Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Transparency agency and Las Tablas butt heads

Maytin and Herrera at loggerheads
Post Views: 119
THE MAYOR of Las Tablas is not happy with his town’s ranking in a transparency evaluation issued by  Panama’s Transparency and Access to Information Authority (Antai) and on Friday, Jan, 26 went to the institution’s office in the capital city to express his views.

What followed has further widened the gap between the municipality and the agency’s  director Angélica Maytín.

According to the Antai,  Mayor  Noé Iván Herrera, went to the offices with “aggressive behavior” and entered the upper office “without authorization, making claims in a disrespectful way, with defiant attitude and violating security “, while using  “inappropriate” words referring to Maytín.

The visit was the result of Herrera’s disagreement with Antai’s transparency evaluation of the Las Tablas municipality.

As part of its functions, the Antai periodically makes a measurement of the transparency of the websites of various institutions, public companies and municipalities.

The most recent report on the municipalities put  Las Tabl in the basement of the ranking with zero points, while Panama and La Chorrera took first place with 100 points.

“The staff in the upper office asked him to leave and he threatened go to the media, “said Antai, in a statement published  Saturday, Jan 27.

“We regret this type of behavior of an official who represents the highest authority of the municipality of Las Tablas, ” the statement said, adding that they are willing to receive complaints and denunciations “within the framework of respect”.

The mayor responded that he is being politically persecuted”, reports La Prensa.

“Since the Antai began to list the transparency of municipalities, Las Tablas has come in on three occasions as the municipality least transparent,” said  Herrera. He added that on the website of the municipality (lastablas.municipios.gob.pa) sits all the information of the spreadsheet and the projects that are carried out.

Herrera said that the official who attended him at the Antai  office had a defiant  attitude

defiant towards him, to which he did not respond because he is an authority.

He said that he will issue a statement on Monday to respond to Antai’s version of events.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not aware that Panama has a governmental transparency agency. Now that I am aware of such, I am very curious as to how Odebrecht happened? How did Blue Apple happen? Etc., etc.

Or did this agency come to fruition after those corruption issues, and perhaps as a result of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Moderators

Panama public bodies fail transparency test

Post Views: 102
NEARLY half of Panama’s public entities fail to comply with the transparency law that obliges them to publish key information on their websites says a recent report by the Transparency and Access to Information Authority (Antai).

According to the Antai, in January of this year, of a total of 122 institutions that have web pages 66 (54% comply with publishing on their sites 100% of the required public information.

Compared with the month of December, when 68 institutions had fulfilled 100%. the entities retreated in terms of transparency:

The report of the Antai highlights that only 18 institutions remain in the range of between 96% and 67% of compliance “which is still considered to be within the range and should improve”. The rest are below63% in compliance.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator_02 changed the title to Panama's Transparency Agency (Antai)
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Administrators

Only 33% trust Panama government – OECD

Post Views: 175
WHILE   The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has given Panama  a pat on the back  for adopting policies  directed towards transparency, a report issued on Monday, April 9 from the body’s headquarters in Paris  shows that that only 33% of Panamanians trusted the government  in 2016, a figure below the OECD average (37%).

Policies adopted  such as the reform of public procurement laws so that the administration be more transparent and competitive, or the new rules on transparency in management public, which provide for the openness and availability of information for the public got a positive rating in the report “Economic Perspectives of Latin America 2018” published jointly by the Development Center of the  OECD and  the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the Andean Development Corporation (CAF).

The report, which portrays the perception that citizens have of the public institutions, concludes that  Panama  occupies one of the top positions in the list However, the report, which portrays the perception that citizens have of public institutions, concludes that only 33% of Panamanians trusted the government in 2016, a figure below the OECD average (37%) The average for Latin America is at 29%. With Mexico the lowest in the region with 28%.

The document highlights that Panama has improved over the past decade in relation to the government effectiveness, going from 0.06 in 2005 to 0.30 in 2015, on a scale between -2.5 and 2.5, according to the World Governance Indicators.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • Moderators

Corruption in Central America: Perception or Reality?

In 2018, the perception of corruption in public institutions increased in all countries in the region, except Panama, where it remained the same as in 2017, and El Salvador, where it slightly decreased.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

As in previous years, Nicaragua's public sector continues to be considered the most corrupt in the region (level of transparency 25 on a scale of 0 to 100), followed by Guatemala (27), Honduras (29), El Salvador (35), Panama (37), and Costa Rica (56).

See: "Corruption as a Habit"

Transparency International stresses that "... With a 25 score, Nicaragua has lost four points in the CPI in the last seven years. This significant drop reflects the political landscape and recent events in the country. After more than a decade in power, President Daniel Ortega controls most of Nicaragua's democratic institutions, limiting their effectiveness and independence. In recent years, the President has also reduced the political rights of his citizens, who, despite facing violent repression, have taken to the streets in large numbers to protest his authoritarian government. Recently, several journalists and activists have been forced to leave the country because of threats they were receiving."

"... Despite still being at low levels, El Salvador, with 35 points, has improved 2 points from 2017. In this country, the judicial sector is promoting the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases committed by high-level individuals, including ex-presidents.

Also see: "What Central America is Losing Due to Corruption"

The report explains that in Guatemala President Jimmy Morales is one of the governments of the Americas that has a leadership that tends to "...

  • block free and independent media, especially when questioning leaders' messages
  • control and silence civil society and international organizations;
  • intensify the use of voting suppression and voter disqualification
  • use a language that is more xenophobic, racist and contrary to the LGTB collective.
  • make public promises based on simplistic and "hard hand" approaches to solving complex social problems
  • weaken the system of checks and balances and increase the power of the executive;
  • increase in conflicts of interest and private influence."

See Transparency International report for the Americas.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator_02 changed the title to Corruption in Central America, and Panama's Transparency Agency (Antai)
  • Moderators

Panama stuck in corruption index doldrums

Posted 01/02/2019
Panama remains in 37th position on the latest Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of 180 countries released by Berlin-based   Transparency International (TI) which has an active local chapter

The Index 2018. reveals a disturbing link between corruption and the health of democracies: countries with higher rates of corruption also have weaker democratic institutions and political rights.

The top and bottom of the index haven’t seen much change. Somalia, Syria and South Sudan have the lowest scores. Top performers include the Nordics – Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway – plus New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland. These countries mostly have several democratic attributes in common that help them keep corruption in their public sectors under control.

But many of the countries have also been involved in major corruption scandals

Denmark, which tops the list this year, has been rocked by the revelations of massive money-laundering at the Estonian branch of Danske Bank, the country’s biggest lender Danske, is spending hundreds of millions to fix the problem. .

Switzerland – particularly its banks and other financial intermediaries – is a regular feature in stories about stolen public money finding its way out of countries around the world.

The CPI doesn’t measure private-sector corruption like money laundering, tax fraud, foreign bribery, financial secrecy or illicit flows of money. It also doesn’t look at individual corruption cases.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Moderators

Panama corruption remains biggest challenge – US State Department


FAST growing economy but justice can take decades

Posted 15/07/2019

While  Panama has one of the fastest growing economies in the Western hemisphere corruption remains its biggest challenge says a US State Department report on  the investment climate released on July 11..

The report notes  that US investors claim that there is "rampant corruption" in both the private and public sectors and recalls that Panama ranked 93 out of 180 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index in 2018.

The State Department points out in particular land titling processes, "which have been very problematic for multiple US companies," some of which have had to wait decades for their cases to be resolved.

"The process to apply for permits or titles can be opaque and it has been known that public servants request payments at each step in the approval process."

Changing parameters
US investors also complain about the lack of transparency in public procurement. "The parameters of the bids change frequently during the bidding process, generating confusion and the perception that the government makes customized bids for certain companies."

The State Department recalls that Brazilian construction company Odebrecht admitted to paying $ 59 million in bribes to win public contracts, "but it is still doing business in Panama and actively participating in government projects."

"Panama lacks a strong system of checks and balances that could serve to encourage accountability," said the report before recalling that only the National Assembly can initiate investigations of corruption against judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and vice versa , which has led to a kind of non-aggression pact between the two institutions.

Poor education
The Treasury Department also highlights that Panama is the Central American economy that receives the most foreign direct investment and that it is one of the economies in the Western Hemisphere with the highest growth rate, with good credit, a strategic location and a stable government.

Despite these advantages, "Panama has challenges such as corruption, judicial capacity, a workforce with low education, as well as labor and financial issues, which could have prevented the arrival of new foreign investment or complicated existing investments."  



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator_02 changed the title to Corruption and Panama's Transparency Agency (Antai)
  • Moderators

2019 Investment Climate Statements: Panama

Panama - United States Department of State


Executive Summary

As the home of the Panama Canal, the world’s second largest free trade zone, and sophisticated logistics and finance operations, Panama attracts high levels of foreign direct investment from around the world and has great potential as a foreign direct investment (FDI) magnet and regional hub for a number of sectors.  Panama remains in the first position in attracting FDI in Central America, closing 2018 with USD 5,548.5 million, indicated by the latest report of Panama’s National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC).  The accumulated foreign investment of the United States in Panama represents 22.2 percent of the total at USD 1.21 billion.  Panama boasts one of the Western Hemisphere’s fastest growing economies, good credit, a strategic location, and a stable, democratically elected government.

Panama’s Ministry of Economy and Finance predicts the economy will grow by 4.5 percent in 2019, up from 3.7 percent in 2018.  Panama’s inflation rate was less than one percent as of the end of 2018. Panama’s sovereign debt rating is investment grade, with ratings of Baa1 (Moody’s), and BBB (Fitch; Standard & Poor’s).  The Panama Canal Authority inaugurated a USD 5.4 billion expansion of the Panama Canal in June 2016. The expansion has promoted increased investment in port systems operations, storage facilities, and logistics.  Panamanian President, Juan Carlos Varela, has sought to improve Panama’s image and investment climate profile. Panama retains one of the highest ratio of FDI to gross domestic product (GDP) in the region at 7.7 percent.  

Panama has challenges, including corruption, judicial capacity, a poorly educated workforce, and labor and banking issues, which have either precluded further investment from foreign companies or have complicated existing investments.  With a population of just over four million, Panama’s small market size for many companies is not worth the risk of investment. The World Bank classified Panama in July 2018 for the first time as a “high-income” jurisdiction in its annual country classifications after its Gross National Income per capita barely squeaked past the threshold for that classification.  Panama has the 12th highest Gini Coefficient in the world and a national poverty rate of 19 percent. This contrast is just one indicator of a growing disparity between the economic narrative and the reality of Panama’s working and middle classes.

Table 1: Key Metrics and Rankings

Measure Year Index/Rank Website Address
TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2018 93 of 175 http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview
World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2019 79 of 190 http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings
Global Innovation Index 2018 70 of 126 https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator
U.S. FDI in partner country ($M USD, stock positions) 2018 N/A http://www.bea.gov/international/factsheet/
World Bank GNI per capita 2018 N/A http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD

1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

Panama depends heavily on foreign investment and has worked to make the investment process attractive and simple.  With few exceptions, the Government of Panama makes no distinction between domestic and foreign companies for investment purposes.  Panama benefits from stable and consistent economic policies, a dollarized economy, and a government that consistently supports trade and open markets.

The United States runs a multi-billion dollar trade surplus with Panama.  Both countries signed a Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) that entered into force in October 2012.  The U.S.-Panama TPA has significantly liberalized trade in goods and services, including financial services.  The TPA also includes sections on customs administration and trade facilitation, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, government procurement, investment, telecommunications, electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, and labor and environmental protection.

Panama has one of the few Latin American economies that is predominantly services-based.  Services represent nearly 90 percent of Panama’s GDP. The TPA has improved U.S. firms’ access to Panama’s services sector and gives U.S. investors better access than other WTO Members under the General Agreement on Trade in Services.  All services sectors are covered under the TPA, except where Panama has made specific exceptions. Under the agreement, Panama has provided improved access in sectors like express delivery, and granted new access in certain areas that had previously been reserved for Panamanian nationals.  In addition, Panama is a full participant in the WTO Information Technology Agreement.

The office of Panama’s Vice Minister of International Trade within the Ministry of Commerce and Industry is the principal entity responsible for promoting and facilitating foreign investment and exports.  Through its Proinvex service (http://proinvex.mici.gob.pa) the government provides investors with information, expedites specific projects, leads investment-seeking missions abroad, and supports foreign investment missions to Panama.  In some cases, other government offices may work with investors to ensure that regulations and requirements for land use, employment, special investment incentives, business licensing, and other requirements are met.  While there is no formal investment screening by the GOP, the government does monitor large foreign investments.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

The Panamanian government does impose some limitations on foreign ownership in the retail and media sectors where, in most cases, ownership must be Panamanian.  However, foreign investors can continue to use franchise arrangements to own retail within the confines of Panamanian law (under the TPA, direct U.S. ownership of consumer retail is allowed in limited circumstances).

In addition to limitations on ownership, the exercise of approximately 55 professions is reserved for Panamanian nationals.  Medical practitioners, lawyers, accountants, and customs brokers must be Panamanian citizens. Most recently, the Panamanian government instituted a regulation requiring that ride share platforms use drivers that possess commercial licenses, which are available only to Panamanian nationals.  The Panamanian government also requires foreigners in some sectors to obtain explicit permission to work.

With the exceptions of retail trade, the media, and several professions, foreign and domestic entities have the right to establish, own, and dispose of business interests in virtually all forms of remunerative activity.  Foreigners need not be legally resident or physically present in Panama to establish corporations or to obtain local operating licenses for a foreign corporation. Business visas (and even citizenship) are readily obtainable for significant investors.

Other Investment Policy Reviews


Business Facilitation

Procedures regarding how to register foreign and domestic businesses, as well as how to obtain a notice of operation, can be found at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry’s website (https://www.panamaemprende.gob.pa/) where one may register a foreign company, create a branch of a registered business, or register as an individual trader from any part of the world.  Corporate applicants must submit notarized documents to the Mercantile Division of the Public Registry, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Social Security Institute.  Panamanian government statistics state that applications for foreign businesses take between one to six days to process.

The process for online business registration is clear and available to foreign companies.  Panama is ranked 48 out of 190 countries for starting a business and 99 out of 190 for protecting minority investors, according to the 2019 World Bank’s Doing Business Report (http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploreeconomies/panama#DB_rp).

Outward Investment

No data is presently available on outward investment.

2. Bilateral Investment Agreements and Taxation Treaties

The U.S.-Panama Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) entered into force in 1991 and was amended in 2001.  The BIT ensures that, with some exceptions, U.S. investors receive fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory treatment, and that both parties abide by international law standards, such as for expropriation and compensation and free transfers.  Following the October 31, 2012, implementation of the TPA, the investor protection provisions in the TPA have supplanted those in the BIT. However, until October 30, 2022, investors may choose to invoke dispute settlement under the BIT for disputes that arose prior to entry into force of the TPA, or for disputes relating to investment agreements that were completed before the TPA entered into force.  Panama has closely scrutinized, and in some cases disputed, which firms may qualify for preferred treatment under the BIT and TPA. Panama has a bilateral taxation treaty with the United States.

Panama also has 21 bilateral investment protection agreements with:  Argentina, Canada, Chile, Cuba, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Qatar, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.  Panama has signed three BITs that are pending entry into force: Belgium, Luxembourg, and United Arab Emirates.

