Salta Federal Oral Court No. 1 convicted five members of a drug-trafficking organisation for moving 23 kg of marijuana discovered in September 2024 during a National Gendarmerie checkpoint in Cafayate, bound for Tucumán.[1][2][3] The court imposed 7 years on Alejo Ricardo Silva, 6 years and 6 months on Emilio Alejandro Tapia, and 6 years each on Luciano Cancino and Mara Antonella Di Bez, the latter under house arrest.[1][2][4][3] It treated those four as co-authors of drug transport and gave Luis Benjamín Vicente a 3-year suspended sentence as a secondary participant.[1][2][4][3] With Enzo Javier Gutiérrez, who received 4 years under house arrest on 30 April 2025 through a plea agreement, six people have now been convicted in the case.[1][2]
The seizure occurred on 14 September 2024 at about 5:30 a.m., when gendarmes stopped a Renault Logan on National Route 68 about 8 km from Cafayate.[1][2][4] Silva drove that car with Tapia, Cancino and Vicente aboard, serving as the “coche puntero”, a scout car travelling ahead to guide the drug load behind it.[1] The second car arrived minutes later carrying Gutiérrez driving with his partner Di Bez, while portable radios in each car plus their coordinated movement and hour raised suspicion.[1][4] Inspecting the second car’s trunk, officers found a burlap bag holding marijuana blocks weighing more than 23 kg, and the operation seized 24 marijuana packages and two handheld radios.[1][3]
Silva fled into scrubland during the checkpoint and stayed fugitive until 6 August 2025, when he was detained after returning from Brazil, where prosecutors said he had hidden for about eleven months.[1][2][4][3] Prosecutors said Silva led the group and pawned his own car to fund the marijuana purchase for Tucumán, while Gutiérrez rented the load car and Tapia supplied his mother’s car as the scout car, which the court ordered confiscated.[1] Prosecutors said Di Bez and Cancino took active part in planning while Vicente’s role was secondary, and valued the haul as enough for about 55,000 doses in arguing harm to public health.[1] The court unanimously rejected a cooperating-defendant sentence reduction, finding the information vague and already known and the collaboration ineffective under article 41 ter of the Penal Code.[1]
