Photo: Carlos Caicedo, former mayor of Santa Marta and former governor of Magdalena
JULY 29, 2026
Carlos Caicedo: first-instance conviction in the health facilities case
The criminal case against Carlos Caicedo over contracts for health facilities in Santa Marta reached a first decision on the merits, in a matter analyzed under crimes against public administration.
The trial court convicted him in first instance of contracting without compliance with statutory requirements, in conjunction with misappropriation of public funds, in a case tied to a 2014 contract to renovate five health facilities.
The defense contested the prosecution's theory at trial and announced it will appeal the judgment. As a result, the legal dispute will continue before the Bogotá Superior Court, and the ruling cannot be presented as final.
The prosecution had brought the case for misappropriation of public funds in favor of third parties and contracting without compliance with statutory requirements.
UPDATED AUGUST 1, 2026
On July 29, 2026, Bogotá's Ninth Criminal Circuit Court issued a first-instance conviction against Carlos Eduardo Caicedo Omar in connection with irregularities involving contracts for the renovation of five health facilities during his term as mayor of Santa Marta.
Public reports indicate that the court imposed a prison sentence of nine years and nine months and a fine of approximately COP 4.5 billion. The defense announced that it will appeal the judgment before the Bogotá Superior Court.
The decision materially changes the procedural status described in the original version of this article. It is not, however, a final judgment. The announced appeal will allow the appellate court to review the factual, evidentiary and legal grounds of the conviction.
These facts must be attributed to the public information available while the full text of the judgment has not yet been incorporated into this article.
The offenses behind Carlos Caicedo's conviction
The health-facilities case was brought against Carlos Caicedo for crimes against public administration, specifically contracting without compliance with statutory requirements and misappropriation of public funds in favor of third parties.
Contracting without compliance with statutory requirements penalizes a public official who processes, executes, or settles a state contract without observing essential legal requirements. Misappropriation in favor of third parties requires proof that resources or assets under the custody of a public function were improperly transferred into another person's assets.
Not every contractual irregularity gives rise to criminal liability. To convict Carlos Caicedo, the court had to find a violation of essential requirements, intentional conduct, and a proven link between his decisions, the irregular handling of funds, and the financial benefit obtained by third parties.
A mayor's liability when authority is delegated
One of the most significant issues in the case is how far a mayor's criminal liability extends over contracts whose processing or execution was delegated to other officials.
Holding the office of mayor or spending authority does not automatically produce criminal liability. Colombian law prohibits strict liability: no one may be convicted solely because of the office they held when the events occurred. The prosecution had to prove that Carlos Caicedo knew of the essential irregularities, took part in them, or knowingly allowed them to continue.
The full judgment will be essential to determine whether the conviction rested on direct acts by Carlos Caicedo, a guarantor position, his control over the contracting process, or a combination of these elements.
From trial to first-instance conviction
INVESTIGATION AND INDICTMENT
The prosecution attributed liability to Carlos Caicedo for irregularities related to a contract for the renovation of health facilities during his term as mayor of Santa Marta.
TRIAL
The case proceeded before Bogotá's Ninth Criminal Circuit Court, where the prosecution and the defense presented their respective evidence and arguments.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
In May 2026, the prosecution requested a conviction. The defense argued that criminal liability had not been proven, denied the existence of the alleged harm, and characterized the case as a judicial persecution. These claims reflect the defense's position, not established facts.
FIRST-INSTANCE CONVICTION
On July 29, 2026, the court delivered a first-instance conviction for contracting without compliance with statutory requirements and misappropriation of public funds.
APPEAL
The defense announced it will appeal the decision. The case file must be reviewed by the Bogotá Superior Court.
What did the court decide?
According to publicly known information, the court found that Carlos Caicedo bore criminal liability in authorizing and carrying out a contracting process for the renovation of five health facilities.
The decision reportedly concluded that the process did not meet the required legal requirements and that its execution allowed public funds to be misappropriated in favor of third parties. The reported sentence was nine years and nine months in prison, along with a fine of approximately COP 4.5 billion.
