TO QUESTION 1: Yes, and I wish to give a brief explanation, unless a more extensive commentary will be permitted upon conclusion of the questioning, but first -- since the list of questions originates with the Swiss authorities -- I want to express the following to the Swiss government, Swiss financial institutions and the Swiss people: Switzerland is a country that my family and I -- especially my wife and I -- have known, loved and respected for many years.

My wife went to school in Switzerland when she was a girl, I have taken part in equestrian competitions in Lucerne, my nephews -- my brother's sons -- studied in Switzerland and two children are currently in school there. All of this explains the great confidence with which I opened bank accounts in Switzerland, being cognizant of its standards and rules, and the trustworthiness of the country's institutional banking system. Secondly, I want to express my apologies to the Swiss government and to the country's financial institutions, especially Banque Pictet, a highly responsible house which opened its doors to me in good faith, and I'm going to explain why I assumed and myself under a different identity.

To begin with, I beg the Swiss authorities to understand that we are not before a judge and that, furthermore, I am subject to a trial in which I have been falsely accused of homicide, so that my statements are limited by the imperatives of the fact that I am defending myself in a trial. Furthermore, I am unaware that the Mexican authorities have charged me with any connection with drug trafficking. This is why I ask the Swiss authorities to understand that I am going to be absolutely truthful, but that [illegible] to know the action of the Mexican authorities to defend myself. Fourth, in regard to the first and subsequent questions asked me, I wish to point out that I am solely responsible for these accounts and I absolve my brother-in-law Antonio Castanon Rios Zertuche and my wife Paulina Castanon de Salinas of any responsibility. Next, I want to repeat my apologies for my mistakes, but I have never taken part in any criminal activity and certainly never in drug trafficking.

TO QUESTION 2: In Banque Pictet, Geneva, and in Julius Baer Bank and Citibank, Zurich. There was also an account in another Geneva bank which was closed last year. Please understand that, due to my present situation, there are facts that I can't remember precisely, but to the extent that I know the part of the casefile to which I have had access, I can frankly confirm everything that I am responsible for. I think those are the banks that I can recall at the moment. Let me add that I think there is a long-time account in another Swiss bank, also located in Geneva, but I can't precisely remember the name of the bank, which I think I visited only once, and the account application was submitted from the US.

TO QUESTION 3: At Banque Pictet, in the name of Juan Guillermo Gutierrez Gomez. In another Geneva bank whose name I can't remember precisely at the moment, there was an account in the name of Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena. In another Geneva bank whose name I also can't recall, I believe the account is under the name Dozart. There is an account in the name of Raul Salinas de Gortari and another in the name of a company, Noborona (I can't state it's correct name since I don't have the documents available, but the account paperwork was submitted from Mexico), at Julius Baer Bank in Zurich. I'm not familiar with Julius Baer Bank; and I can't tell you how many accounts there are or under whose names in Zurich, because the accounts were opened by Citibank in New York and through a Swiss company called Confidas. Now I want to explain the reasons behind this strategy. To begin with, I categorically deny the slightest connection with drug trafficking, I categorically deny that these funds could have the slightest connection with the crime of financing the illegal dealing in drugs. Any statement by any authority in any country purporting to establish a relationship between these funds and drug trafficking [illegible] because it is a completely false presumption. I never had the slightest connection with drug trafficking or any drug trafficker, that's also an absurd presumption. My brother, former President Salinas, fought organized drug trafficking with total firmness. This prison is one sign of that fight and -- in contradiction with the Mexican Constitution, which they are violating by holding me here on trial together with convicted felons -- the heads of the major drug trafficking rings that were fought by President Salinas are being held here: Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, Rafael Caro Quintero, Ernesto Fonseca; Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman was here; Humberto Garcia Abrego was or is here, along with dozens of druglords that President Salinas fought doggedly, all of which -- I repeat -- makes the idea that I or anyone close to me might be connected with drug trafficking an absurdity. Let me add that two or three days before I was arrested I was in the US, a country that I have visited dozens of times during the past six years, and I was never detained or questioned by US authorities when I entered the country. On the contrary, I was always warmly received, because I don't have any [2+ lines missing] does not come from any activity related to my work as a government official, it's not dirty money, it is lawfully gained. I worked in the government in 1989 in a government corporation called CONASUPO, and in 1990-91 in the Secretariat for Planning and Budget, under the secretaryship of Dr. Ernesto Zedillo. My direct superior was Carlos Rojas, the current Secretary. There was never any situation of corruption or abuse of power in the institutions where I worked as a government official. But there is an explanation for this money: after deciding to organize an association of investor friends, I started to construct various mechanisms for putting together a fund that could be repatriated to Mexico -- at the end of my brother's administration -- for various investment projects and which would serve to obtain a greater volume of credits, because I was and am convinced that the economic recovery and growth of Mexico will require extensive foreign financing. The mechanisms [illegible] use of different identities is explained precisely because I was trying to protect my family name, and it was only later, when I -- together with an investor friend-- obtained access to the system set up by Citibank, through Confidas, that I could use my real name. The goal was to bring together a group of businessman friends to put together an offshore fund for reasons of safety and in order to avoid entanglement with the political vicissitudes of President Salinas' term. As I don't have a detailed knowledge of the steps the Mexican authorities are planning to take, I'm not going to now reveal the names of the businessmen who invested in one form or another, since some invested in the form of loans and others in the form of advances on individual projects. If I were in Switzerland right now, I'd happily furnish full details, but I can't provide information when I find myself in a situation where I don't have my files [illegible] other people, but I declare to the Swiss authorities that these people [illegible] and we are going to present this explanation clearly. I certainly erred in involving my wife by having her sign, but she holds no responsibility for, and has no exact knowledge of, the various participants and projects. In reality, my wife, Paulina Castanon, [illegible] was behaving like a noble and faithful spouse. She can probably think of some names of friends who participated, that's natural and logical, since we got together socially with these businessmen friends. I don't believe that my brother-in-law, Antonio Castanon, has the vaguest idea about this strategy, since he never worked with me and I simply feel affection and gratitude toward him for having stuck by my wife with brotherly loyalty during these terrible ten months, dropping his work and his activities to devote himself to Paulina's support.