Panama established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in June of 2017.  As of this writing, the parties are currently negotiating a free trade agreement and will be negotiating their fifth round in April 2019 in Beijing.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

Panama has five regulators, three that supervise the activities of financial entities (banking, securities, and insurance), and two that supervise the activities of non-financial entities (“designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs)” and cooperatives).  Each of the regulators regularly publish detailed sector reports, fines and sanctions on their websites. Panama’s banking regulator began publishing fines and sanctions in late 2016. The securities and insurance regulators have published fines and sanctions since 2010. Law 23 of 2015 created the regulator for DNFBPs, which began publishing fines and sanctions in 2018.

In 2012, Panama modified the securities law to regulate brokers, fund managers, and matters related to the securities industry.  The Securities Superintendent is generally considered a competent and effective regulator. Panama is a full signatory to the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).

Panama is a member of UNCTAD’s international network of transparent investment procedures (http://panama.eregulations.org/).  Foreign and national investors can find detailed information on administrative procedures applicable to investment and income generating operations including the number of steps, name and contact details of the entities and persons in charge of procedures, required documents and conditions, costs, processing time and legal bases justifying the procedures.

International Regulatory Considerations

In 2006, at the time of the negotiations of the TPA, the parties also signed an agreement regarding “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Standards Affecting Trade in Agricultural Products.”  That agreement entered into force on December 20, 2006.

The Panamanian Food Safety Authority (AUPSA) was established by Decree Law 11 in 2006 to issue science-based sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) import policies for agricultural and food products entering Panama.  AUPSA does not have regulatory authority for domestic products. In the last four years, AUPSA, as well as other parts of the government, have implemented or proposed measures that restrict market access. These measures have also increased AUPSA’s ability to limit the import of certain agricultural goods, for example as fresh or chilled onions.  In that particular case, AUPSA modified its import requirement adding that imported onions can only be commercialized before the 120 days of harvest of the onion bulb, and each shipment must be accompanied by a laboratory analysis certification of free of Ditylenchus dipsaci.  In another case, AUPSA certified that a bio-tech agricultural product met international standards and did not pose a threat to human consumption, but the Ministry of Health (MINSA) refused to recognize U.S. and international standards, which resulted in a loss of investment of over USD 100 million.    

On April 10, 2018 the President of Panama vetoed the Draft Bill 577 of October 16, 2017, which would have modified Decree Law 11 of 2006 that created the Panamanian Food Safety Authority (AUPSA).  On October 3, 2018 this draft bill 577 was approved again by the National Assembly’s, after the bill was partially vetoed by Panama’s President due to concerns over whether they would unduly restrict trade and market access. The bill is currently pending.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

In 2016, Panama transitioned from the civil to accusatory justice system with the goal of simplifying and expediting criminal cases.  Fundamental procedural rights in civil cases are broadly similar to those available in U.S. civil courts, although some notice and discovery rights, particularly in administrative matters, may be less extensive than in the United States.  Judicial pleadings are not always a matter of public record, nor are the processes always transparent.

Some U.S. firms have reported inconsistent, unfair, and/or biased treatment from Panamanian courts.  The judicial system’s capacity to resolve contractual and property disputes is often weak and open to corruption.  The World Economic Forum’s 2017-2018 Global Competitiveness Report rated Panama’s judicial independence at 120 of 137 countries.  The Panamanian judicial system suffers from poorly trained personnel, case backlogs, and a lack of independence. Furthermore, under Panamanian law, only the National Assembly may initiate corruption investigations against Supreme Court judges, and only the Supreme Court may initiate investigations against members of the National Assembly, which in turn has led to charges of a de facto “non-aggression pact” between the branches.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Panama has different laws governing incentives depending on the activity, including the Multinational Headquarters Law, the Tourism Law, the Investment stability Law, miscellaneous laws associated with certain sectors, including the film industry, call centers, certain industrial activities, and agriculture exports.  In addition, laws may differ depending on the economic zone, including the Colon Free Zone, the Panama Pacifico Special Economic Area, and the City of Knowledge. Proinvex (http://proinvex.mici.gob.pa/) provides more details on tax and other benefits.

Government policy and law treat Panamanian and foreign investors equally with respect to access to credit.  Panamanian interest rates closely follow international rates (e.g., the U.S. federal funds rate, the London Interbank Offered Rate – LIBOR, etc…), plus a country-risk premium.

The Ministries of Tourism, Public Works, and Industry and Commerce court foreign investment, but once a company invests in Panama, have been less able to provide assistance to foreign investors to help them navigate their new environment, especially in tourism, branding, imports, and infrastructure development.  Although individual ministers have been responsive to U.S. companies, the root issues are more difficult to address. U.S. companies frequently complain about non-payment issues from several ministries, which have stalled payments without any official statement as to the merits of the contract terms.

Some private companies, including multinational corporations, have issued bonds in the local securities market.  Companies rarely issue stock on the local market and, when they do, often issue shares without voting rights. Investor demand is generally limited because of the small pool of qualified investors.  While wealthy Panamanians may hold overlapping interests in various businesses, there is not an established practice of having cross-shareholding or stable shareholder arrangements, designed to restrict foreign investment through mergers and acquisitions.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

Panama’s Consumer Protection and Anti-Trust Agency, established by Law 45, October 31, 2007, and modified by Law 29 of June 2008, reviews transactions for competition related concerns and serves as a consumer protection agency.

Expropriation and Compensation

Panamanian law recognizes the concept of eminent domain.  In at least one circumstance, a U.S. company has expressed concern about not being reimbursed at fair market value following the government’s revocation of a concession.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Panama is a Party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention and the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards).  

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Resolving commercial and investment disputes in Panama can be a lengthy and complex process.  Despite protections built into the U.S.-Panamanian trade agreements, investors have repeatedly struggled to resolve investment issues in courts.  There are frequent claims of bias and favoritism in the court system and complaints about the lack of adequate titling, inconsistent regulations, and a lack of trained officials outside of the capital.  The World Economic Forum – Global Competitiveness Index 2017-2018 report ranks the independence of Panama’s judicial system 120 out of 137 countries (http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index-2017-2018/countryeconomy-profiles/#economy=PAN).  There have been allegations that politically connected businesses have benefited from court decisions, and that judges have “slow-rolled” dockets for years without taking action.  Many Panamanian legal firms suggest writing binding arbitration clauses into all commercial contracts.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

The Panamanian government accepts binding international arbitration of disputes with foreign investors.  Panama is a party to the 1958 New York Convention as well as to the 1975 Panama Convention. Panama became a member of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in 1996.  Panama adopted the UNCITRAL model arbitration law as amended in 2006. Law 131 of 2013 regulates national and international commercial arbitrations in Panama.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Commercial law is comprehensive and well established.  The World Bank 2019 Doing Business currently ranks Panama 113/190 for resolving insolvency because of slow court systems and complexity of the process.  Panama adopted a new bankruptcy law in 2015, but Panama’s Doing Business ranking has not yet shown material improvement for this metric.

4. Industrial Policies

Investment Incentives

Panama provides Industrial Promotion Certificates (IPCs) to incentivize industrial development in high value-added sectors.  Targeted sectors include research and development, management and quality assurance systems, environmental management, utilities and human resources.  Approved IPC’s provide up to 35 percent in tax reimbursements, and preferential import tariffs of 3 percent.

Law 1 (2017) modifies Law 28 (1995) by exempting exports from income tax and provides a zero percent import duty for machinery for those companies that export 100 percent of their products.  Producers to sell a portion of their products into the domestic market will pay a three percent import tariff for machinery and supplies.

