Q COSTA RICA — Costa Rica’s government is seeking to shift public attention away from unanswered questions about the apparent proximity of businessman Guobin Tam Zhang to senior figures in the ruling party, the Partido Pueblo Soberano (PPSO).
Tam, whom Costa Rican authorities have described as a suspected drug-trafficking money launderer, was arrested in October during a joint operation involving the Organismo de Investigación Judicial (OIJ), the Policia Constrol de Drogas (PCD) and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The arrest brought renewed scrutiny to photographs showing Tam at two private events attended by prominent government supporters. One image placed him among guests at a February electoral celebration for the ruling Chavista movement at San José’s Aurola Hotel. Another showed him seated near then-President Rodrigo Chaves, President-elect Laura Fernández and several PPSO legislators during an April event in the Cristo Rey neighborhood.
The April gathering was held to inaugurate a building connected to Obras del Espíritu Santo, a charitable organization led by Catholic priest Sergio Valverde, and to mark Costa Rica’s National Cooperative Day. The event also included Freddy González, secretary-general of the PPSO and one of the country’s most visible cooperative movement leaders.
Neither the government nor the ruling party has provided a clear explanation of how Tam gained access to the events, who invited him or why he was permitted to sit near senior political figures. Mayuli Ortega, president of PPSO, said the party was examining how Tam attended the February celebration. Ten days later, there was still no public account of the findings.
The government has offered no comparable investigation into the April event. Obras del Espíritu Santo said it did not know in what capacity Tam attended and denied responsibility for organizing the gathering. González has not publicly explained his contact with Tam or the businessman’s presence at the event.
Fernández addressed the issue at a news conference on October 7, after several days of public criticism. She denied having any relationship with Tam and argued that a photograph or brief encounter could not establish a connection to criminal activity. She also said it would have been impossible for her to know the businessman’s alleged criminal background.
Yet one of her statements was later challenged by the available record. Fernández said Tam had not been the subject of a criminal investigation in February, when the Aurola photograph was taken. The article reports that a judicial case involving him had already been active since January.
The president also explained a separate encounter with another man suspected of money laundering, identified as Hugo Barboza, detained earlier this month. She said the conversation took place during a March concert after event organizers extended a courtesy to her. Fernández did not offer a similar explanation for Tam’s presence at the party gathering.
After a second photograph of Tam was published by La Nación, the government again declined to provide detailed answers. Nogui Acosta, the PPSO’s legislative leader, defended the official position, saying that attending a public event or appearing in a photograph with someone does not prove a relationship with that person’s activities or knowledge of possible wrongdoing.
That response addresses the narrowest question—whether a photograph proves criminal complicity—but leaves broader institutional questions unanswered. Political parties and government officials routinely vet guests, donors, organizers and participants at restricted events. The issue is not simply that Tam appeared in a picture. It is whether anyone responsible for organizing or securing those gatherings knew who he was, whether he had political or financial ties to the ruling movement, and whether officials took reasonable steps to identify such risks.
Fernández has not announced an inquiry into whether Tam contributed money to electoral activities outside official campaign accounts or supported mobilizations associated with the governing movement. The PPSO has opposed creating a legislative commission focused specifically on Tam’s activities. Instead, its lawmakers backed a broader investigation into campaign financing in 2022 and 2026—a proposal that could examine more actors but may also dilute attention on the immediate questions raised by the photographs.
The government has also emphasized its record on combating organized crime. Fernández said the “Tam case” was already before the courts and expressed support for the continued presence of the DEA in Costa Rica. That statement was presented as evidence of the administration’s commitment to cooperation against drug trafficking, though the article notes that the DEA has operated in Costa Rica since 1985, rather than having arrived during Chaves’s presidency.
At the same time, the administration has promoted the opening of the High-Containment Center Against Organized Crime, known as Cacco. The facility has become a centerpiece of the government’s security messaging. Its inauguration was promoted days before the ceremony through government-produced audiovisual material, helping the administration redirect public discussion toward its anti-crime agenda while questions about Tam remained unresolved.
Analysis: The problem is political access, not just photographic proximity
The government’s defense rests on a technically plausible claim: being photographed near a suspect does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct. That point is difficult to dispute. Public events create accidental encounters, and political figures cannot know the full background of every person who appears in a crowd.
But the government’s response is incomplete because it treats the controversy as though the only question were whether Fernández or other officials personally knew Tam’s alleged activities. The more consequential issue concerns access.
Tam was not photographed once in an anonymous public crowd. He appeared at two politically significant events, including one where he was seated near high-ranking officials and lawmakers. Those repeated appearances raise questions about invitations, accreditation, introductions and relationships. They also call for a basic institutional review, even if that review ultimately finds no illegal conduct.
The administration’s refusal to pursue that review creates a credibility problem. Saying that “a photograph proves nothing” may be legally correct, but it does not explain why the same individual appeared in multiple settings connected to the governing movement. Nor does it clarify whether party officials, political intermediaries or event organizers knew him before his arrest.
The choice of a broad campaign-finance investigation produces a similar ambiguity. A wide-ranging inquiry could uncover useful information, but it can also make accountability less direct. By placing the Tam questions inside a much larger review of the financing of multiple campaigns and parties, legislators avoid giving the public a focused answer about the people and institutions that gave him access.
The government’s communications strategy has been more decisive than its fact-finding. Public attention has been directed toward the newly inaugurated prison, the Centro de Alta Contención contra el Crimen Organizado (CACCO)—High-Security Center for Combating Organized Crime, cooperation with the DEA and the administration’s broader anti-narcotics message. Those are politically useful subjects, particularly for a government that has made security a central part of its identity. They do not resolve the unanswered questions about political proximity.
The ongoing judicial and extradition proceedings may eventually clarify Tam’s alleged financial and criminal networks. Authorities are investigating suspected links to drug-trafficking organizations in Colombia and Mexico and alleged efforts to legitimize proceeds from the drug trade. Those proceedings should be allowed to run their course without political interference.
Still, judicial proceedings are not a substitute for political accountability. Courts determine criminal liability. Parties and public institutions must also explain whom they invite, how they vet access to restricted events and what they do when a person connected to their circles is arrested on serious charges.
For now, the government appears to be betting that the controversy will fade as other headlines take over. That may work as a short-term communications tactic. It does not answer the central questions.
Until the PPSO and the executive branch identify how Tam entered those events, who facilitated his access and whether any money or political assistance passed through those relationships, the photographs will remain more than isolated images. They will stand as evidence of an unresolved failure of transparency.
Adapted from “Gobierno intenta dejar atrás cuestionamientos por cercanía con sospechoso de narcotráfico seguido por la DEA” at SemanarioUniversidad.com. Read the original in Spanish here.