TO QUESTION 4: In my previous answer, I tried to explain the origin and purpose of these funds, and pointed out that some of the account applications were submitted after 1989, that I didn't always submit them directly myself and that there are even some banks whose names I don't know. Obviously, all of this information is in my files, but right now I can remember some accounts, and I'll deal with them now. In the case of Banque Pictet in Geneva, I can speak of two periods: the first, from 1989 to June 1993, and the second from June 1993 to present. In the first period, I was introduced to Banque Pictet by Ms Margarita Nava Sanchez, and one or two accounts -- I can't remember -- were opened with her, but it was precisely within the strategy that I mentioned before. After June 1993, Ms Nava's name was removed from these accounts, and a new account was opened under the name of Juan Guillermo Gomez, together with my wife Paulina. An account in the name of Jose Gonzalez Cadena was opened at the Suizo [Schweizer?] bank, Geneva, and was closed last year. The accounts at Citibank Zurich were opened by Confidas, and right now I can't tell you how many there were. At Julius Baer Bank, I [illegible] the account numbers or other references for past or present accounts, or the other Dozart account. I seem to remember that another account was closed when Ms Margarita Nava ceased to participate and the funds were transferred to Banque Pictet.

TO QUESTION 4B: I think there's an account at Julius Baer in my name; in the name of fictitious persons at Pictet: under the name of Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez; and there was an account under the name of Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena, another pseudonym. Under company names: there is an account at Julius Baer under the name Novarone, I think, and there should also be an account under the name of Juan Manuel Gutierrez Gomez, a real person. Citibank New York set up a trust called Trocca through Confidas; I don't remember how many accounts there are under that name. Dozart is also a trust, originally set up by my present wife's former husband and containing the inheritance from the deceased first husband, whose name was Alfredo Diaz Ordaz. Those are all that I can remember at the moment.

TO QUESTION 4C: At Pictet, under the name of Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez; at the Schweizer [?] Bank in Geneva, under the name of Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena; at Julius Baer and Citibank Geneva, and at the bank (whose name I can't recall) which has the Dozart account, under the name of Raul Salinas.

TO QUESTION 5: Right now, I'm not sure if it was in July 1989, at Pictet, through Ms Margarita Nava, and the account in the name of Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena was opened during the same year, probably around the same time; the Citibank accounts were later, and the Julius Baer account was from the previous year.

