In the midst of an internal crisis, as a result of the resignation of its authorities, the Unit for Financial Information (UIF) filed an opinion in the Hotesur/Los Sauces case asking Federal Court Oral 5 to respond to Cristina Kirchner’s request for dismissal before proceeding with the case. At the same time, in a subtle way, the FIU winked at the vice president’s defense by saying that the crime of money laundering required a prejudgement of past crimes. It is a minority theory that has already been discussed in other experiments, such as the K Money Road.
In this way, the questions raised by the defenders, which make it impossible to prosecute the previous offense, because of the prohibition of double trial, the application of the principle of legality and the guarantee of false crimes without law, made the clarification of the problem before judging an act of money laundering inevitable, since the existence of a prior offense or a prior offense, as was said at the time, constitutes an inevitable element of the existence of money laundering.”, supports the presentation of the FIU that he had access to Infobae.
The debate is not new. In the case of the “K money path” was also present and the majority criterion for TOF 4 was that The law does not require a conviction for the previous offense, but it reaches a strong and good suspicion. In fact, the fraud was taken into account by Public Works, which is being judged in the Roads case – where Vice President Christina Kirchner is one of the main accused – and Austral Construcciones’ tax evasion, which is still under investigation in several cases.
“The interpretation of the majority is that the pre-judgment of the previous offense is not a condition. This is the criterion that was used in the way of money k. But another interpretation of the minority is that there must be a final judgment. Thus it would be impossible to advance on the reasons for money laundering,” explained an expert in The field was consulted in this way.
The presentation of the Financial Intelligence Unit, which acts as the complainant, consists of only four pages and is signed by Leandro Ventura, a lawyer very close to the outgoing head of the Financial Intelligence Unit, Carlos Cruz, who was actually in charge of the litigation area, and Adolfo Tonín Monzon.
The brief asserts that TOF 5 should respond to Christina Kirchner’s defense proposal immediately and leaves the door open by citing the previous sentence of previous offenses. “Yes, we understand that the above circumstances, acting as a factual and legal context, make it advisable to take extreme precautions when proceeding with judicial proceedings, in those cases that there are final judgments on the facts adjudged, whenever both the legal guarantee and the elements The rule of law itself is at stake, as it stems from the prohibition of multiple criminal prosecutions. Particularly in proceedings of institutional and social significance such as these, in which alleged acts of corruption between the public and private sectors are investigated,” says one of the paragraphs.
Two weeks ago, despite making the required expertise with the same defenses, the vice president’s attorney and her sons are the nation’s deputy Maximo Kirchner and Florencia Kirchner, They requested his removal at Los Sauces / Hotesur. Kirchner’s attorney, Alberto Peraldi, also requested the dismissal of Romina de Los Angeles Mercado, daughter of Santa Cruz Governor Alicia Kirchner, and son-in-law Patricio Pereira Arandia, two other defendants in the case.
The case is investigating allegations of money laundering and wrongful association by Hotesur and Los Sauces – of the Kirchner family – in the leasing of their hotels and properties to businessmen. The accusation is that they rented for public works received by their companies during the Nestor and Christina Kirchner governments.
Now the Federal Prosecutor’s opinion awaits Diego Velasco, He has a deadline for comment until tomorrow at 9:30. With that, the TOF 5 team rules, Daniel Obligado, Adriana Palioti and Adrian Grunberg, They will be able to respond to Kirchner’s offer.
Times are urgent because Grunberg will be leaving court in two weeks.
However, any decision made by the court will be reviewed by the first chamber of the Cassation Chamber, which has fired the vice president over the future dollar issue and the memo with Iran.