At 5:00 am on April 3, as the news first broke,
Ramón Fonseca Mora told television channel
TVN he "was not responsible nor had he been accused in any tribunal". He said the firm was the victim of a hack and that he had no responsibility for what clients did with the offshore companies that they purchased from Mossack Fonseca, which were legal under Panamanian law. On the same day, he announced the creation of a new judiciary tribunal and a high-level commission led by Nobel Prize Laureate
Joseph Stiglitz. There were accusations that foreign forces were attacking Panama because of Panama's "stable and robust economy".
Isabel Saint Malo de Alvarado, then-Vice President of Panama, said in an
op-ed piece published April 21 in
The Guardian that then-President
Juan Carlos Varela and his administration have strengthened Panama's controls over
money laundering in the twenty months they had been in power, and that "Panama is setting up an independent commission, co-chaired by the Nobel laureate
Joseph Stiglitz, to evaluate our financial system, determine best practices, and recommend measures to strengthen global financial and legal transparency. We expect its findings within the next six months, and will share the results with the international community." However, in early August 2016, Stiglitz resigned from the committee because he learned that the Panamanian government would not commit to making their final report public. He said that he had always "assumed" that the final report would be transparent. On April 8, then-President Varela denounced France's proposal to return Panama to a list of countries that did not cooperate with information exchange. Minister of the Presidency Alvaro Alemán categorically denied that Panama is a tax haven, and said the country would not be a scapegoat. Alemán said that talks with the French ambassador to Panama had begun. The Minister of Economy and Finance of Panama, Dulcidio de la Guardia, formerly an offshore specialist at Mossack Fonseca competitor Morgan & Morgan, said the legal but often "murky" niche of establishing offshore accounts, firms and trusts make up "less than half a percentage point" of Panama's
GDP. He appeared to suggest that the publication of the papers was an attack on Panama because of the high level of economic growth that the country had shown. Eduardo Morgan of the Panamanian firm Morgan & Morgan accused the OECD of starting the scandal to avoid competition from Panama with the interests of other countries. The Panama Papers affect the image of Panama in an unfair manner and have come to light not as the result of an investigation, but of a hack, said Adolfo Linares, president of the Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture of Panama (Cciap). The Colegio Nacional de Abogados de Panama (CNA) urged the government to sue. Political analyst Mario Rognoni said that the world perceives Panama as a tax haven. The government of then-President
Juan Carlos Varela might become implicated if he tries to cover up for those involved, Rognoni said. Economist Rolando Gordon said the affair hurts Panama, which has just emerged from the greylist of the
FATF, and added that each country, especially Panama, must conduct investigations and determine whether illegal or improper acts were committed. Panama's Lawyers Movement called the Panama Papers leak "cyber bullying" and in a press conference condemned it as an attack on the 'Panama' brand. Fraguela Alfonso, its president, called it a direct attack on the country's financial system. I invite all organized forces of the country to create a great crusade for the rescue of the country's image. The law firm Rubio, Álvarez, Solís & Abrego also reacted and in a press release said that "In recent decades Panama has been in the most important financial and service centers of Latin America and the entire world. As a result, all kinds of attacks on our service system have been attempted." On October 19, 2016, it became known that a government executive had spent 370 million US dollars in order to "clean" the country's image.
Law enforcement On April 4, 2016, the Attorney General's office announced that it would investigate Mossack Fonseca and the Panama papers. On April 12, the newly formed Second Specialized Prosecutor against Organized Crime searched the Panama City and Bella Vista offices of Mossack Fonseca for 27 hours. Following the search, the Attorney General's office stated that the purpose of the search was "to obtain documents relevant to the information published in news articles that establishes the possible use of the law firm in illegal activities". The search ended without measures against the law firm. On April 22 the same unit searched another Panama location and "secured a large amount of evidence". The ICIJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca was reported to the Public Ministry. Samid Dan Sandoval, former candidate for mayor of Santiago de Veraguas (2014), filed legal action against the journalists and all those who had participated. He said the project name damaged the integrity, dignity and sovereignty of the country and that the consortium would have to assume legal responsibility for all damage caused to the Panamanian nation. A
Change.org petition also requested the ICIJ stop using the name of Panama as in the Panama Papers. The request said the generally accepted name for the investigation "damage(d) the image" of Panama. Attorney General of Panama Kenia Isolda Porcell Diaz announced on January 24, 2017, that she was suspending the investigations against Mossack Fonseca because it filed an appeal for protection of constitutional rights before the First Superior Court of Justice of Panama and requested that he deliver all the original documents to issue a judgment. Mossack and Fonseca were detained on February 8, 2017, on money-laundering charges. They were initially refused bail because the court saw a flight risk, but were released on April 21, 2017 after a judge ruled they had cooperated with the investigation and ordered them each to pay $500,000 in bail. On June 28, 2024 Judge Baloísa Marquínez acquitted the 28 accused individuals. She explained that the evidence brought against Mossack and Fonseca was insufficient and the chain of evidence was not comprehensible. == Allegations, reactions, and investigations ==