The Superior Chamber found that the investigation by the administrative electoral authority was not exhaustive or consistent. The Plenary Assembly considered that there were no elements that would allow to demonstrate the direct or indirect relationship of Morena in the establishment and operation of the trust of "Por los demás".
The Supreme Court plenary of the Electoral Court of the Judiciary of the Federation (TEPJF) withdrew the resolution INE / CG638 / 2018 approved by the General Council of the National Electoral Institute (INE), which found that there was a an inseparable link between the "Por los demás" trust and the Morena party, so that the funds deposited in the trust are subject to the control rules and as a result have imposed a fine of 197 million pesos on the party.
It was concluded that the funds contributed to the trust should be regarded as contributions to the party and, with it, the receipt of funding from banned or unknown sources, in addition to not having informed the electoral authority in good time about the composition of the trust or the funds received.
The aforementioned agreement was challenged by the Morena party, who argued that the National Electoral Institute (INE) is not competent to supervise a private confidant relationship and to extend the dispute with regard to non-reported facts, and claimed that it research was incomplete and unjustified reasons and motivation of the resolution.
On the other hand, the citizens of the Technical Committee of the trust point out that the INE has breached its guarantee of hearing and that this authority is not competent to order the cessation of operations.
By splitting up and collecting the SUP-RAP-209/2018, the Superior Chamber has determined that the INE is competent to supervise the public and private funds that a political party receives, so it has the formal authority to in relation to a trust when they exist elements that assume that the contract is used to circumvent compliance with the provisions governing the financing of political parties.
However, the chamber felt that the INE investigation was not exhaustive because the research line was not exhausted.
The plenary pointed out that the authority's steps were not sufficient because they did not lead to a full investigation of the facts. In particular, the Authority should have requested the cooperation of the tax and banking institutions, as well as setting up corresponding sanction procedures to determine the identity of the contributors of the trust.
Information requests to the fiduciary, trustees, members of the technical committee or support topics that allow identification of the mechanism of delivery of resources to those beneficiaries do not exist in the database because it is directly related to the object of investigation, the controller person had to call the parties integrating the integration to appear before the sanction procedure, for that reason the offense with regard to the breach of the hearing guarantee is also well-founded, to the detriment of the parties that form the trust, in particular responsible members of the Technical Committee in the fifth operative paragraph of the resolution in question without being tried.
On the other hand, the magistrates and magistrates were of the opinion that the resolution does not have internal consistency, because it does not recognize the use of public funds, but at the same time instructs the follow-up of the control procedures of the Morena party, thus conducting generalized research.
They also pointed out that the essential element that the authority needs in order to invoke the alleged use of public funds are Andrés Manuel López Obrador's statements that the party he was conducting at the time would begin to contribute to the trust "For others ", which is not the case is accredited in the course of the investigation.
Finally, the Plenary Assembly pointed out that there is no causal link between the person responsible for the alleged acts of electoral law – the Morena Party – and determines an advantage that the party would have obtained from the illegal activity. This means that it was necessary to demonstrate a political election advantage to the political institute.
The magistrates and magistrates were of the opinion that the authority, in the absence of proven irregular facts and the bond between them and the party, had to respect the presumption of innocence in favor of Morena. Because the direct or indirect responsibility for the establishment and operation of the trust was not proven, the superior court reversed the contested decision and with it the sanction that the INE had imposed on the Morena party.