TO QUESTIONS 6 AND 7: [Answer identical to that to Question 5]

TO QUESTION 8: The first Pictet account was opened by Ms Margarita Nava, starting in 1993, I opened it under the name of Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez. At Citibank -- its New York office, specifically -- the entire strategy was devised by Ms Amy Eliot, who was acquainted with the first investors to make transfers. Ms Eliot's correspondent in Zurich was a woman named Melly, I recall, who no longer works for the bank; subsequently it was a woman of Spanish origin or with Spanish antecedents, because she spoke Spanish very well. I opened the account under my own name at Julius Baer in Mexico, with some Swiss representatives of the bank; I believe his name was Curtis, all of the Julius Baer accounts were opened with Mr Curtis. The Dozart account was opened in Los Angeles through a bank employee, but I don't recall the names of either the person or the bank.

TO QUESTION 9: I am the person empowered.

TO QUESTION 10: The total amount is on the order of $100 million, without being able to specify [illegible] and, in accordance with the strategy that I outlined previously, I cannot say that I am the owner or beneficiary of this total, but I repeat that, at the appropriate time, I will explain everything to the Swiss authorities. I am asking the Swiss Prosecuting Attorney [Carla del Ponte] to receive members of my family and my defense team so that they can speak with you privately, but I implore you to understand that, since I don't know what indictment they might level at me, I can't incriminate other people, since in reality I'm the manager of a strategy and not the owner of the money

TO QUESTION 11: The reason is that on the one hand, in exchange for my consultancy and promotion I could obtain resources that could cause me tax problems; in fact, a portion of the resources is for me, for my consulting and promotional work, but basically...because at the time that the accounts were opened under different names I wasn't familiar with the system that Citibank proposed to me, so fictitious names were used in order not to create a political scandal. If I had previously known about Citibank's Confidas system I wouldn't have resorted to fictitious names. I kept the account at Pictet simply because of that bank's efficiency. But I can add that the name "Dozart" was inherited, that account already existed, and I opened the account at Julius Baer in my own name, so that actually I kept only one fictitious name, at Pictet. I've already explained why: Pictet is an excellent institution, very efficient, so I decided not to close that account. On the other hand, I closed the Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena account and transferred the money to Julius Baer, under my own name.

TO QUESTION 12: As I recall, only the Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena account was initially opened by depositing travelers' checks, all the rest were interbank transfers.

TO QUESTION 13: [See previous answer].

TO QUESTION 14: I think that I've answered in my previous replies, but I want to emphasize that I've never had the slightest connection with the crime of financing the drug trade. I repeat: that is false; the money comes from lawful sources and it's not possible to believe that cash movements that date back to over six years ago, no one would have believed back then that they were connected with drug trafficking if in fact they were so connected [sic]. The money is lawful in origin and has nothing to do with drug trafficking.

TO QUESTION 15: It's a trust, and I'd have to see the documents in order to spell out its stated purpose [illegible] I don't recall.

TO QUESTION 16: The transfer orders might have been issued by myself, by Ms Margarita Nava Sanchez, Mrs Paulina Castanon de Salinas, Ms Amy Eliot or in the fictitious names of Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez and Juan Jose Gonzalez Cadena; in any case, whoever participated was acting in accordance with my instructions, as I'm the person responsible for the accounts.

TO QUESTION 17: I don't recall the number of the account, but remembering the name, they belong to accounts managed through officers of Citibank and Confidas (and some other bank), but these are accounts that were opened by bank officers, I didn't open them directly. As a matter of fact, since I don't have all the files I couldn't even tell you today what names the officers used for opening the accounts.

TO QUESTION 17A: It is [was?] in Citibank, and my wife, Paulina Castanon de Salinas, and the bank officers who opened and managed it should have [had?] access.

TO QUESTION 17B: I replied to that in previous answers.

TO QUESTION 17C: I don't remember.

TO QUESTION 17D: That has already been answered.

TO QUESTION 17E: I don't recall at the moment, I neither confirm nor deny it.

TO QUESTION 18: I don't recall the number, but in fact it's the name that was used for accounts in Citibank Zurich.

TO QUESTION 18A: I can't specify the amount, but it should be around $45 million or a bit more.

TO QUESTION 18B: That has been answered previously, it's completely verifiable that the transfers took place through Citibank New York.

TO QUESTION 19A: I believe I've already answered that question.

TO QUESTION 19B: Let me point out that, as I said before, Ms Margarita Nava ceased to participate in June 1993, and if she has some other, later accounts not signed by Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez, they could be accounts independent of the ones that I was aware of.

TO QUESTION 20A: Because there was no reason to have two accounts, and it was important to stay with Banque Pictet.

TO QUESTION 20B: It's my impression that I didn't make the transfer directly myself, it's probable that Ms Margarita Nava Sanchez is the one who communicated with the Pictet officers, but there was no specific reason that I can recall, I simply seem to remember that having two accounts created useless work for the bank and for my supervision, so it was decided to keep just one, but I can't remember the arguments pro and con. I suppose they were opened under the same terms and with the same funds that were in the other two accounts. I seems to me that it was a purely administrative decision, since it involved the same people and the same money. I don't recall if I traveled in February 1993, or if it was Ms Margarita Nava. I don't even remember if it was during that month when I took steps to exclude Ms Margarita Nava from the accounts, because it was in 1993 that I removed Ms Nava's name from the accounts, so maybe the reason for changing accounts was in order to leave Ms Nava out.

TO QUESTION 21: Although I can't confirm it, I believe that I don't have two accounts at Pictet. It's my impression that Ms Margarita Nava opened an independent account, but I might be wrong. I think I'm telling the truth.

TO QUESTION 22A: There are only two possibilities, I would have to look over the documents. An alternative would be that it was a transfer by the investors: that seems the most likely. Another alternative is that the New York office run by Ms Amy Eliot was managing some funds in London in accordance with her optimization strategy, but it was the same money from the same accounts. So if [illegible] a transfer in addition to what existed as of that date, that could be the most viable [explanation], that it's one of the loans by the investors, but on the basis of the documents that I'm allowed to see at present, it's very [illegible] that it was an internal movement to optimize existing funds, since $25 million left Zurich on 8 June 1993 on an order from the Trocca administrators for investment in money market instruments, and twenty days later the same administrators decided to recall the money. Here in the documents is the name of an officer, Plange-Rohner, and this type of movement is quite normal in the money market, there's nothing strange about trying to optimize resources on various financial markets. That was the duty of the administrators, and they had facilities for doing so.

TO QUESTION 23A: I recall having ordered this transfer [on June 30 1993] -- which I had my wife carry out -- to a friend of mine (I could give you his name at a later time) for a business deal, but it was a lawful business deal. At this moment I don't wish to give the person's name or identify the projected deal, I believe that it fell through, but I don't want to give more detail for the reasons that I stated at the outset. Seeing this document, I can tell you that the total amount transferred to this recipient was actually greater, this was just a portion, and there was nothing unlawful about it. I want to thank you for making documents that clarify things available to me. My family or my attorneys can give you the name of the recipient. He is a friend of mine, and the deal was a lawful one.

TO QUESTION 23B: I believe that I have answered that question.

TO QUESTION 23C: I've answered that in previous replies.

TO QUESTION 23D: For the transfer.

TO QUESTION 23E: That's what was decided by the participants.

TO QUESTION 24: Because no transfer could be made until the funds had been assembled: first they had to arrive, then they could be transferred.

TO QUESTION 25: [A document is presented for examination by Salinas] I stated that when the $15 million was transferred, the total amount was higher, and these $5 million are part of this block that was moved. Various channels were used, as agreed upon by the participants, and we came to this agreement because the recipient wanted it this way. I believe that it would be very easy for the Swiss authorities to find out who the recipients were and learn that they are people who have nothing to do with drug trafficking. I'm sure that you can question them and find out that their business activity has nothing to do with the crime being investigated here.

TO QUESTION 26: [A document is presented for examination by Salinas] According to the dates and addressee, it's the continuation of the first $15 million transfer. If the Swiss authorities wish, they can verify that the $15 million and these $3 million reached the same recipient and that this recipient's business has nothing to do with the crime under investigation here.

TO QUESTION 27: On my instructions. This answer also covers Question 27A, since we were sure that -- since the money had nothing to do with drug trafficking -- the accounts hadn't been frozen. If I had had any doubt -- because, say, my accounts had actually been linked with drug trafficking -- I would never have gotten my wife involved. We never expected that anyone would have lied and that the accounts might be frozen for the crime of drug trafficking. What I did know was that the Mexican authorities were aware of the existence of a fake passport in the name of Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez and that the money had to be moved, but someone lied and made the completely baseless drug trafficking accusation. I also don't know what interests acted or had a role in making the Swiss government disclose its banking secrets; I know which interests are out there to persecute me politically, but I can't understand how it was possible for the Swiss government to disclose banking secrets without a shred of evidence, without any real foundation. If I had any mistrust in the Swiss government or Swiss banking authorities I never would have sent my wife. Banking secrecy has been violated on account of a lie.

