This Friday, July 3, a Domain Forfeiture Court partially lifted the precautionary measures that weighed on several properties linked to Luis Gómez, former vice president of the Association of Urban Bus Entrepreneurs (AEAU), prosecuted for the Transurbano case, judicial sources reported.
The resolution was issued by Judge Delmar González, who authorized the lifting of the embargo only on the properties located in Petén, with the purpose that Gómez can take steps to evict them, since, as explained during the hearing, they were invaded.
Instead, the judge decided to maintain the precautionary measures on the properties located in the departments of Guatemala and Escuintla, which will continue under the administration of the National Secretariat for the Administration of Assets in Forfeiture (Senabed).
The properties are registered in the name of the company Tecnología y Proyectos, SA, of which Gómez is the legal representative.
According to the Property Forfeiture Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Ministry (MP), the assets were immobilized in 2016 because there are indications that they had been acquired illicitly. The investigation seeks to establish the origin of the money used for its purchase.
According to the prosecutor’s office, Gómez’s request includes 25 properties located in Guatemala, Escuintla and Petén. The MP maintains that these assets would have been acquired with resources from the Transurban system implementation project.
During a hearing held on June 25, Gómez’s defense argued that the return of the properties is appropriate because the Second Criminal Court, headed by Mario Hichos, closed the criminal process against him on June 20, 2025.
Context of the case
Gómez was prosecuted for the crimes of illicit association, embezzlement and laundering of money or other assets within the investigation related to the implementation of the Transurbano prepaid system.
According to the MP, the investigation indicates that Gómez had participation in that project, which was accused of an alleged fraud of Q270 million derived from the alleged diversion of public funds.
Although the criminal proceedings against him were closed, the domain forfeiture procedure continues independently, so the court must still decide whether or not the definitive return of the claimed assets is appropriate.
*Stay up to date with the Now newsletter. Key information at the moment it happens. Subscribe here.