Does the statement "Why we are not charging person x is confidential" make sense?

This usually indicates that those claiming the reason is confidential are part of the original problem being swept under the rug.

Government ownership or involvement. Either the host government or a close ally. It’s too much of a political embarrassment, is my guess.

It is possible that they are still investigating.

It makes sense only in a country where corruption is rife.

Sure. And it might not be about politics or cronyism. Maybe the police are using him for some other reason, on another case, and they don’t want to rock that boat.

The point is that, for whatever reason, they seem to think that the costs of charging the guy would be higher than the costs of not charging him. And they’re in the position to make that call.

Is it correct? No way to know. We’re not there, We don’t have the facts.

I cannot see a situation in which the reason not pressing charges would need to be confidential.

Oh, wait! Yes I can; Money Talks.

It is possible that another undercover investigation may be in progress and could be compromised by filing charges. Or it may just be the prosecutors brother-in-law. Prosecutors can do pretty much what ever they want so it’s hard to tell.

OK! HERE; is the correct link .

Thank you all.

“Asked why Edward Burkhardt, owner of the railway, was not charged, Verret said the decision to press charges is the legal opinion of the prosecutor based on “information which must remain confidential.”
Here is the story.

Original story

Thank you @LuckyGuy for the link.