The judges who sentenced Cristina Kirchner argued in the arguments of the ruling that Cristina and Lázaro Báez had a "close commercial relationship" that formed a series of "promiscuous ties" that did not distinguish between public and private interests.
With those words they defined the relationship between the vice president and businessman K who grew economically thanks to the arrival of his friend Néstor Kirchner to the presidency.
For judges Jorge Gorini, Andrés Basso and Rodrigo Giménez Uriburu, the "criminal plan" carried out by the then president had the objective of benefiting Báez with tenders, many of them plagued with irregularities.
For the magistrates there was a pre-existing link of shared interests, of "patrimonial confusion" as the prosecutor Diego Luciani said during the trial.
The magistrates reiterated this point.
“In 2007, Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner assumed the Presidency of the Nation.
In 2011, she was re-elected until 2015. During that time period, together with Lázaro Báez,
they held multiple private businesses that resulted in constant profits for the former President”
, indicated the members of the Court that sentenced the vice president for acts of corruption.
However, they explained that the existence of these businesses per se is not in dispute.
the marches in support of Cristina Kirchner the night before the arguments for the conviction are known.
"What does this simplification of the complex maneuver discovered in this trial mean?" they wondered.
When explaining it, they said: "Well, it supposes that, ultimately, Lázaro Báez irregularly collected millions in amounts from the national State and then allocated them to private operations with the former President of the Nation, who allowed and facilitated the disbursement of that money guided by a clear personal interest.
They responded to the defense of the vice president who, in her favor, said during the trial that she was not a partner of Báez, since they were not united by any proper corporate structure.
She also said that she had never been, nor is, nor will be a friend of the owner of the Austral Group.
The Court said that these arguments "in no way modify the described context", that is, that of the ties of private interest so that "the criminal plan is carried out", the fraudulent maneuver that allowed Báez to be awarded 51 bidding processes “irregularly and simulated”.
Everything sought to appear legal, but the decision was made in advance: the same businessman had to systematically win.
Judges Rodrigo Giménez Uriburu, Jorge Gorini and Andrés Basso pointed out that beyond the fact that the former president and the State contractor "have had a relationship marked by deep and reciprocal personal antipathy during that period, this does not change the fact of the prolonged and close commercial link that existed between the Kirchner and Báez families”.
When advancing in the analysis of the case, they remarked that ultimately this commercial relationship "this union is the one that has made possible the corroborated undue profit."
v1.7 0421
the sentences
In short, even without friendship or formal partnership, "the profit that Fernández de Kirchner obtained thanks to Báez is more than enough to explain the setup of such a fraudulent operation."
In this sense, the judges continued to explain, "the immeasurable economic convenience that it represented for the former President to contract with whoever was the main road public works builder in Santa Cruz during her term, ended up guiding the actions of the administration in favor of her person." and to the detriment of the State, at multiple levels beyond the exorbitant economic damage”.
When the conviction was read in December 2022, the Court estimated the damage caused at 80,000 million pesos and as a result of the crime attributed, the fraudulent administration to the detriment of the State, ordered his perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Under this criterion, they referred to the fraudulent maneuver as "a corruption scheme on the front line of the State, the product of greed for personal gain, projected its unfortunate effects on public procurement carried out in road matters in the province of Santa Cruz, exceeding all ethical limits to constitute, simply and simply, a criminal offence”.