Foreign Trade Zones/Free Ports/Trade Facilitation

Panama is home to the Colon Free Trade Zone, the Panama Pacifico Special Economic Zone, and 16 other “free zones” (11 actives zones and 5 in development).  The Colon Free Trade Zone has more than 2,500 businesses, while the Panama Pacifico Special Economic Zone has more than 340 businesses, and the remaining free zones host 126 companies.  These zones provide special tax and other incentives for manufacturers, back office operations and call centers. Additionally, the Colon Free Zone offers companies preferential tax and duty rates that are levied in exchange for basic user fees and a five percent dividend tax (or two percent of net profits if there are no dividends).  Banks and individuals in Panama pay no tax on interest or other income earned outside Panama. No taxes are withheld on savings or fixed time deposits in Panama. Individual depositors do not pay taxes on time deposits. Free zones offer tax-free status, special immigration privileges, and license and customs exemptions to manufacturers who locate within them.  Investment incentives offered by the Panamanian government apply equally to Panamanian and foreign investors.

Performance and Data Localization Requirements

There are no legal performance requirements such as minimum export percentages, significant local requirements of local equity interest, or mandatory technology transfers.  There are no established general requirements that foreign investors invest in local companies, purchase goods or services from local vendors, or invest in R&D or other facilities.  Companies are required to have 90 percent Panamanian employees. There are exceptions to this policy; but the government must approve these on a case-by-case basis. Fields dominated by strong unions, such as construction, have opposed issuing work permits to foreign laborers and some investors have struggled to staff large projects fully.  Foreign workers are common in Panama. Visas are available and the procedures to obtain work permits are generally not considered onerous.

As part of its effort to become a hub for finance, logistics, and communications, Panama has endeavored to become a data storage center.  According to the Panamanian Authority for Government Innovation (AIG, http://www.innovacion.gob.pa/noticia/2834), the majority of these firms offer services to banking and telephone companies in Central America and the Caribbean.  Panama boasts exceptional international connectivity, with seven undersea fiber optic cables.

Panama’s data protection law (Law 81, March 26, 2019) establishes the principles, rights, obligations, and procedures that regulate the protection of personal data.  The National Authority for Transparency and Access to Information will oversee enforcement of the law that will go into effect in March 2021. The National Authority for Government Innovation is working closely with large private sector companies to draft specific data protection regulations.  The concept of the personal privacy of communications and documents is provided for in the Panamanian Constitution as a fundamental right (Political Constitution, article 29). The Constitution also provides for a right to keep personal data confidential (article 44). The Criminal Code imposes an obligation on businesses to maintain the confidentiality of information stored in databases or elsewhere, and establishes several crimes for the misuse of such information (Criminal Code, articles 164, 283, 284, 285, 286).  Panama’s electronic commerce legislation also states that providers of electronic document storage must guarantee the protection, reliability, and proper use of information and data stored on behalf of their customers (Law 51, July 22, 2008, article 55).

5. Protection of Property Rights

Real Property

The majority of land in Panama, and almost all land outside of Panama City, is not titled; a system of rights of possession exists, but there are multiple instances where such rights have been successfully challenged.  The World Bank’s Doing Business 2019 report (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/panama) notes that Panama has risen to 81 out of 190 countries on the Registering Property indicator, though it still ranks 147th in Enforcing Contracts.  Panama enacted Law 80 (2009) to address the lack of titled land in certain parts of the country; however, it does not cure deficiencies in government administration or the judicial system.  In 2010, the National Assembly approved the creation of the National Authority of Land Management (ANATI) to administer land titling; however, investors have complained about ANATI’s capabilities and lengthy adjudication timelines.

The judicial system’s capacity to resolve contractual and property disputes is generally considered weak and open to corruption, as illustrated by the most recent World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018 (https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2017-2018), which rates Panama’s judicial independence as 120 out of 137 countries.  Americans should exercise greater due diligence in purchasing Panamanian real estate than they would in purchasing real estate in the United States.  Engaging a reputable attorney and licensed real estate broker is strongly recommended.

Intellectual Property Rights

Panama has an adequate and effective domestic legal framework to protect and enforce intellectual property rights (IPR).  The U.S.-Panama TPA improved standards for the protection and enforcement of a broad range of IPR, including for patents; trademarks; undisclosed tests and data required to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products; and digital copyright products such as software, music, books, and videos.  In order to implement the requirements of the TPA, Panama passed Law 62 of 2012 (industrial property) and Law 64 of 2012 (copyrights). Law 64 also extended copyright protection to the life of the author plus 70 years, mandates the use of legal software in government agencies, and protects against the theft of encrypted satellite signals and the manufacturing or sale of tools to steal signals.  

Panama is a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.  Panama’s Industrial Property Law (Law 35 of 1996) provides a term of 20 years of patent protection from the date of filing, or 15 years for pharmaceutical patents.  Panama has expressed interest in participating in the Patent Protection Highway with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Law 35, amended by Law 61 of 2012, also provides trademark protection, simplifies the registration of trademarks, and allows for renewals for 10-year periods.  The law grants ex-officio authority to government agencies to conduct investigations and seize suspected counterfeited materials. Decree 123 of 1996 and Decree 79 of 1997 specify the procedures that National Customs Authority (ANA) and Colon Free Zone officials must follow to investigate and confiscate merchandise.  In 1997, ANA created a special office for IPR enforcement; in 1998, the Colon Free Zone followed suit.

The Government of Panama is making efforts to strengthen the enforcement of IPR.  A Committee for Intellectual Property (CIPI), comprising representatives from five government agencies (the Colon Free Zone, the Offices of Industrial Property and Copyright under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MICI), ANA, and the Attorney General), under the leadership of the MICI, is responsible for the development of intellectual property policy.  Since 1997, two district courts and one superior tribunal have exclusively adjudicated antitrust, patent, trademark, and copyright cases. Since January 2003, a specific prosecutor with national authority over IPR cases has consolidated and simplified the prosecution of such cases. Law 1 of 2004 added crimes against IP as a predicate offense for money laundering, and Law 14 establishes a 5 to 12-year prison term, plus possible fines.  

For additional information about treaty obligations and points of contact at local IP offices, please see WIPO’s country profiles at http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/.

Resources for Rights Holders

Embassy point of contact:

Colombia Primola
Economic Specialist

Local lawyers list

6. Financial Sector

Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment

Government policy and law with respect to access to credit treat Panamanian and foreign investors equally.  Panamanian interest rates closely follow international rates (e.g., the U.S. federal funds rate, the London Interbank Offered Rate – LIBOR, etc…), plus a country-risk premium.

Some private companies, including multinational corporations, have issued bonds in the local securities market.  Companies rarely issue stock on the local market and, when they do, often issue shares without voting rights. Investor demand is generally limited because of the small pool of qualified investors.  While wealthy Panamanians may hold overlapping interests in various businesses, there is not an established practice of having cross-shareholding or stable shareholder arrangements, designed to restrict foreign investment through mergers and acquisitions.

Money and Banking System

Panama’s 2008 Banking Law regulates the country’s financial sector.  The law concentrates regulatory authority in the hands of a well-financed Banking Superintendent (https://www.superbancos.gob.pa/).

Panama’s banking sector is developed and highly regulated.  However, some U.S. citizens and entities have had difficulty opening bank accounts.  Investors cite lengthy processes, a lack of open communication, and a high documentary threshold for establishing the legitimacy of their activities both inside and outside of Panama.  Banking officials counter these complaints by citing the need to comply with international financial transparency standards. Several of Panama’s largest banks have gone so far as to refuse to establish banking relationships with whole sectors of the economy, such as e-commerce, in order to avoid all possible associated risks.  Private U.S. citizens have also faced difficulty-opening bank accounts in Panama, due to regulatory issues. This results in a large number of legitimate businesses excluded from banking services in Panama.

Traditional bank lending from the well-developed banking sector is relatively efficient and is the most common source of financing for both domestic and foreign investors, offering the private sector a variety of credit instruments.  The free flow of capital is actively supported by the government and is viewed as essential to Panama’s 85 banks (2 official banks, 47 domestic, 24 international plus 12 representational offices).

