The elitist Cuban restaurant El Laurel, located by the canals of the exclusive Marina Hemingway in Havana, may have been intervened by Cuban authorities, according to unconfirmed images and reports published on social media.
Leaked videos on various social media profiles show what appears to be the intervention of inspectors and authorities dressed in plain clothes inside the paladar, who enter filming the employees and presumed owners of the restaurant with their cell phones.
Images of a vehicle from the Operational Guard at the site would indicate the presence of agents from the Ministry of the Interior (MININT) in El Laurel.
The sudden appearance of dozens of supposed agents dressed in civilian clothes provoked a reaction from people in the establishment who tried to block their way, but ultimately ended up powerless in the face of the mysterious operation.
At the time of writing this note, the facts that motivated the dramatic scene are unknown. Neither the authorities nor the official press have reported on what happened.
On the Instagram stories of the paladar, messages related to the event can be seen, stating that El Laurel remains open and offering its services as usual. However, unverified reports that the establishment "has fallen from grace" are increasing as the hours go by.
"The Laurel has completely closed. Apparently, no one knows what is happening, and that is [on fire] right now. I'm posting the videos in the stories," said on Instagram the influencer known as un_martitodurako8, specialized in news about Cuban show business.
The complaint circulating on social media
In addition to the recordings, social media profiles have leaked a complaint apparently filed by Mirian Casañas Tuya. On the Facebook profile of El Laurel, it reads: "Paladar El Laurel, created in 1996; created by Gilberto L Casañas and Mirian Tuya."
The text of the complaint, mostly illegible in the photos shared on social media, says the following:
The complainant, pursuant to Articles 198 and 199 of the current Penal Code and the criminal liability incurred for making a false report or simulation of a crime, states that at 4:00 AM on 03/09/24 in Santa Fe [blurred address], Playa municipality, Havana province, he files a complaint against citizen Ángel Eliseo Álvarez Chediak [identity card number] since he entered his home located at [address of the paladar] without his consent, cutting the wires of the fence.
The reported facts may constitute the crime of violation of domicile, as provided and sanctioned in Article 380 of the current Penal Code.
Signed: Miriam Casañas Yours.
According to a note published on Radio Reloj on March 16, 2023, the accused Ángel Eliseo Álvarez Chediak is the owner of the medium-sized capital company Marinada Plus, "one of more than six thousand Mipymes approved in the country to date, as part of the improvement of economic actors taking place on the Island."
In the note titled "A Bet on Cuba," it is reported that Marinada Plus was created in March 2022 and is "dedicated to services."
Álvarez Chediak stated that "becoming a businessman entails more responsibility" and that "being a legal entity has allowed him to establish agreements with state-owned companies and access the international market to acquire the raw materials needed for his restaurant, located in what was formerly Laurel, in the capital municipality of Playa."
It is evident that the El Laurel restaurant is at the center of a whirlwind of the "new economic actors" of the Cuban regime. With the information available for this report, it is unclear who owns El Laurel, or what is really happening with this private business that is a reference for the "jet set" world of the Cuban regime.
The story surrounding the unreleased images becomes even more complicated with rumors claiming that El Laurel has been managed "for years by front men of Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, alias 'El Cangrejo', grandson of Raúl Castro Ruz," a figure associated with various alleged shady businesses in Cuba, some related to drug trafficking and prostitution.
The crimes of False Reporting or False Accusation in the current Penal Code
Article 198.1 states that: “Anyone who incurs a penalty of imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of two hundred to five hundred quotas or both, shall be punished if:
a) Knowing that it is untrue and with the intent to initiate a criminal process against another person, he/she imputes to the Police, the criminal instructor, the prosecutor, the assistants involved in the investigation, or the court, facts that, if true, would constitute a crime; and
b) simulate the existence of footprints, evidence or other material proof, or suppress or alter the existing ones, with the intention of implicating another person as responsible for a crime.
2. If, as a result of the false complaint or accusation, the offended party suffers serious harm, the penalty is imprisonment for three to eight years.
Likewise, Article 199.1 states that: “Anyone who, intentionally, when appearing as a witness, victim, or affected party, expert, or interpreter, before a competent court or official, gives a false statement or fails to mention what they know about what they are being questioned about, incurs a penalty of imprisonment from one to three years or a fine of three hundred to one thousand units, or both.”
2. If the false statement of the witness, victim, or injured party is made in exchange for a bribe, gift, or any other advantage or benefit, or a promise of such, the penalty is imprisonment for two to five years or a fine of five hundred to one thousand quotas, or both.
3. The same penalty as provided in the previous section is incurred by anyone who gives a gift, present, any other advantage or benefit, or a promise or offer of such, to the witness, victim, or injured party in order to elicit false testimony.
4. If the false declaration results in serious harm, the minimum and maximum limits of the penalty are increased by half if it is a judicial process.
5. If any of the persons mentioned in sections 1 and 2 testifies about the same facts in the investigative phase of the process and in the oral trial, only the false testimony given in the latter is imputable to them.
6. A person who retracts their false statement is exempt from penalties for the crime of perjury, as long as it is still possible to avoid the effects of this.
What do you think?
COMMENTFiled under: