Is it appropriate to carry out the oral trial for money laundering in the Hotesur/Los Sauces cases or not?
This is the question that the three judges of Chamber I of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber must resolve, something that has already been answered by at least twelve judicial officials from various instances, who agreed that the best instance for Cristina Kirchner and her children - like thirteen other defendants - defend themselves is the oral debate.
This Thursday the deadlines expired and the decision on the procedural situation of the vice president in the case involving her family businesses
is accelerated .
On December 13, 2021, the federal prosecutor
Diego Velasco
appealed the dismissal that two judges of the Federal Oral Court 5 (TOF 5) signed in favor of Cristina Kirchner, her children and the other defendants in the Los Sauces and Hotesur cases.
These are the family businesses investigated for having been the alleged vehicle to
launder 120 million pesos "with the simulation of rental contracts in the hotel and real estate sector
," according to the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office, who insisted with a proposal already formulated: judgment must be made.
These two companies never had commercial headquarters.
In both, a common denominator was
Lázaro Báez
, as a tenant in the real estate company and as the person in charge of managing and operating the hotels.
The accusation linked him to the contractor as a necessary piece to
"return" to the former presidents at least part of the money from the overprices in public works
that their companies won in contested bids in another file whose trial ended last December with a harsh sentence for Cristina, Báez and the other defendants.
The arguments that prosecutor Velasco presented on that occasion were supported by his peer before the Cassation,
Mario Villar.
In a hearing held last November before Chamber I of the highest criminal court, made up of judges
Daniel Petrone, Diego Barroetaveña and Ana María Figueroa
, he argued that the process must reach, as far as possible, an objective truth.
That is why he asked that the dismissal be annulled and that the oral trial be carried out.
His presentation was based on the analysis of the crime of money laundering and the relevance of the trial as a defense instance to determine if the people investigated are guilty or not.
This Thursday, the deadlines established by the Criminal Procedure Code expired
for the Court of Appeal to rule on the situation, that is, to answer whether it endorses the dismissal in favor of Cristina, Máximo and Florencia Kirchner -and the other defendants- or if for on the contrary,
it orders that all appear before an Oral Tribunal.
As
Clarín
recounted , the decision of Judge Figueroa -close to Kirchnerism- remains for Chamber I to issue its resolution.
The expiration of the deadlines begins to be counted from the last hearing held, in which all the parties involved in the file raised their arguments.
When the last hearing is held, twenty business days begin to run.
As this occurred in December, the January judicial fair is not counted.
The days of leave of the judges outside the fair are not counted either.
That is running the deadlines.
Finally, with all the magistrates already making up the Chamber, this Thursday the deadlines expired, which, although they are always peremptory,
give the situation a certain speed
.
In addition, the same Chamber must rule on another sensitive case for the vice:
the cause known as the Pact with Iran.
Both decisions will be known in the middle of the electoral year, but still far from the date of closing the lists and making the candidacies official.
Regarding the cases of money laundering that are concentrated in the Kirchner family companies, there is another crime attributed: that of
gifts
, because it is an official, in this case the then president of the Nation and a contractor businessman del Estado, with whom he had
more than twenty commercial operations
during the investigated period.
In the final stretch, the chambermaids must rule on Hotesur and Los Sauces.
Once Figueroa forwards his vote to his colleagues,
everything will be unified in the resolution that will later be circulated for his signature.
Until that instance there are possibilities that the magistrates modify their criteria on the case under analysis.
One of the pillars of the prosecutors' appeal is that with the dismissal without trial "the objective truth has been denied": by understanding "that there are no elements for not advancing towards the trial, where it will be known who is innocent or guilty."
Based on this initial premise, it was requested "that in a debate process it is where the parties defend themselves and criminal responsibility is resolved or not."
The argument brought with it an explicit statement:
"annul the resolution -which dismissed all the defendants without trial-, separate the judges and allow the process to reach"
the oral hearings.
It is not the only term that expires.
The judicial calendar shows that
next Monday in the same circumstance the file for the signing of the Pact with Iran will be found
: with its deadlines already met and waiting for Judge Ana María Figueroa, now president of the Cassation, to send her vote to his colleagues.
In this last file,
another Oral Court dismissed Cristina Kirchner without holding the debate
.
That vote was unanimous, considering that the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran responded to
a non-justiciable State policy
, and that the agreement never entered into force.
In the investigation initiated with the complaint of the late prosecutor
Alberto Nisman
, the vice had been prosecuted and sent to trial for the crime of
covering up the AMIA attack.
look also
Millionaire deficit in public media: The Government approved a loss of $22,949 million for this year