There are no restrictions on, nor practical measures to prevent hostile foreign investor takeovers, nor are there regulatory provisions authorizing limitations on foreign participation or control or other practices to restrict foreign participation.  There are no government or private sector rules to prevent foreign participation in industry standards setting consortia.

Financing for consumers is relatively open for mortgages, credit cards, and personal loans, even to those earning modest incomes.

Panama’s strategic geographic location, dollarized economy, status as a regional financial, trade, and logistics center, and favorable corporate and tax laws make it an attractive target for money launderers.  Money laundered in Panama is believed to come in large part from the proceeds of drug trafficking. Tax evasion, bank fraud, and corruption are also believed to be major sources of illicit funds. Criminals have been accused of laundering money via bulk cash smuggling and trade at airports, seaports, through shell companies, and the active free trade zones.

In 2015, Panama strengthened its legal framework, amended its criminal code, harmonized legislation with international standards, and passed an anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) reform law.  Panama passed Law 18 (2015) that severely restricts the use of bearer shares; companies still using these types of shares must appoint a custodian and maintain strict controls over their use. Panama passed Law 70 (2019) that criminalizes tax evasion and defines tax evasion as a money laundering predicate offense.

In January 2017, Panama’s National Commission on AML/CFT published its first national risk assessment, which identifies FTZs, real estate, construction, lawyers, as “high risk” sectors.  In May 2017, Panama released a supplemental National Strategy Report, which outlines 34 strategic priorities across five functional pillars to be pursued by 17 governmental institutions to improve its AML/CFT regime through 2019.  The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) referred Panama to a one-year enhanced review period in January 2018 due to a lack of effectiveness in Panama’s AML/CFT regime. FATF is currently evaluating Panama’s progress in addressing the identified deficiencies, and will announce whether Panama will be placed on the FATF grey list at the June 2019 plenary. A grey listing could trigger capital flight and further de-risking (i.e., the loss of correspondent banking relationships).

Panama completed the transition to a U.S.-style accusatory penal system in September 2016 but prosecutors lack experience and effectiveness under the new system.  Panama does not accurately track criminal prosecutions and convictions related to money laundering. Law enforcement needs more tools and protection to conduct long-term, complex financial investigations, including undercover operations. The criminal justice system remains at risk for corruption.

Foreign Exchange and Remittances

Foreign Exchange

Panama’s official currency is the U.S. Dollar.

Remittance Policies

Panama has customer due diligence, bulk cash, and suspicious transaction reporting requirements for money service providers (MSB) including 19 remittance companies.  In 2017, the Bank Superintendent assumed oversight of AML/CFT compliance for MSBs. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MICI) grants operating licenses for remittance companies under Law 48 (2003).

Sovereign Wealth Funds

Panama started a sovereign wealth fund in 2012 with an initial capitalization of USD 1,234 million.  From 2015 onwards, the law mandates contributions to the National Treasury from the Panama Canal Authority in excess of 3.5 percent of GDP must be deposited into the Fund.  In October 2018, the accumulation rule of the savings was modified, determining that when the contributions of the Canal exceeded 2.5 percent of the GDP, half of the surplus would be destined to national savings.  The Sovereign Wealth Fund closed in 2018 with USD 1.2 billion 2.7percentage less than 2017.

7. State-Owned Enterprises

State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are required to send a report to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Comptroller’s Office and the Budget Committee of the National Assembly within the first ten days of each month showing their budget implementation.  The reports detail income, expenses, investments, public debt, cash flow, administrative management, management indicators, programmatic achievements and workload. SOEs are also required to submit quarterly financial statements. SOEs are audited by the Comptroller’s Office.

The National Electricity Transmission Company (ETESA) is an examples of an SOE in the energy sector, and Tocumen Airport and the National Highway Company (ENA) are SOEs enterprises in the transportation sector.  Financial allocations and earnings from SOEs entities are all publicly available at the Official Digital Gazette (http://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/).

Privatization Program

Panama’s privatization framework law does not distinguish between foreign and domestic investor participation in prospective privatizations.  The law calls for pre-screening of potential investors or bidders in certain cases to establish technical viability, but nationality and Panamanian participation are not criteria.  The Government of Panama undertook a series of privatizations the mid-1990s including most of the electricity generation, distribution, ports and telecommunications sectors. There are presently no privatization plans for any major state-owned enterprise.

8. Responsible Business Conduct

Panama maintains strict domestic laws relating to labor and employment rights and environmental protection.  While enforcement of these laws is not always stringent, major construction projects are required to complete environmental assessments, guarantee worker protections, and comply with government standards for environmental stewardship.

In May 2012, Panama adopted ISO 26000 to guide businesses in the development of CSR platforms.  In addition, business groups including the Association of Panamanian Business Executives (APEDE) and the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) are active in encouraging and rewarding good CSR practices.  Since 2009, the AMCHAM has given an annual award to recognize member companies for their positive impact on the local community and environment.

9. Corruption

Corruption is Panama’s biggest challenge, and Moody’s identified it as one of the risk factors that could affect Panama’s sovereign rating in the medium-term.  Panama ranked 93rd out of 180 countries in the 2018 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. U.S. investors allege corruption is rampant in the private sector and all levels of the Panamanian government; purchase managers and import/export businesses have been known to overbill or take percentages off purchase orders while judges, mayors, members of the National Assembly, and local representatives have reportedly accepted payments for facilitating land titling and court rulings.  The Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) precludes U.S. companies from engaging in bribery and other activities, and U.S. companies look carefully at levels of corruption before investing or bidding on government contracts.

The process to apply for permits and titles can be opaque, and civil servants have been known to ask for payments at each step of the approval process.  The land titling process in particular has been very troublesome for multiple U.S. companies, which have waited in some cases decades for cases to be resolved.

Panama’s government lacks strong systemic checks and balances that would serve to incentivize accountability.  Under Panamanian law, only the National Assembly may initiate corruption investigations against Supreme Court judges, and only the Supreme Court may initiate investigations against members of the National Assembly, which in turn has led to charges of a de facto “non-aggression pact” between the branches.

In late 2016, Odebrecht, a Brazilian firm, admitted to paying USD 59 million in bribes to win Panamanian contracts of at least USD 175 million between 2010 and 2014.  Odebrecht’s admission was confined to bribes paid during the previous administration. The scandal’s reach has yet to be fully determined and Odebrecht’s activities building the second metro line and the Tocumen airport expansion have continued.

Anti-corruption mechanisms exist, such as asset forfeiture, whistleblower and witness protection, and conflict-of-interest rules.  However, the general perception is that anti-corruption laws are not applied rigorously, that government enforcement bodies and the courts are not effective in pursuing and prosecuting those accused of corruption, and the lack of a strong professionalized career civil service in Panama’s public sector has hindered systemic change.  The fight against corruption is also hampered by the government’s refusal to dismantle Panama’s dictatorship-era libel and contempt laws, which can be used to punish whistleblowers, while those accused of acts of corruption are seldom prosecuted and almost never jailed.

U.S. investors in Panama complain about a lack of transparency in government procurement.  The parameters of government tenders often change during the bidding process, creating confusion and the perception the government tailor-makes tenders for specific companies.  For example, the Panama NG Power project has been stalled due to legal challenges alleging the government created the terms of the tender specifically for the Chinese-led consortium.  Odebrecht, furthermore, admitted to paying USD 59 million in bribes to win government contracts, but is still doing business in Panama and actively applying for government projects.

Panama ratified the United Nations’ Anti-Corruption Convention in 2005 and the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Convention Against Corruption in 1998.  However, there is a perception that Panama should more effectively implement the conventions

Resources to Report Corruption

Angelica Maytin
Directora Nacional de Transparencia y Acceso a la Informacion (ANTAI)
Autoridad Nacional de Transparencia y Acceso a la Informacion
Ave. del Prado, Edificio 713, Balboa, Ancon, Panama, República de Panama
(507) 527-9270 / 71/72/73/74

10. Political and Security Environment

Panama is a peaceful and stable democracy.  On rare occasions, large-scale protests can turn violent and disrupt commercial activity in affected areas.  Mining and energy projects have been sensitive, especially those that involve development in the designated indigenous areas called comarcas.

