionales invadir, contaminar y corromper las estructuras de la administración pública, las actividades comerciales y financieras lícitas y la sociedad a todos sus niveles, con la finalidad de privar a las personas dedicadas al tráfico ilícito del producto de sus actividades delictivas, eliminando así su principal incentivo para tal actividad. Dicha Convención, en su artículo 3, inciso b), punto ii), estableció la obligación de los Estados de tipificar “La ocultación o el encubrimiento de la naturaleza, el origen, la ubicación, el destino, el movimiento o la propiedad reales de bienes, o de derechos relativos a tales bienes, a sabiendas de que proceden de alguno o de algunos de los delitos tipificados de conformidad con el inciso a) del presente párrafo o de un acto de participación en tal delito o delitos”. Mientras Costa Rica formaba parte activa en el proceso de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas Contra el Tráfico Ilícito de Estupefacientes y Sustancias Psicotrópica, el 12 de mayo 1987 se presentó ante la Asamblea Legislativa el Proyecto N° 10471, mediante el cual se tipificó por primera vez el delito de legitimación de capitales, justificándose en la tipos penales y en términos generales se aumentan considerablemente todas las penas. Entre esos nuevos delitos, mención especial merece el artículo trece, que tiene (sic) a sancionar al comúnmente llamado “lavado de dólares” o “blanqueo de capitales” (ver expediente del proyecto de Ley N° 10471, folio 5, consultado en http:// N° 7093, del 22 de abril de 1988, previendo en su artículo 15 una sanción de 8 a 15 años de prisión: “a quien realice cualquier acto o contrato, real o simulado, de adquisición, posesión, transferencia o disposición de bienes, tendente a ocultar o a encubrir el origen de recursos económicos obtenidos por medio del tráfico ilícito de drogas o de delitos relacionados con esa actividad, independientemente del lugar en donde el acto ilícito se haya cometido. Cuando el hecho se hubiere cometido en el extranjero, su comisión podrá acreditarse por cualquier medio”. A partir de la lectura de la primera versión del delito de legitimación de capitales y la firma de la Convención citada supra, es posible descartar la tesis planteada por la defensa, concluyendo que el delito de legitimación de capitales no se encuentra subsumido en el delito de tráfico de estupefacientes (en su modalidad de transporte) y mas bien, precisamente con ocasión de los delitos de narcotráfico es que surge inicialmente el delito de lavado de dinero, ampliando luego su ámbito de cobertura a todos aquellos delitos considerados como graves. Según se legitimación de capitales, obedece a la necesidad de privar del producto de las actividades delictivas, en razón de la invasión, contaminación y corrupción de la administración pública, las actividades comerciales y financieras lícitas, así como de la sociedad en todos sus niveles, quedando claro que el bien jurídico protegido en este caso, es el orden socioeconómico y no la administración de justicia, como plantean algunos sectores de la doctrina nacional (cfr. HERNANDEZ RAMÍREZ, Guillermo, Especiales características de los juicios de antijuridicidad y culpabilidad en el delito de legitimación de capitales, Derecho penal económico y de empresa, Editorial Jurídico Continental, primera edición, San José, C.R., 2013, pag. 514.; CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, primera edición, San José, C.R., 2012, pag. 58-67). Aunado a lo anterior, en la exposición de motivos de la Ley N° 7786, la cual deroga mediante referencia expresa del ordinal 111 las anteriores leyes de psicotrópicos (Ley N° 7093 y Ley N° 7233), se reconoce que el bien jurídico protegido por la legislación del lavado de activos no corresponde a la administración de justicia, sino al orden socioeconómico. Así, el Proyecto de Ley N° 12539, el cual dio origen a la Ley N° 7786, indica que: “Una de las problemáticas que con mayor fuerza ha penetrado en nuestro país es la referente al “lavado de dólares” . En el presente proyecto de reforma de ley, dicha temática ha sido abordada con especial interés debido a las graves consecuencias que tal actividad trae al sistema