The Specialized Criminal Guarantees Court for Economic Crimes, under the direction of Judge Humberto Otazú, rejected the motion for reconsideration filed by the defense of former Minister of Public Works and Communications Arnoldo Wiens and upheld the charges against him in the Metrobús case. With this ruling, the March 4, 2026 ruling that admitted the opening of criminal proceedings remains in effect.
The case, titled "Ramón Milcíades Jiménez Gaona Arellano and others / Breach of trust," investigates alleged acts of public corruption linked to the transportation project. The charges against Wiens were brought on February 13, 2026, by prosecutors Nathalia Silva, Yeimy Adle, and Giovanni Grisetti, who identify him as the perpetrator of the criminal offense of breach of trust.
According to the Public Prosecutor's Office's hypothesis, during his tenure as minister, Wiens allegedly signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the construction firm Mota-Engil with the aim of definitively suspending the Metrobús works. After signing, the former minister allegedly abandoned the continuity of the urban project, ordering the demolition of the stations already built. According to the prosecutors, these actions caused considerable financial harm to the Paraguayan state.
Wiens' legal defense, handled by attorneys Alfredo Enrique Kronawetter and Cecilia Pérez, had challenged the admission of the case, arguing that the charging document presented substantial flaws and did not meet the formal requirements demanded by law. The defenders argued that the court altered the theory of the case by excluding one of the criminal offenses initially proposed by the Public Prosecutor's Office — damage to constructed works or technical work means — which, in their view, disrupted the correlation between the facts and the legal classification. They also maintained that the same factual hypothesis had already been the subject of a final dismissal in favor of other co-defendants in the case.
After the hearing held on June 1 with the presence of all parties, Judge Humberto Otazú concluded that the prosecution's request fully complied with procedural rules and the precedents of the Supreme Court of Justice. The magistrate determined that the defendant was correctly identified, the attributed facts were described succinctly, and a theory of the case was established with a reasonable six-month deadline for investigation.
The judicial resolution notes that suspicion at this initial procedural stage is a "provisional judgment" strictly subject to the results of pending proceedings. Given the rejection of the motion for reconsideration at first instance, the court ordered the processing of the subsidiary appeal filed jointly by the defense attorneys. The electronic case file will be formally sent to the Specialized Court of Appeals for Economic Crimes and Organized Crime, which will analyze the merits of the matter. The resolution also imposed court costs with costs imposed on the losing party.