In May 2014, Panama held national elections that international observers agreed were free and fair.  The transition to the new government was smooth and uneventful. Panama’s Constitution provides for the right of peaceful assembly, and the government respects this right.  No authorization is needed for outdoor assembly, although prior notification for administrative purposes is required. Unions, student groups, employee associations, elected officials, and unaffiliated groups frequently attempt to impede traffic and commerce in order to force the government or business to agree to demands.  Elections are held every five years and the next nationwide elections, as of this writing, are scheduled for May 2019.

11. Labor Policies and Practices

Panama’s official unemployment rate is 6 percent.  Economists in Panama estimate that the unemployment rate for skilled workers is negative, indicating a shortage of workers for skilled jobs including accounting, IT, customer service, and specialized construction skills.  Employers frequently cite the lack of skilled labor and English language speakers as a limiting factor on growth.

Panama’s non-agriculture labor force is approximately 1.8 million persons.  Forty-three percent of workers are employed in the informal sector, with a lower rate of informal employment in Panama’s capital region (38 percent) compared to the indigenous areas (83 percent).

While the government has periodically revised its labor code, including a modest revision in 1995, it remains highly restrictive.  Several sectors, including the Panama Canal Authority, the Colon Free Zone, and export processing zones/call centers are covered by their own labor regimes.  Employers outside of these areas, such as the tourism sector, have called for greater flexibility, easier termination of workers, and the elimination of many constraints on productivity-based pay.  The Panamanian government has issued waivers to the regulations on an ad hoc basis in order to address employers’ needs, but there is no consistent standard for obtaining such a waiver.

Panama spends approximately 14 percent of the central government’s budget, or 4 percent of GDP, on education.  The 2017-2018 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report ranked Panama 82 out of 140 countries for its skillset of university graduates.  This poor showing underscored the 2010 OECD Program for International Student Achievement (PISA) analysis, which ranked Panama second worst among participating Latin American countries.   

The law provides for the right of private sector workers to form and join unions of their choice, subject to the union’s registration with the government.

The law provides for the right of private sector workers to strike except in areas deemed vital to public welfare and security, including police and health workers.  All private sector and public sector workers have the right to bargain collectively, and the law prohibits employer anti-union discrimination, and protects workers engaged in union activities from loss of employment or discriminatory transfers.  Strikes must be supported by a majority of employees and related to improvement of working conditions, a collective bargaining agreement, or in support of another strike of workers on the same project (solidarity strike).

The law prohibits all forms of forced labor of adults or children.  The law establishes penalties of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment for forced labor involving movement (either cross-border or within the country) and six to 10 years’ imprisonment for forced labor not involving movement.

The law prohibits the employment of children under age 14, although children who have not completed primary school may not begin work until age 15.  Exceptions to the minimum age requirements can be made for children 12 and older to perform light farm work if it does not interfere with school hours.  The law does not set a limit on the total number of hours that these children may work in agriculture or define what kinds of light work children may perform.  The law prohibits 14 to 18-year-old children from engaging in potentially hazardous work and identifies such hazardous work to include work with electrical energy; explosives or flammables, toxic and radioactive substances; work underground and on railroads, airplanes, and boats; and work in nightclubs, bars, and casinos.

12. OPIC and Other Investment Insurance Programs

The United States and Panama signed a comprehensive Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) agreement in April 2000.  OPIC offers both financing and insurance coverage against expropriation, war, revolution, insurrection, and inconvertibility for eligible U.S. investors in Panama.  OPIC can insure up to USD 350 million per project for U.S. investors, contractors, exporters, and financial institutions. Financing is available for overseas investments that are wholly owned by U.S. companies or that are joint ventures in which the U.S. firm is a participant.  Panama has been a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) since 1996.

13. Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Portfolio Investment Statistics

Table 2: Key Macroeconomic Data, U.S. FDI in Host Country/Economy

  Host Country Statistical Source USG or International Statistical Source USG or International Source of Data:
BEA; IMF; Eurostat; UNCTAD, Other
Economic Data Year Amount Year Amount  
Host Country Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($M USD) 2018 $75.56 2017 $62.3B www.worldbank.org/en/country
Foreign Direct Investment Host Country Statistical Source USG or International Statistical Source USG or International Source of Data:
BEA; IMF; Eurostat; UNCTAD, Other
U.S. FDI in partner country ($M USD, stock positions) 2017 N/A 2017 $4,706 BEA data available at https://www.bea.gov/international/direct-investment-and-multinational-enterprises-comprehensive-data
Host country’s FDI in the United States ($M USD, stock positions) 2017 N/A 2017 $2,443 BEA data available at https://www.bea.gov/international/direct-investment-and-multinational-enterprises-comprehensive-data
Total inbound stock of FDI as % host GDP 2017 $54.3 2017 8.2% UNCTAD data available at https://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/World%20Investment%20Report/Country-Fact-Sheets.aspx

Table 3: Sources and Destination of FDI

Direct Investment from/in Counterpart Economy Data
From Top Five Sources/To Top Five Destinations (US Dollars, Millions)
Inward Direct Investment Outward Direct Investment
Total Inward $49,127 100% Total Outward $6,174,234 100%
United States $10,916 22% United States $917,646 15%
Colombia $8,066 16% United Kingdom $652,297 11%
Canada $5,575 11% Switzerland $492,344 8%
Switzerland $3,211 7% Luxembourg $487,384 8%
Country #5 $2,305 5% Germany $358,086 6%
“0” reflects amounts rounded to +/- USD 500,000.

Table 4: Sources of Portfolio Investment

Portfolio Investment Assets
Top Five Partners (Millions, US Dollars)
Total Equity Securities Total Debt Securities
All Countries $13,580 100% All Countries $910 100% All Countries 12,670 100%
United States $9,210 68% United States $449 49% United Sates $8,761 69%
Colombia $637 5% Luxembourg $94 10% Colombia $633 5%
Mexico $357 2% Ecuador $92 10% Mexico $354 3%
Chile $282 2% Cayman Islands $61 7% Chile $273 2%
Ireland $268 2% Ireland $40 4% Ireland $228 2%

14. Contact for More Information

Commercial Section
Building 783, Basilio Lakas Street, Clayton




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Controversial rulings leave anti-corruption prosecutors stranded


Hoo Justiniani

Posted 15/07/2019

Controversial decisions of  Second Court Judge, José Hoo Justiniani, in high profile cases in high in the last week, have left without effect the actions of the  Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) in which businessmen and former employees are accused of acts of corruption reports La Prensa

The most recent ruling was in the process for possible irregularities in the contract for the failed Tonosí irrigation project, awarded in 2012 during the Ricardo Martinelli administration for $155 million.

Hoo Justiniani annulled the imputation of charges of the Anticorruption Prosecutor against Marco Albán, manager of the company Hidalgo & Hidalgo, to which the work had been awarded. According to the MP, the State had paid an advance of $31 million or 20% of the total.

In the same judgment, Hoo Justiniani also favored former Minister of Agricultural Development Emilio Kieswetter.

Albán and Kieswetter were prosecuted for the alleged commission of crimes against the public administration.

This week, Panama  media also reported a decision of June 19, in which Hoo Justiniani, acting as rapporteur magistrate, revoked the indictment of self-exiled businessman Gabriel Gaby Btesh in a process for alleged irregularities in the contract for the administration of the parking lots at the Tocumen International Airport, awarded during the Martinelli  presidential period.