económico, y por ende, también a la sociedad en general de nuestro país. Es por ello que se busca brindar un mayor marco de acción y competencia a dos instituciones que juegan un importantísimo papel de control de las actividades financieras que se llevan a cabo en Costa Rica, nos referimos a la Auditoría General de Entidades Financieras y la Comisión de Valores, permitiéndoles la implementación de medidas realmente efectivas para prevenir la penetración en nuestro sistema económico de capitales provenientes del narcotráfico y actividades conexas. Asimismo, y quizá lo más destacable ha sido la inclusión de un nuevo tipo penal que sanciona la actividad del “lavado de dinero” y que deja de lado las imprecisiones y obstáculos que contenía el anterior tipo y que hacía de la persecución de estas actividades una tarea prácticamente irrealizable ” (subrayado no corresponde al original, f. 5-6 del expediente del Proyecto de Ley N° 12539, consultado en http://expedientes.asamblea.go.cr/eIntegrator31/document.aspx?doc= 3522). No se trata en este caso de afirmar que el simple transporte del dinero producto del comercio, la venta, el transporte o de cualquiera de las otras modalidades establecidas en el numeral 58 de la Ley N° 8204, configura el delito de legitimación de capitales, sino únicamente aquel transporte que implique la evasión de medidas establecidas en contra del lavado de dinero, como la referida en el punto a) desarrollado supra y establecido en el artículo 35 de la Ley de Psicotrópicos. Nótese que por ejemplo, la venta en territorio nacional del estupefaciente realizada por un individuo y el traslado de la ganancia o dinero producto de la venta estupefaciente hasta su casa de habitación, es insuficiente para configurar el delito de legitimación de capitales, toda vez que dicha acción no implica per se una acción de ocultamiento o encubrimiento de medidas en contra del lavado de activos. Distinto ocurre con una venta de estupefaciente realizada en el extranjero, donde el producto del delito puede permanecer fuera del territorio nacional para su disfrute, sin embargo, al ingresar el dinero a Costa Rica ocultando el origen o la naturaleza del dinero y evadiendo las medidas control antilavado, se lesiona un bien jurídico distinto de la Salud Pública, en este caso el orden socioeconómico, por lo que es imposible considerar que el disvalor de la acción se encuentra contenido el ilícito de narcotráfico. Tampoco puede decirse que en el supuesto objeto de análisis, nos encontramos en la fase de agotamiento del delito, ya que el encartado pudo disfrutar del bien en el exterior, pero decide introducirlo a Costa Rica, generando una afectación abstracta en el mercado económico. Se debe reiterar tal como se expuso en el punto a) desarrollado supra, que originalmente las disposiciones del lavado de dinero, se encontraban específicamente encaminadas a sancionar las ganancias producto del tráfico de estupefaciente, por lo que deviene en contradictorio ahora excluir el delito de legitimación de capitales, cuando la actividad ilícita previa es el narcotráfico, si precisamente el origen de la norma se remonta a la necesidad paliar los efectos perjudiciales relacionados con el sistema económico y el trafico de capitales, generados por las ganancias producto del narcotráfico. Por estas razones, considerando que: el disvalor de la acción no se encuentra contenido dentro del tipo penal narcotráfico; el delito de legitimación de capitales surge precisamente para sancionar la conductas de aprovechamiento de las ganancias producto de tráfico de estupefacientes; y que el delito de legitimación de capitales contiene una regulación independiente en el ordenamiento jurídico; se concluye que la legitimación de capitales es una conducta que no se encuentra subsumida en el ilícito tráfico de estupefacientes. C) Posibilidad de comisión del delito de legitimación de capitales, por el autor del delito anterior o precedente. Una vez aceptado que el transporte físico de dinero producto del narcotráfico, es típico del delito de legitimación de capitales y que este último, no necesariamente se encuentra subsumido dentro del primero, se debe descartar la posibilidad