Lawmaker disputes FGJEM arrests account in Ecatepec
Infobae México reports that Morena lawmaker Octavio Martínez Vargas disputed the State of Mexico attorney general’s account of 10 arrests allegedly linked to extortion around Ecatepec’s Central de Abasto. Martínez Vargas said none of the arrests occurred inside the market and questioned details of the agency’s claims about seized property and alleged union-linked organizations. The competing accounts and legal status remain unresolved.
Infobae México reports that Morena lawmaker Octavio Martínez Vargas challenged information released by the State of Mexico Attorney General’s Office, known as FGJEM, about arrests allegedly connected to extortion and drug-related crimes around the Central de Abasto in Ecatepec. Infobae México says FGJEM announced operations conducted between July and September, including the detention of 10 people—seven men and three women—and the seizure of six properties, 20 vehicles and other items. The attorney general’s office also said the alleged network was connected to organizations operating behind a union façade, a claim presented by the agency and not independently established in the available material.
Martínez Vargas said none of the 10 people were arrested inside the Ecatepec market. According to the account, he said one person was detained in Hidalgo and that items were seized in Axapusco, while questioning how two women could be tied to extortion at a market where, he argued, there are no “quotas” to collect. The legislator also disputed earlier statements about stolen goods allegedly found at the market and said a State of Mexico administrative court had ordered information to be rectified, although he claimed that correction had not been made.
Infobae México attributes the competing versions to Martínez Vargas and FGJEM. The report does not resolve whether the arrests or seizures were legally validated, and it does not establish guilt for any of the people named as suspects. It also uses abbreviated or machine-translated wording in places, so the exact scope of the administrative court decision and the alleged organizations’ roles remain unclear.