Daniel Sancho: the money nobody wants to investigate

The Sancho case: the bank account nobody explains

Where is the money that Edwin Arrieta sent to his family? That is the question some investigators have been asking for years, and which the case's investigation seems to have dodged with remarkable skill. While public opinion is divided between those who consider the case closed with Daniel Sancho's confession and those who suspect a setup, one financial detail remains unanswered: the existence of a shared account between the victim and the accused, along with three other people, whose trail has been lost.

A shared account with three strangers

The parallel investigation trinc by journalist Joaquín Campos uncovered a fact that the official inquiry has not wanted to touch: Edwin Arrieta and Daniel Sancho shared a bank account with three other individuals. The most striking thing is not the existence of that account, but the subsequent silence. Neither the Arrieta family nor the victim's circle have explained the origin of the funds that Edwin sent regularly, nor where they went after his death. Some sources suggest that this money could have a not very legal origin, which would explain everyone's lack of interest in investigating it. The question is uncomfortable: why does nobody claim that money if it belonged to the victim?

The photo that dismantles the official timeline

Another loose end is the timeline. In a video circulating on social media, a photo of Edwin on the beach can be seen at minute 24:26. According to some analysts, the time of that image would coincide with the moment when, according to the official version, the victim would have already been taken by motorcycle to be murdered. If the photo is real, the timeline breaks. And it is not the only strange element: lawyer García Montes, who has handled the case, even mentioned an individual linked to Guantánamo, a detail that nobody has explained and that sounds like a spy movie script.

Scapegoat or confessed culprit?

Sancho's confession is the pillar of the accusation. But there are those who maintain that a confession obtained under police pressure is not equivalent to a demonstration of guilt. Interrogation techniques, with sessions lasting up to 16 hours, can lead a suspect to break down and accept facts they have not committed. In this context, the #FREESANCHO campaign, which has now been running for three years, does not seem like a simple fan movement, but an attempt to reopen a case that many consider falsely closed. The accused's mother has appeared on television defending her son's innocence, while the Spanish ambassador in Thailand demanded procedural guarantees, a gesture that some interpret as favorable treatment due to his surname.

The role of the family and the press

The Arrieta family, for their part, has maintained a silence that is at the very least suspicious. They have not claimed the money that Edwin sent, they have not asked for explanations about the shared account, and they have not wanted to delve into the possible illicit origin of those funds. That muteness fuels theories that the case hides something more than a crime of passion. The press, meanwhile, has limited itself to repeating the official version, without questioning the disappearance of the money or the lack of investigation into its origin.

Meanwhile, the money is still missing. And the dead man, as the saying goes, carries it with him. Or not. Because if anything this case has shown, it is that the truth, when there is money involved, always ends up being more uncomfortable than any official story.