de aplicar el artículo 69 de la Ley N° 8204 únicamente a los supuestos en que el autor de ambos ilícitos, sea un sujeto distinto. En este sentido, es necesario destacar que la doctrina suele distinguir entre autoencubrimiento simple y autoencubrimiento calificado: el primero, corresponde a aquel donde el autor de un delito previo realiza el encubrimiento de la acción, con el fin de eludir la sanción por el hecho o hace desaparecer los rastros, pruebas o instrumentos de la conducta delictiva o asegura el provecho del mismo sin realizar otro injusto típico, acciones que resultan impunes; el segundo, se presenta cuando el autor lesiona con el encubrimiento varias leyes penales independientes (CASTILLO GONZÁLEZ, Francisco, El delito de legitimación de capitales, Editorial Jurídica Continental, primera edición, San José C.R., 2012, pag. 70-74). En sentido, valga aclarar que si bien los delitos de encubrimiento del Código Penal se encuentran definidos en un tipo penal independiente, los cuales tutelan un bien jurídico distinto, concretamente la administración de justicia, por disposición expresa del legislador, éste no puede ser cometido por el autor del delito primario. En este sentido, en el delito de favorecimiento personal regulado en el artículo 329 del Código Penal, sanciona a quien “ayudare a alguien a eludir las investigaciones de la autoridad o substraerse a la acción de éste u omitiere denunciar al hecho estando obligado a hacerlo”; el delito de receptación establecido en artículo 330 de la normativa sustantiva, tiene como sujeto activo a quien no participó en el delito; el delito de receptación de cosas de procedencia sospechosa, tipificado en el ordinal 331 de la ley de marras, sanciona a quien “recibiere bienes que de acuerdo a las circunstancias, debía presumir provenientes de un delito”; mientras que el delito de favorecimiento real, excluye de su aplicación a quien “de alguna manera, haya participado en el delito”. Sobre este particular, la doctrina extranjera también se ha ocupado de los problemas de subsunción de ambas normas, tomando como referencia los bienes jurídicos tutelados, indicando que “Sin embargo, desde consideraciones fundamentalmente teleológicas, se ha pretendido excluir del ámbito de posibles autores a los intervinientes en el delito previo. Esta exclusión se ha fundamentado en la estrecha vinculación del delito de lavado de activos con las figuras de receptación o el encubrimiento. […] El delito de lavado de activos tiene su propio fin de protección y sus propios criterios de interpretación, de manera que habrá que determinar si, desde su propia lógica de estructuración, resulta justificado sacar del ámbito de posibles sujetos activos a los intervinientes en el delito previo. En nuestra opinión, no hay fundamento consistente para realizar esta exclusión. Se trata de dos bienes jurídicos completamente distintos, pues el castigo por el lavado de activos no es un simple refuerzo del delito que genera los bienes sometidos a un proceso ilegal de legitimación, ni tampoco sanciona el ensombrecimiento de los activo hecho con la finalidad de evitar la persecución penal. Lo que criminaliza el lavado de activos es la creación ficticia de condiciones para disfrutar tranquilamente de los beneficios procedentes de una actividad delictiva. Los activos no se ocultan, por tanto, para evitar ser descubiertos o recuperado (aunque ello se consiga), sino que se busca ensombrecer su origen para luego integrarlos al sistema económico como ingresos aparantemente legales y poder disfrutar de todos sus beneficios. En consecuencia, no hay ninguna razón dogmática atendible para que los intervinientes en el delito previo no puedan ser autores del delito de lavado de activos” (GARCÍA CAVERO, Percy, El delito de lavado de activos, Euros Editores SRL, segunda edición, Buenos Aires, Arg., 2016, pag. 66-67). Por otra parte, como referencia puede observarse que en las 40 Recomendaciones de GAFI previamente mencionadas, se establece en el punto 3 que “Los países deben tipificar el lavado de activos en base a la Convención de Viena y la Convención de Palermo. Los países deben aplicar el delito de lavado de activos a todos los delitos graves, con la finalidad de incluir la mayor gama posible de delitos determinantes”. La nota interpretativa de dicha recomendación establece en su punto 6 que “Los países pueden disponer que el delito de lavado de activos no se aplica a las personas que cometieron el delito determinante, cuando así lo requieran los principios fundamentales de sus leyes internas”. Sin embargo, a partir de la lectura del tipo penal descrito en el numeral 69 de la Ley N° 8204, se desprende que dicha facultad de exclusión no fue ejercida para todos los supuesto descritos por el legislador. En este sentido, la segunda de las acciones descrita en el inciso a) del numeral comentario, establece que incurre en el delito quien “ayude a la persona que haya participado en las infracciones, a eludir las consecuencias legales de sus actos”, por lo que únicamente dicha modalidad no puede ser realizada por el autor del delito, situación que no se presenta en el inciso b) del mismo numeral. Nótese que cuando el delito de legitimación de capitales se encontraba previsto en el artículo 15 de la Ley N° 7093, se presentó una acción de inconstitucionalidad de donde se extrae que el autor del delito de narcotráfico previsto en ese entonces en el artículo 14 del mismo cuerpo normativo, podía cometer a su vez el delito de legitimación de capitales en concurso material. En este orden de ideas, mediante resolución de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, de las 16:15 horas, del 11 de junio de 1990, se indicó que: “La lectura del numeral 15 que aquí se impugna es claro y no permite entender que se trata de un simple " encubrimiento “, sino que la acción del agente se ubica dentro de otra fase de toda una compleja organización que se dedica al tráfico internacional de drogas. Un autor del delito establecido en el artículo 15, no necesariamente incurre en el que prevé y sanciona el artículo 14 de la ley, mas nada impide que ambos, según las circunstancias, se puedan realizar en concurso material. De toda suerte, y aquí cabe reiterar el señalamiento previo, estamos ante consideraciones de mera legalidad que no son de recibo en este proceso constitucional, aunque la Sala las formula como análisis obligado de la tesis sostenida en la acción. Bien puede el legislador constituir en figura autónoma una acción que, caso contrario, sería un dispositivo amplificador del tipo, y sobre este particular pueden citarse, a manera de ejemplo, lo establecido en los artículos 271, 298 y 343 del Código Penal” (subrayado no corresponde al original). Posteriormente, dicha Cámara estableció con claridad que la sanción del mismo autor en ambos delitos, corresponde a una situación de política criminal, indicando que: “La Sala ya sentó que es materia de política legislativa incluso elevar a delito lo que técnicamente podría ser materia de encubrimiento […]A demás, como también quedó consignado supra, podría pensarse en un concurso de delitos (de los ilícitos contenidos en los artículos 14 y 15 ) , y también en situaciones perfectamente deslindables, como la propia experiencia reciente nos lo indica, en que las personas que participan (por ejemplo) en la etapa de comercialización de drogas ilícitas, encargan a otras para que intervengan en la siguiente y no menos importante, de "limpiar", o como también se dice, "sacar de sospecha" a los dineros que provienen de aquella actividad” (subrayado no corresponde al original). Por estas razones, considerando: la distinta naturaleza del delito de lavado de activos frente a los delitos en contra de la administración de justicia; la política criminal de legislador que desprende de la lectura del tipo penal; y las interpretaciones de la Sala Constitucional donde se posibilita la sanción del autor del delito de narcotráfico como sujeto activo de la legitimación de capitales; se concluye que el autor del delito de legitimación de capitales por ocultación o encubrimiento, puede ser el mismo autor del delito de narcotráfico. Con base en los razonamientos expuestos y por ende, aunque por diversas razones a las apuntadas por la compañera magistrada y compañeros magistrados, el artículo 69 de la Ley N° 8204 fue correctamente aplicado en la resolución impugnada.”