The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Announced End: Of the $ 630 million in Santa Cruz funds, only $ 9,607 remains

2020-06-10T18:46:17.437Z


The figure comes from a report that Alicia Kirchner submitted to the province's Court of Accounts. The opposition refused to approve it and said that what happened to that money was never explained.


Lucia Salinas

06/09/2020 - 18:28

  • Clarín.com
  • Politics

The Santa Cruz funds continue to generate controversy. Of the US $ 630 million the province received in 1992 for YPF's ill-settled royalties, there is almost nothing left. According to a report presented by Governor Alicia Kirchner before the Court of Accounts, 28 years after her brother Néstor received those funds, there are only US $ 9,706 left in a Banco Nación account.

Those funds were always surrounded by suspicions. There were even several court cases that sought to unravel what had happened to those millionaire royalties. Former President and Governor Néstor Kirchner was ambiguous and not very transparent with the handling of that money that was deposited in off shore and even personal accounts. Even the opposition in Santa Cruz went so far as to claim that it was about $ 1 billion.

The derisory figure of US $ 9,706 arises from a report that the government presented before the Court of Accounts of the province. The report, which was approved last May 27 amid the coronavirus, was approved although the opposition settled its dissent. The Tribunal has a majority of officers who respond to Sister Kirchner.

Even the figure could be less , since that amount corresponds to the funds that were in the current account number 39559/8 of the Banco Nación branch Plaza de Mayo as of December 31, 2019.

The report also shows that for the administration of these now scarce funds , Banco Nación charges a commission for maintaining the account of $ 13 per month, which accounts for a total of $ 156 a year. 

The saga of this money began when Santa Cruz received compensation for YPF's badly liquidated oil royalties, US $ 630 million in 1992. Néstor Kirchner was in his first administration. The money was first deposited in a Credit Suisse account that generated interest and commissions for years that were not reflected in its repatriation. Even the UCR Santa Cruz denounced that Néstor Kirchner put the money in his name for several years.

When he repatriated them, after years of denunciations and no information on the handling of that money, the Front for Victory promised to dedicate that money "to the industrialization of the province." But that never happened, and only US $ 38 million was used for the construction of a cement plant in Pico Truncado. The numbers were always unclear. From 1996 to 2002 there was no surrender of the Santa Cruz assets. In 2003 Sergio Acevedo assumed the government and two years later he promised repatriation, something that would happen in 2007.

How much money was there then? The FPV admitted in 2003 in the provincial legislature that another US $ 532 million had been incorporated into the more than US $ 600 million originally collected, without explaining the origin of that money. Thus, Santa Cruz's funds abroad had reached US $ 1,061 million. Then, when the repatriation announcement was made, they laundered only $ 554 million.

All this framework was analyzed in a report by the Court of Accounts by the representative of the opposition, Yanina Gribaudo, who was the only one who did not validate the surrender. She questioned that the Province did not explain how those millionaire funds were spent year after year. "This Court of Accounts never exercised control over that financial-patrimonial management and the registration of funds from 1992 to 2002. Therefore, the initial balance that is taken as a reference in previous years cannot be certified because the audit procedures, "he explained in his vote.

For the lawyer Gribaudo the surrender exposes "lack of credibility of the balance" that was approved in previous years, and "prevents the approval of the annual reports raised by the Ministry of Economy". 

That balance was always questioned by the UCR, which detected that there were balances that did not match the blanched. "This Court could never technically determine how much the extra-budgetary financial assets amount to," says Gribaudo, recalling that even in other renditions, they failed to compute an amount close to US $ 6 million.

In favor of the approval of the report, the President of the Tribunal, Carlos Ramos, and the vowels María Morales and Romina Gaitán, all of the officers, voted.

The history of the repatriation of the funds is dark and full of irregularities.  Former Governor Acevedo announced the return of silver in 2005, but it only came to fruition in 2007 under the management of Daniel Peralta. At that time, US $ 199 million was deposited from abroad that was supposed to be used to solve a conflict with teachers who were demanding salary increases amid social tension. But a year later, Kirchner since the presidency only allowed $ 27 million to be used for teachers. 

By the end of 2010, according to the Court of Accounts, only $ 390,883,816 million remained (about US $ 95 million back then). Officially, the Peralta government announced that year that it had allocated some US $ 80 million of those funds to cover the budget deficit. In the middle, again there was darkness and misery over money

In fact, from the Santa Cruz Court of Accounts they confirmed to Clarín that the last file was dated December 31, 2012 with a surrender of $ 30,000. That same year, in May, Cristina Kirchner from Tucumán said that the Funds "evaporated"   without giving further explanations. The then president blamed the last governors of her province, Acevedo and Peralta, for the rampages, who came to power with the backing and support of Nestor Kirchner and were part of the Front for Victory. 

Source: clarin

All news articles on 2020-06-10

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.