He ruled  it was  not justified that the Anticorruption Prosecutor's office in a single day made multiple steps: imputation, detention and international alert for an alleged damage to the State, and -according to the magistrate- without giving Btesh an opportunity to be heard, or , "At least", notify his  lawyer.

In May, Hoo Justiniani confirmed the decision of the Fifteenth Court to decree the nullity of the orders of inquiry and application of precautionary measures imposed on Juan Carlos Marciaga, Adolfo Chichi De Obarrio and Abraham Williams in the case known as Piso y Techo, to the detriment of the Ministry of Housing and Territorial Planning.

 According to the Comptroller's Office, there was an economic loss for the State of $ 1.5 million;.

Hoo Justiniani has also acted as a substitute judge in the bail-in April 2017 to Ramón Fonseca Mora and Jürguen Mossack, founders of the defunct law firm  Mossack Fonseca, the center of The Panama Papers scandal

The magistrate said  in the ruling that, despite the fact that the Second Prosecutor's Office against Organized Crime filed charges against them for alleged money laundering, in the investigations of Brazil in the Lava Jato case none of them appears to be linked.

Another case in which Hoo Justiniani has intervened is that of Cobranzas del Istmo, SA (CISA). He annulled a judgment of the First Court, which returned bank accounts for $35 million and luxury vehicles to Cristóbal Tobín Salerno, the majority shareholder of CISA, a company that in the Martinelli government had the monopoly to collect the delinquent portfolio of the State.

Salerno was sentenced to 48 months in prison for embezzlement, but the measure was replaced by 500 days fine at $600  a day



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Moderators

Bringing crooked lawmakers to justice


JUSTICE Panama style as seen by a La Prensa political cartoonist

Posted 30/08/2019

The request made by Transparency International so that the Public Ministry reopens investigations into the misuse that deputies - and ex-deputies - gave to the National Assembly's payrolls is necessary in the face of the enormous scandal that was uncovered, first, through La Prensa, and then in the audits of the Comptroller's Office, which not only confirmed the journalistic findings, but also added a new flow of irregular events. They are tens of millions of dollars that would have disappeared in fraudulent employment contracts. Dozens of deputies and ex-deputies are involved and must be brought to justice for the misuse they gave to those funds, even with duly substantiated suspicions that not a few of them kept the money. Hence the urgency of reopening research that, in addition, It will be highly complex because of the number of people that will need to be investigated. We hope that politicians do not put their hands in the investigation - as has been their custom - much less in the Judicial Branch, where finally, this case will end. But, especially, we hope this time justice will be done at last. LA PRENSA, Aug., 31



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Moderators

Unedited automated translation of the above Tweet:


In 2020, ANTAI will continue to guarantee accountability, promoting Open Government and Open Data, generating citizen participation through dialogue and seeking the efficiency and integrity of the public servant. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Moderators

Municipios, los menos transparentes según monitoreo de la Antai

La Autoridad Nacional de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información (Antai), publicó el resultado del último monitoreo realizado a las secciones de Transparencia en los sitios web de las instituciones públicas en el mes de mayo 2020

Por Ismael Gordón Guerrel


Sede de la Antai.Antai

El 52% de los municipios en Panamá no cumple con alguna de las exigencias de la Ley de Transparencia.

La Autoridad Nacional de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información (Antai), publicó el resultado del último monitoreo realizado a las secciones de Transparencia en los sitios web de las instituciones públicas en el mes de mayo 2020.

En este monitoreo se evaluaron 192 entidades; entre ellas, 111 entidades del Estado, empresas públicas y 81 municipios de toda la república de Panamá.

La Antai detalló que 39 de los 81 municipios están al 100%, esto representa un 48%, mientras que el 52% de los municipios se encuentra en menos del 100%.


Municipios, los menos transparentes según monitoreo de la Antai

La Ley 6 de enero de 2002 dicta normas para la transparencia en la gestión pública, en los artículos 9, 10, 11 y 12 con lo estipulado para las secciones de transparencia de los sitios web.

La Ley de Transparencia establece que las instituciones del Estado están obligadas a brindar, a cualquier persona que lo requiera, información sobre el funcionamiento y las actividades que desarrollan, exceptuando únicamente las informaciones de carácter confidencial y de acceso restringido.

Las instituciones del Estado están obligadas a tener disponibles en forma impresa, en sus respectivos sitios en internet, y a publicar periódicamente, información actualizada respecto de los temas, documentos y políticas.

Reglamento interno actualizado de la institución, las políticas generales de las instituciones, que formen parte de su plan estratégico, los manuales de procedimiento internos de las institución, la descripción de la estructura organizativa de la institución, la ubicación de documentos por categorías, registros y archivos de la institución y el funcionario responsable, la descripción de los formularios y reglas de procedimiento para obtener información de la institución y dónde puede obtenerlo.

El artículo 11 establece que será de carácter público y de libre acceso a las personas interesadas, la información relativa a la contratación y designación de funcionarios, planillas, gastos de representación, costos de viajes, emolumentos o pagos en concepto de viáticos y otros, de los funcionarios del nivel que sea o de otras personas que desempeñen funciones públicas.

En el informe de la Antai se detalla que los municipios de Barú, Capira, Chimán, Kankintú, Portobelo y Taboga incumplen las normas de transparencia. Su puntaje es cero, lo que quiere decir que no tienen la información que exige la ley de transparencia.

Los municipios de Almirante y Santa Fe, Darién, no reportan datos, porque no tienen portal web. El Municipio de San Miguelito, según explica la Antai, está en el proceso de construcción de página web. El distrito de San Miguelito es el más poblado en el país.

Para apoyar a los municipios, la Autoridad de Innovación Gubernamental está modernizando la administración pública, por lo que adelanta un ambicioso programa de conectividad y de transformación de las plataformas digitales de las entidades municipales y creó la sección de municipio digital, en el que los municipios pueden publicar la información.

El proyecto de modernización de gobiernos locales permitirá realizar cambios en la gestión municipal, incorporando estrategias de gobierno electrónico que enmarca el desarrollo hacia el uso de una nueva cultura tecnológica. Esta nueva tecnología en los municipios se convertirá en una verdadera transformación que incluirá un portal de portales.

Los municipios que cumplieron las exigencias de la Ley de Transparencia son: el de Antón, Arraiján, Boquerón, Boquete, Bugaba, Changuinola, Chiriquí Grande, Chitré, David, Dolega, Donoso, Guararé, Kusapin, La Chorrera, La Mesa, La Pintada, Las Minas, Las Palmas, Las Tablas, Los Santos, Mariato, Montijo, Natá, Ñürüm, Ocú, Olá, Panamá, Pedasí, Penonomé, Pocrí, Remedios, Renacimiento, San Carlos, San Félix, San Lorenzo, Santa María, Soná, Tierras Altas y Tonosí.

La Antai seguirá con este proceso de monitoreo mensual, con el fin de que las instituciones, los municipios y las empresas públicas subsanen cualquier incumplimiento de la ley.

El mismo informe, pero en el mes de abril, destaca que los municipios siguen siendo los que menos cumplen en el acceso a la información y transparencia. En abril, 32 de los 81 municipios estaban al 100%, esto representa un 40%, mientras que el 60% de los municipios se encuentra en menos del 100%.

En el monitoreo se destaca que en el mes de febrero de los 81 municipios monitoreados, 49 obtuvieron el 100%, lo que representa el 60%, mientras que en el mes de marzo 16 municipios obtuvieron el 100%, representando el 20%.

La Ley 66 del 29 de octubre de 2015, que reforma la Ley 37 de 2009, que descentraliza la administración pública, y dicta otra disposiciones, tiene por objetivo general: la realización del proceso de descentralización de la administración pública, mediante el fortalecimiento de las capacidades, la transferencia de recursos necesarios a los gobiernos locales y la coordinación proveniente del Gobierno Central de la inversión pública.


Moderator comment: Below is an unedited automated translation of the above news article.