TO QUESTION 27B: Because we knew that the passport that the Mexican authorities were looking for was in that safe deposit box, along with documents concerning Citibank, and if the name Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez was known to the Mexican authorities, they had to be gotten out of that safe deposit box.

TO QUESTION 27C: The ultimate purpose of all of this money in the [illegible] that I have described was to promote business and employment in Mexico, and Ms Amy Eliot advised my wife to move those funds. I don't know what words were actually exchanged between Amy Eliot and my wife, but I suppose that Ms Eliot wanted to keep Citibank out of this problem or had some information about the drug trafficking accusation, I don't know, or she helped lead my wife into that trap, since we trusted Swiss banking secrecy and for this reason -- even after nine months of incarceration and investigation -- we weren't worried about moving these funds. There were two events which in large measure led to the decision to move the money: firstly, the fact that the Mexican authorities knew about the fake passport and, secondly, Mrs Amy Eliots' advice.

TO QUESTION 28: Luis del Valle is a tax expert who I have known for many years and whose services I have contracted on various occasions as a tax advisor. Basically, he's a person that I trust and an expert in tax matters.

TO QUESTION 28A: To accompany and advise my wife.

TO QUESTION 28B: I don't know what exact instructions Luis del Valle had, because I haven't spoken with him for ten months, but generally speaking he was to assist my wife.

TO QUESTION 29: I already explained the reason that Antonio Castanon opened an account at the beginning of this hearing. I'm enormously grateful to him, since he has put aside his work and his responsibilities and, at this critical moment, he had to count on a mechanism that would leave him financially secure to provide continuing support for my wife, Paulina. Both Paulina and Antonio are part of my defense team and they are devoting all of their time and energy to show up the lies which have led to my indictment for the crime of homicide. The mechanism for providing this financial security was by depositing a large sum to his account (but very small in relation to the total from a group of investors that I could identify at a later time), I don't know whether or not he made a transfer, but the intention was to deposit a large sum to his account, about $1 million, for the purposes that I described. I'm sure that Paulina and Antonio have made statements in this regard; I'm doing likewise, because they are people that tell the truth. I don't know why a safe deposit box was rented, but I suppose it was for keeping documents. I don't have the foggiest notion whether transfers were made or not, since I've had no contact with my wife.

TO QUESTION 30: I'm surprised that this business should appear in an inquiry formulated by the Swiss authorities, because I don't recall that it ever actually operated: it's sole purpose was to give Margarita Nava a business reference. I think it was more a matter of vanity than anything else, since this business never attempted or accomplished anything. At the beginning, when this business was set up, there was an idea that it would engage in some -- lawful -- transactions, but I don't recall that it ever carried out any operations, nor do I remember when it was shut down, since it was managed by Margarita Nava Sanchez. When it was set up I believe that its registered office was on Calle de Explanada -- I can't recall the number -- but I can't say this for sure because this Explanada address was given as a reference for Margarita Nava and Juan Guillermo Gomez Gutierrez -- it must be 1230 Explanada -- but I want to point out that the Mexican authorities have attempted to link this address or property with the homicide currently under investigation and have fabricated phony evidence in this regard. I have already stated and denounced this before the judge, but none of this money has anything to do with crimes or misdemeanors, so I repeat: the crime under investigation is without foundation.

TO QUESTION 31: It's a brokerage firm. I've had deposits in InverMexico which were declared and which were liquidated some time ago, I don't recall when. I believe that the InverMexico group is still in operation, but I was simply a customer and I don't see why this should fall within the scope of the Swiss authorities' investigation.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 32: Do you hold, represent or manage accounts under your true name, fictitious names or corporate names in countries other than Switzerland?

TO QUESTION 32: I have to say that, as I understand the question, I do not hold, manage or handle accounts in other countries, except for Mexico. I don't know whether any of the members of this group of investors might have foreign accounts which have nothing to do with me but, in the tenor of the strategy that I described here, this banking took place in Switzerland and with trust in Swiss banking secrecy -- banking secrecy that has been violated due to lies, because I repeat: neither I nor any of the people mentioned have the slightest connection with the crime of financing drug trafficking. This is a false accusation, and this lie was the basis for violation of Swiss banking secrecy and for the arrest of two innocent people. I implore the Swiss authorities to look into the series of maneuvers carried out to persecute me and my family, to make a fair evaluation of the absolutely innocent involvement of Paulina Castanon de Salinas and Antonio Castanon and to immediately establish a less severe, more benevolent and fair situation for those two individuals. There is no crime of drug trafficking; the strategy that I described will be presented before the Swiss authorities when they permit me to do so, and before the Mexican authorities when a formal indictment is handed down, since things have proceeded to present without a formal indictment, no trial has been opened for the crime under investigation here. Once again, I request a more lenient situation, justice and complete exoneration for Antonio and Paulina Castanon, since they have been detained in the investigation of a nonexistent crime.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 33: [Line missing] manage or administer them?

ANSWER: In my answer to your previous question, I thought that you were asking me whether there were other accounts in addition to those already mentioned in this interrogation. There aren't any others. The accounts in the US and London already mentioned are part of the same group of accounts that exist here; that is, they are basically part of the group of accounts structured, organized and managed by Citibank. That's the way Citibank New York and Citibank Zurich structured and organized them. They have facilities for opening accounts anywhere and don't need my direct participation to do so.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 34: What benefits did you receive for managing this group of accounts?

ANSWER: The benefits that I received have to be divided into two parts, since the goal was -- and remains --to generate business with this money, and I was to share in the profits when deals were closed, depending on the structure and financing of each deal. Moreover, taxes would have to be paid on those deals when they went through -- here in Mexico, obviously. On the other hand, even though I might have a tax problem, but just to show the Swiss authorities my good intentions in this interrogation, significant profits were realized in the course of time, and I was able to -- and actually did -- make use of this money, which I received for the management and consulting that I provided for each of these investors. There actually were significant profits, and I made use of them, and I repeat that I'm informing the Swiss government of this to demonstrate the truthfulness of my entire statement, even though it could result in a tax problem for me.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 35: Was the group of investors which you have referred to in this statement legally constituted in any manner?

ANSWER: No. But I want to make the following frank observations. The article which was read to me, Article 127bis of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, states that I have the right to receive all information concerning this judicial investigation, and I request that a copy of my entire casefile be turned over to my lawyers, together with copies of all documents in the possession of the Swiss authorities, since these proceedings are being conducted under Mexican law and the law gives me this right. So I'm requesting copies of all information received by the Swiss authorities concerning this case. Of course, I'm also requesting the information that led to intervention by the US authorities. That is, since it is guaranteed to me by law, I wish to know what accusations or information were brought before the American authorities tasked with investigating drug trafficking. Article 128 says that I have the right to know the identity of the plaintiff, so I have the right to know who falsely accused me or linked me the crime of financing drug trafficking. I therefore request that the Mexican authorities represented here inform me who was the complainant of this crime of drug trafficking and who falsely linked me [to this crime]. According to the rights that were read to me at the beginning of this hearing, I have the right to communicate with anyone I choose for my appropriate defense. In accordance with this right, I request that I be able to communicate immediately with my wife, Paulina Castanon de Salinas. In conclusion, I want to add that -- as I have pointed out -- I made mistakes, but I never engaged in criminal activity. I made procedural mistakes, and I accept responsibility for them, but any contact with drug trafficking is absolutely false. The fact that the accounts still exist and that no attempt was made to erase them shows that I had no intention of concealing the movements [of money] from the Swiss authorities, because the origin of the money is lawful and we always trusted Swiss banking secrecy. I also want to add that, I thanked God when I learned that Antonio and my wife Paulina were detained in Switzerland, because I have absolute confidence in Swiss justice. I have only two more observations to make. First, I request that the Swiss authorities exercise great objectivity and care in examining any evidence that the Mexican authorities might submit with regard to drug trafficking, because I have proof that the Mexican authorities invent and fabricate evidence. So I request that you, Madam Prosecuting Attorney, verify the origin of any such item of evidence. I also want you to understand that President Carlos Salinas crossed a number of enormous private interests when he modernized this country, and what is happening today -- the persecution and attack against me and my family-- is part of the price paid for modernizing and transforming Mexico. I knew that this visit by the Swiss authorities was a sign from the hand of God, I'm truly thankful that these events took place in Switzerland, because I reiterate my confidence in Swiss law and Swiss officialdom. Once again, I submit that the explanation [illegible] is at the disposal of the Swiss authorities, and I request that you allow my family and my defense enter into direct contact and communication with you. Thank you for listening to me.

[End of text]