These findings correspond to the first-instance judgment. Their inclusion in this article does not mean they have become final, nor does it prevent them from being challenged through the announced appeal.
What has the defense argued?
Carlos Caicedo's defense, publicly led by attorney Iván Cancino, argued during the proceedings that the prosecution had not proven any misappropriation of funds or intentional conduct by the former mayor, that the health centers in question exist and are operating, and it characterized the case as a judicial persecution triggered around election periods.
After the decision was announced, the defense stated it will appeal and challenged the order concerning Carlos Caicedo's liberty while the judgment remains under review.
These arguments will need to be examined by the Bogotá Superior Court when it resolves the appeal. They are presented here as the position held by Caicedo's legal team, not as proven conclusions.
The conviction can be reviewed on appeal
The conviction may be appealed. Appellate review is not limited to formal matters: it must resolve the objections raised against the assessment of the evidence, the reconstruction of the facts, and the application of the criminal statutes.
The Bogotá Superior Court may confirm, modify, or overturn the first-instance decision, depending on the scope of the appeal and the outcome of its review. For that reason, three distinct moments must be distinguished: the content of the first-instance decision; the filing and grounds of the appeal; and the appellate court's decision and the eventual finality of the judgment.
Until the second-instance review is resolved, this article expressly identifies the conviction as a first-instance decision. In June 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed a constitutional action filed by Carlos Caicedo's defense seeking to admit interviews from a deceased former official, finding that the criminal proceeding was still ongoing and that the defense retained ordinary remedies to raise the issue. That discussion may resurface in the appeal.
Conviction, appeal, and liberty
The existence of an appeal does not, in every case, prevent a judge from issuing decisions affecting personal liberty after announcing a guilty verdict.
However, an order concerning liberty and the finality of criminal liability are separate matters. A person may be subject to a restrictive decision while the appeal proceeds, without that automatically turning the first-instance judgment into a final sentence. This article will be updated if a specific subsequent decision on custody, liberty, or enforcement of the sentence becomes known.
A specific case file
This article refers exclusively to the case involving contracts for health facilities in Santa Marta. The decision corresponds to a specific case file and does not determine the outcome of other investigations or proceedings involving Carlos Caicedo.
A first-instance conviction does not close the controversy
The procedural shift is significant: this is no longer merely an accusation by the prosecution, but a judicial decision that accepted the theory of liability in first instance.
At the same time, legal analysis requires precision. The appeal may challenge the existence of a criminally relevant contractual breach, the individual attribution of decisions, the assessment of the alleged harm, and the proof of misappropriation in favor of third parties.
Not every administrative irregularity automatically constitutes a crime against public administration. But when a court finds the elements of the offenses proven, it falls to the defense to identify, in the appeal, the specific factual, evidentiary, or legal errors that would justify modifying or overturning the conviction. The appellate court must rule on the arguments actually raised in the appeal.
Frequently asked questions
Yes. He received a first-instance conviction in the case involving contracts for the renovation of health facilities in Santa Marta.
No. His defense announced it will appeal, and the decision must be reviewed by the Bogotá Superior Court.
Public reports indicate a prison sentence of nine years and nine months and a fine of approximately COP 4.5 billion.
Contracting without compliance with statutory requirements, in conjunction with misappropriation of public funds.
Depending on its review of the appeal, it may confirm, modify, or overturn the challenged decision.
No. The appellate review examines the decision and the objections raised against it; it does not repeat the entire trial.
No. Each case must be resolved based on its own facts, evidence, and applicable rules.
Yes. It will be reviewed once the grounds for appeal, any decision on custody, or the second-instance judgment become known.
Sources and reference documents
Proceedings of Bogotá's Ninth Criminal Circuit Court.
Public information on the July 29, 2026 conviction.
The defense's public position.
Law 906 of 2004, articles 176 to 179.
Second-instance judgment, once issued.
Pedro Bonett — Criminal Defense Attorney, Asset Forfeiture and Asset Protection · Editorial policy
