Farmer paid off debt but still threatened with land loss in Paraguay's promissory note scheme

A rural producer paid off his debt but remains threatened with losing his land, two lawyers were convicted for actions with false documents, and the first trial of the scheme was suspended, leading to a complaint against judges for undue delay.

Farmer paid off debt but still threatened with land loss in Paraguay's promissory note scheme

An 80-year-old farmer, Jeova Leandro Da Silva, is at risk of losing his property in a judicial auction, even after fully paying off a debt of USD 35,780 in 2015. The promissory note, already canceled, was later endorsed to the company Credi Merco S.A., which filed an enforcement action demanding USD 116,000. Although a judge in Itakyry recognized the debt's extinction, a parallel process in Minga Porá maintains the threat of expropriation, taking the case to the Senate's Special Commission investigating the scheme known as the "Promissory Note Mafia."

Meanwhile, two lawyers involved in the scheme, Patricia Adriana Parodi Cantero and Blas Antonio Rodríguez Galeano, accepted the charges in an abbreviated procedure. They were sentenced to two years in prison with a suspended sentence. According to the Public Ministry, they filed enforcement actions with falsified documents. As part of the agreement, Parodi will pay 75 million Paraguayan guaranis (G.) in social reparation to hospitals, and Rodríguez will pay G. 88 million to charitable institutions.

The progress of the investigations suffered a setback with the suspension of the first oral trial related to the scheme. Lawyer Noelia Núñez, representing the victim Ángela Mabel Zárate Ortigoza, filed a disciplinary complaint against the members of the Sentencing Tribunal of Presidente Hayes. She alleges that the unjustified absence of Judge Corina Sanabria and the actions of the other magistrates resulted in an undue delay of the process, frustrating the start of the trial against the owners of the firm Vanessa y Asociados.

The complaint, presented to the Superintendence Council of the Supreme Court of Justice, requests the opening of an administrative summary, an audit of the tribunal, and for the case to be referred to the Magistrates' Impeachment Jury (JEM). The filing argues that the actions could constitute serious misconduct and poor performance of duties, violating principles such as procedural speed.

Share WhatsApp Facebook LinkedIn

Sources (3)

Updated: Aug 19, 2026, 1:00 AM