Two businessmen who played offside despite knowing VAR protected them

Listen

Unanimously, the Supreme Court drew a clear line: acquitting Cristóbal López and Fabián de Sousa by an oral court and by a chamber of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation It is “arbitrary” because it is “dogmatic” and because it is “fragmented.”. That is, when evaluating the evidence, they ignored what the evidence showed or they analyzed some but discarded others. And thus, they ignored a comprehensive, complete and integrated analysis of all the material accumulated in the file… which I blamed them,

The Supreme Court’s decision thus validates the testimony of a long list of prosecutors, judges and chamber maids of the criminal and commercial courts, as well as the plaintiff counsel of the Federal Public Revenue Administration (AFIP) during the oral trials. Alejandro Carrió. They have all made this assumption in recent years The behavior of Lopez and de Sousa was not blameless and typical of businessmen acting in good faith to maximize their business.Financing within the law.

With the votes already cast in 2018 Gustavo Hornos And Eduardo Riggi, The Federal Court of Criminal Cassation confirmed the trial against Lopes and de Sousa, who were accused of leading the murder. Promoted a fraudulent administration that caused a loss of nearly $8 billion to the public exchequer -close to US$1000 million at the current exchange rate-. Hornos went further: he warned that it was a Serious act of corruption with criminal involvement of AFIP,

Meanwhile, in late 2020 and early 2021, the Commercial Chamber issued two rulings in the bankruptcy of “Oil Combustibles”, which also complicated Lopez and de Sousa. They described the process that the two businessmen have followed since 2011 “Ruin” and “Fraud”; that is, from the moment they took over the oil company. It should be noted that both decisions are final.

already in the Verbal examplesLopez and de Sousa were acquitted, but at the same time Dissent of the chambermaid Andrés Bassobeyond the fact that it was also proved that the owners of the Indalo Group had developed Scandalous moves that damage national exchequer.And through these reprehensible practices, he built his empire of 170 companies.

In this context, the prosecutor Juan Patricio García Elorio And Diego Velasco He appealed his acquittal by split verdict, but the cassation dismissed his claims with signatures Diego Barroetevena And Daniel PetroneWhich in turn was appealed to the Supreme Court by another prosecutor, Mario Villarwho in turn was supported by the interim head of the Attorney General’s Office, Eduardo Casal,

What did Villar raise, what did Casal share and what did the Supreme Court now accept as its own? The oral court that acquitted Lopez and de Sousa issued the “R”Arbitrary cutting of a much more complex plot“. In other words, he He evaluated each clue “individually, in isolation and out of context”.Ignoring “observations necessary to draw reasonable conclusions.”

On the contrary, for Villar and Casal analyse all the evidence it emerges clearly that Lopes and de Sousa “faced a business expansion strategy supported byThe practical certainty that AFIP will provide Contra Legem “Facilities Requested” for Payment of TaxesIn the context of football, they played off side Knowing that the linesman and VAR will never cancel his actions and goals,

“Overall,” Castle said in an opinion shared by the Supreme Court, “consistent evidence justifying this inference has been duly presented throughout the trial. He experienced odd circumstances ultimately, reduced the control capacity of the AFIP and created the conditions for Clearly unreasonable requests “They can successfully navigate various bureaucratic instances without warning.”

An example? While others were in charge of directorates of oil companies and important companies Large national taxpayersUnder special control, where the default rate is only 1%, Lopez and de Sousa’s oil company, Oil Combustibles, remained in a Regional dependencies. Another example? For reasons that the AFIP was never able to explain, the debt that Lopes and de Sousa accumulated with the treasury was recorded as numerous.Unconfirmed”, which barred AFIP from issuing loan slips and demanding payment from them.

For Villar and Casal, the actions of Lopez and de Sousa were criminal. Why? Because they led”A development model that requires the evasion of paying tax (on the transfer of fuel) in order to finance other businesses (of the Indalo Group) with those funds, resulting in and promoting systematic non-compliance (payments to the treasury) and, ultimately, breach of duty of the official“, i.e. from the former head of the AFIP Ricardo EchegarayThis file has already been convicted.

In short, Villar and Casal subscribe to the investigation of the federal prosecutor Gerardo Polisetta Prima facie evidence was developed. What conclusion did you arrive at?”Lopes and de Sousa, as private-party businessmen, withdrew the sums of money received but not deposited to the treasury and distributed them in the form of loans – even with rates lower than those offered by the AFIP – to themselves and to other companies in the group, which allowed them to increase their assets, expand their corporate group, fund themselves with public money and decapitalize the firm, which was indebted to the State due to an illegal agreement with national authorities.,

In requesting that federal judge Julian Ercolini extend the investigation to an oral hearing, prosecutor Polisetta summarized “fraudulent trick“, as he defined it, along three main axes: “1) Strengthening of corporate structure for divestiture and fraud in oil business; 2) the Illegitimate accumulation of debt from ICL (due to tax on liquid fuels) and Irregular grant of payment facility schemes (by AFIP), and as a correlate of this; 3) improper use of ICL Financing and expansion of Indalo Group and self-decapitalisation of oil combustibles,

What can we expect now? The Supreme Court orders a new sentence. But Chamber I of Cassation cannot issue it, whose verdict was annulled. Another chamber must intervene, whose decision can be reviewed by the same Third Chamber of Cassation – if it condemns them – or by the Supreme Court – if it acquits them. Beyond this procedural complication, the background remains the same: A business conglomerate that set out to expand at the expense of the public treasury with $8 billion – about US$1 billion at the time –,

Learn about The Trust Project