The reason for the books: the return of the FIU to the charge against the dismissal of Paulo Roca | Presentation in front of the cassation chamber

The FIU has appealed to the Cassation Chamber to contest the decision of the Federal Chamber of Buenos Aires, which refused to analyze the UIF’s appeal against the dismissal of Techint CEO Paulo Roca, and other executives in the alleged case. of laptops.

The authority appealed to the First Circuit of the country’s highest federal criminal court after the Federal Chamber of Buenos Aires did not accept its appeal against Judge Julian Ercolini’s decision. The judge permanently removed Roca, company director Luis Petnaz and another member of the company at the time of the events, Hector Zabaleta, from the case, even though they admitted paying bribes.

In the appeal to the cassation, the FIU requests that its appeal be accepted and a review of the federal judge’s ruling. Ercolini considered that the payment of bribes by the businessmen was justified by a situation relating to the Sidor factory in Venezuela, in the midst of negotiations for nationalization, with the necessity of preserving security and jobs: they supposedly made payments to illegal officials for assistance. But none of that had anything to do with the arguments made by Techint’s men when they declared themselves repentant in the case.

The Financial Intelligence Unit, in its appeal, revealed that the decision considered the “state of necessity” claimed by the multinational businessmen is proven, as no evidence has been able to link the alleged money payments to the force actions taken by the unions in the Arab Republic of Egypt. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” The UIF also questioned another of the arguments in the ruling, according to which the CEO of Techint Group, Roca, “was unaware” of what had happened.

In addition, the agency noted that in the same decision Judge Ercolini was tried for the “gift” of former civil servant Roberto Baratta. The Financial Intelligence Unit said that the crime of “hiba” “does not enable the prosecution of some and the dismissal of others. Holding the opposite violates the principles of impartiality, consistency, rationality and non-contradiction that must accompany judicial decisions.”

The FIU argued that, at the time of the appeal, by acceding to Baratta’s own motion, it complied with the required requirements “because: a) it has a legal right to appeal, b) it made adhesion during the subpoena once the defense of accused Baratta had been notified that the appeal had been accepted, and (c) the reasons for criticizing Ercolini’s decision were expressed.”