Municipalities, the least transparent according to monitoring of the Antai

The National Transparency and Access to Information Authority (Antai) published the result of the last monitoring carried out on the Transparency sections on the websites of public institutions in May 2020

By Ismael Gordón Guerrel
Updated 07/12/2020 00:00

Headquarters of the Antai.Antai

52% of the municipalities in Panama do not comply with any of the requirements of the Transparency Law.

The National Transparency and Access to Information Authority (Antai) published the result of the last monitoring carried out on the Transparency sections on the websites of public institutions in May 2020.

In this monitoring, 192 entities were evaluated; among them, 111 state entities, public companies and 81 municipalities throughout the republic of Panama.

The Antai detailed that 39 of the 81 municipalities are at 100%, this represents 48%, while 52% of the municipalities are in less than 100%.


Municipalities, the least transparent according to monitoring of the Antai

Law 6 of January 2002 dictates norms for transparency in public administration, in articles 9, 10, 11 and 12 with what is stipulated for the transparency sections of websites.

The Transparency Law establishes that State institutions are obliged to provide, to any person who requires it, information on the operation and activities they carry out, except only for information of a confidential nature and with restricted access.

State institutions are obliged to make available in print, on their respective websites, and to periodically publish updated information on issues, documents and policies.

Updated internal regulations of the institution, the general policies of the institutions, which are part of its strategic plan, the internal procedures manuals of the institution, the description of the institutional structure of the institution, the location of documents by categories, records and files of the institution and the responsible official, the description of the forms and rules of procedure for obtaining information from the institution and where it can be obtained.

Article 11 establishes that the information regarding the hiring and designation of officials, payroll, representation expenses, travel costs, emoluments or payments for per diem and other, will be public and freely accessible to interested persons, of officials of any level or other persons who perform public functions.

In the Antai report it is detailed that the municipalities of Barú, Capira, Chimán, Kankintú, Portobelo and Taboga breach transparency regulations. Their score is zero, which means that they do not have the information required by the transparency law.

The municipalities of Almirante and Santa Fe, Darién, do not report data, because they do not have a web portal. The Municipality of San Miguelito, as explained by the Antai, is in the process of building a website. The San Miguelito district is the most populated in the country.

To support the municipalities, the Government Innovation Authority is modernizing the public administration, therefore it is carrying out an ambitious program of connectivity and transformation of the digital platforms of the municipal entities and created the section of digital municipality, in which the municipalities they can publish the information.

The local government modernization project will allow for changes in municipal management, incorporating electronic government strategies that frame development towards the use of a new technological culture. This new technology in the municipalities will become a true transformation that will include a portal portal.

The municipalities that met the requirements of the Transparency Law are: Antón, Arraiján, Boquerón, Boquete, Bugaba, Changuinola, Chiriquí Grande, Chitré, David, Dolega, Donoso, Guararé, Kusapin, La Chorrera, La Mesa, La Pintada , Las Minas, Las Palmas, Las Tablas, Los Santos, Mariato, Montijo, Natá, Ñürüm, Ocú, Olá, Panamá, Pedasí, Penonomé, Pocrí, Remedios, Renaissance, San Carlos, San Félix, San Lorenzo, Santa María, Sona , Highlands and Tonosí.

Antai will continue with this monthly monitoring process, so that institutions, municipalities and public companies rectify any breach of the law.

The same report, but in the month of April, highlights that the municipalities continue to be the least compliant in access to information and transparency. In April, 32 of the 81 municipalities were at 100%, this represents 40%, while 60% of the municipalities are in less than 100%.

The monitoring highlights that in February of the 81 monitored municipalities, 49 obtained 100%, which represents 60%, while in March 16 municipalities obtained 100%, representing 20%.

Law 66 of October 29, 2015, which reforms Law 37 of 2009, which decentralizes public administration, and dictates other provisions, has the general objective: to carry out the process of decentralization of public administration, by strengthening the capacities, the transfer of necessary resources to local governments and the coordination from the Central Government of public investment.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Moderators

Influencer” contracts nullified


Posted 12/10/2020

Panama’s Transparency and Access to Information Authority (Antai) has recommended that the  Government nullify the contracts of Paul McDonald and Precilla Delany two so-called "influencers" who worked in institutions of the Panamanian State.

In other cases of insiders paid for  no-show jobs the investigation was ordered to be closed as  those involved no longer work in the National Assembly and ceased to be civil servants.

In the case of public servant Víctor Durán, his position must be reclassified in accordance with the structure determined by the General Directorate of Administrative Career.

Regarding Roberto Durán,  son of the, Panama boxing legend documentation is awaited by the National Assembly to proceed with its assessment, Antai reported.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Moderators

Happiness Coach earns more than  his lawyer audience


Motivator finds happiness

Posted 30/10/2020

A motivator who learned his trade at a one year course earns more than the lawyers he coaches at the Transparency and Access to Information  Authority (Antai) says a La Prensa report.

In search of happiness" and "The future of humanity" are two of the talks given to officials of the Authority by a coach who will charge $3,000 a month an  income higher than the salary of lawyers who work for the institution says the newspaper.

The l director of Antai, Elsa Fernández, justified the hiring of Paul Donato by indicating that it is part of her "inter-institutional strategic plan.”

"As he is not a public servant, he does not keep a schedule, but instead presents results reports," said Fernández. Donato said his report is about his talks, without monitoring of their effectiveness. "That is not my job," he said.

Donato was hired as a coach advisor on the Antai payroll, from February 1 to July 31, with a monthly income of $ 3,000.

Although a state of emergency was declared a month later due to the pandemic, the contract was maintained. It was sent on May 6 to the Comptroller General for its endorsement, Later, the contract was renewed, so that its term was approved until December 30, reported Fernández.

The motivator, would do “special jobs”, as described in the entity's payroll, earns a higher salary than the lawyers and the Antai's head of internal audit, whose salaries don’t exceed $2,000 per month.

The image of the motivator is promoted on the institution's digital portal. Antai announces that he gave the talks "In search of happiness", "The existential sense, value and ethics" and "Filtering stressful stimuli", as well as "Courage and ethics, civil servant of the XXI century", .

In the last webinar given by Donato, it is indicated that the initiative had the purpose of “highlighting the key role of the public servant as a model before society and also with a view to reducing the cases of public servants who are involved in unethical situations ”.

La Prensa says  Donato reports activities as a motivator since 2017 on his website. "In the last 10 years he has worked directly with young people, motivating them to achieve their dreams, a week after being hired by Antai, Donato had the “Summer Camp 2020” activity scheduled for young people from 13 to 17 years old, in a Panama hotel.

Donato describes himself as a “lecturer, broadcaster, preacher, facilitator, and  international speaker”,

The director of Antai said that Donato, "since he is not a public servant, does not adhere to an established schedule, but instead presents a results report" monthly.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • Moderators

OPINION: Gambling with the  future of the nation

Posted 26/05/2021

The lack of transparency and accountability is an issue that the Panamanian population repeatedly complains about. And it is that, from the head of the Government to the last official of the state payroll, they seem not to understand that the citizens are not asking, begging or imploring them to say what they do with the management of public affairs. This is Their responsibility. An obligation that they acquired the day they came to the Government and whose laws they swore to respect. And there are plenty of examples. From the emergency purchases due to the pandemic, whose burlesque reports only satisfy the ego of the official who mocks those who ask to exercise their right to information, to the handling that has been given to the case of child abuse and more recently what happened. in the National Charity Lottery. Citizens deserve explanations that are coherent and supported by rigorous documentation so that they can be subjected to public scrutiny. You are good at the abuse of power and gambling with the future of this nation. To say "I am not going to give explanations" about the dismissal of the director of the Police, President Laurentino Cortizo, is an affront to the position you hold, to the country and to those who elected you. LA PRENSA, May 26.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...