The Federal Chamber This Friday confirmed the cases of the former planning secretary Roberto Barada and the Chamber of Commerce, in a judgment affirming that the evidence in the summons “Reference Books”, Vice President there Christina Kirchner He was accused of being the head of an illegal syndicate that collected bribes based only on tips from taxi drivers. Oscar Rye But also in other trials and confessions made by the penitent.
Although the main case is already in oral proceedings, some specific facts are yet to be raised and are being investigated. Meanwhile, the court pointed out that these cases are still under investigation “It is necessary to further define the potential liability of other co-defendants in connection with certain events”. Among them appears Vice President Christina Kirchner. The judgment analyzed bribery by businessmen and therefore, Judges Leopoldo Bruglia and Pablo Bertuzzi promise an investigation into who received the money.
“Regarding this fact in the car we are dealing with, Centeno’s notes indicate that the money received by Parata and Lazarte was then taken to an address at 1306 Uruguay Street. Daniel Munoz (As per copies of 2010 memorandum). The potential liability of the other co-defendants on this fact must be assessed” said the verdict. Daniel Muñoz was Néstor Kirchner’s secretary and died in 2016. His enrichment and money laundering were part of another investigation linked to the notebook file.
Chamber I of the Federal Chamber ruled thus when analyzing these appeals The deal was signed last February By a federal judge Julian Ercolini. There, within reach was a circle of money Daniel Munoz, The deceased secretary of Néstor Kirchner, who embezzled money abroad. But it was mentioned Directed by Vice President Christina Kirchner.
Many of those who have repented now want to improve their situation and recommend it The money given was “for politics”. That is the case Hugo Dragonetti and Julio Ballon, The charges against the two traders were confirmed today. The strategy of some businessmen is that money given to Paratha Political campaign contributions. The two businesswomen were able to walk away from the oral hearing with that explanation. Many now want their actions investigated by the electoral justice system.
The judgment of the Federal Chamber underlines that the case analyzes the illegal collection circuit established in the National Public Administration (PEN) between 2003 and 2015, fueled by money provided by various contractor agencies of the state. Allotment of public works contracts, concessions and other benefits directly or indirectly dependent on management discretion”. And he kept it.”Elements of the collected evidence defy the structure of the “notebooks” and Oscar B. Their recognition when Centeno (Roberto Barata’s driver) testifies that he has repented”.
“The evidentiary proceedings ordered in summary have made it possible to establish it Addresses mentioned, Check the ownership of the mentioned vehicles, the communication between the protagonists, the dates of delivery events and other details. Likewise, within the framework of the cooperation agreements under Law 27,304 there are contributions by various defendants—individuals and former officials—that are substantially consistent with the former driver’s account and add information about the activity under investigation. Based on these elements, it is appropriate to dismiss the complaint regarding the ‘notebooks’ as unique evidence,” it said.
Contribution to politics, double jeopardy and bribery in installments
Dragonetti’s defense argued that in its appeal A voluntary contribution, in response to his supporter’s relationship with the Justice Party, He was associated with it and held various posts at the district level. At that time, he said, he asked Parada for the receipts of those contributions to claim tax exemption, but they were not provided. However, the decision of Judge Julian Ercolini should be confirmed and, in any event, since the main case had already been brought to trial, discuss it in that event: where, with all the evidence, “A determination of the calculated cash contribution target will be achieved.”
According to Bruglia and Bertuzzi, “the entries in the records determine the connection of the alleged event with the contracts or contractual processes related to Panedil.” In addition, Baratta, the then Coordinating Undersecretary, “acted not only as an individual officer but also as an indicator of the role he played within the structure of illegal collection parallel to the ministerial portfolio and administrative structure he reviewed.”
In that respect, the Federal Chamber added, “Like Juan Mauricio Ballon and Dragonetti, The existence of the money supply is not in question, but their purpose. In this sense, according to his defense, they are not related to the hiring of his company, but to the election campaigns of those years. However, even if this is a viable alternative, the eligible payments in the extension of his processing on 7/15/2013 and 7/30/2015 cannot ignore the fact that he recognized in his statement that the accused had repented. And Juan F. Secco SA – a company dedicated to the supply of electricity – participated in tenders in the orbit of the national government contractor and the Federal Ministry of Planning.
Judges Leopoldo Bruglia and Pablo Bertuzzi upheld the case against the businessman. Alberto Dacelli, He underlined that they had extended the case for disbursement of money since 2013 Nelson Lazard, Bharata’s right-hand man was already involved in the first part of the case, so there was a double whammy.
“The event referred to by the defense in the order raised to the hearing provided for in these orders was not included in time. Therefore, it may be concluded that the statement made as the basis for the proposition of deduction is not consistent with the records of the case,” replied the judgment. , on the contrary, a case of double criminality for the same act is not noticed in the strict sense, because of the same cause. Therefore, the two cases do not admit of different judicial processes in relation to the same defendant and the same factual hypothesis, and therefore there is no breach of warranty in this case. ne bis in idem”, the judges pointed out.
It was different for entrepreneurs Claudio J. Glassman. In his case, the defense asserted that “the three transactions comprising the practical substance of this incident did not constitute independent acts, but formed part of the same and only crime for which he had already been charged and prosecuted.” The issue was raised by the defense of Hernan Gomez, who was sued for receiving the money. He also understands the situation of Roberto Barata, the accused co-author of the crime – Gomez acted under his orders in these cases. Analyzing the question framed, it is worth noting that the defenses are valid. Well, the events covered in this case are included in the factual structure of an offense of bribery, either actively or passively. That’s why the extension of Glassman’s case was canceled at this point, and so was the case of Hernán Gómez, the planning officer, and Parata.
Finally, the judgment stayed the process against the defendant Claudius Albert of LaSaletta “Monitoring Disability”.
“Introvert. Thinker. Problem solver. Evil beer specialist. Prone to fits of apathy. Social media expert. Award-winning food fanatic.”