Criminal defense in crimes against public administration
Representation of public officials, former officials, contractors, executives and private individuals in investigations related to the exercise of public office, government contracting and the management of public funds.
Discuss the caseA defense that requires understanding public office
These proceedings cannot be analyzed solely through the Criminal Code. They frequently require reviewing powers, delegations, contracts, administrative decisions, technical reports and the responsibilities assigned to each party involved.
The defense starts by reconstructing the facts, delimiting each person's actual functions and establishing whether the specific elements of the alleged offense are met.
Matters we handle
Embezzlement
Investigations related to the misappropriation, use or diversion of assets and resources subject to public administration.
Bribery and extortion by officials
Proceedings for offering, giving, soliciting or receiving benefits linked to the exercise of a public function.
Government contracting
Defense in investigations for undue interest, contracts entered into without meeting legal requirements, and other conduct linked to contracting decisions.
Abuse of authority and influence peddling
Review of official decisions, opinions, administrative actions and possible undue interventions before public officials.
Illicit enrichment
Review of the increase in assets under investigation, its documentary justification and its possible connection to the position held.
Liability of private individuals
Representation of contractors, supervisors, business owners and other individuals who may be linked to investigations related to public administration.
Who do we represent?
The practice covers the defense of public officials and former officials, mayors, governors, spending officers, supervisors, contractors, private individuals and executives of companies linked to government contracts.
Defense at every stage
Representation can begin from the earliest proceedings and continue through every procedural stage, as part of the criminal defense and representation:
An irregularity does not automatically constitute a crime
A contractual, budgetary or administrative deficiency does not by itself prove criminal liability.
It is necessary to establish the competence of the person under investigation, their specific involvement, their knowledge of the facts and compliance with the elements required by the criminal offense.
Delegation, supervision and the involvement of other officials likewise do not produce automatic answers. Each responsibility must be examined individually.
Parallel investigations
The same facts may give rise to criminal, disciplinary, fiscal, administrative, contractual or asset-related proceedings. The strategy must coordinate these scenarios to avoid contradictions and fully protect the client's legal position.
Frequently asked questions
No. The existence of an administrative irregularity does not by itself establish criminal liability.
Yes, depending on their involvement, the conduct under investigation and their relationship to public office or the resources managed.
Not necessarily. The delegated functions, the retained authority and each person’s actual involvement must be examined.
Yes. They are different proceedings, even if they arise from the same facts.
Yes. The information provided to review the case is protected by professional privilege.
Related publications
Consultation on a criminal investigation or proceeding
The consultation allows for review of the procedural stage, the relevant facts, the available documentation and the applicable legal alternatives.
Request a consultation