Cristina Kirchner will insist with her
request for the annulment of the corruption conviction she received in the Viality case
, where she was found responsible for the crime of
fraudulent administration
with a sentence of six years in prison.
This Thursday, before the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation, her lawyer Carlos Beraldi will present the arguments based on which he maintains that
there are no legal elements
to accuse the former vice president.
The novelty in the presentation that the defender will make was anticipated by Cristina on her social networks: a
"report" that jurist Rodolfo Barra made at her request
, which would justify her lack of responsibility regarding possible crimes committed by officials of her government. .
"I want to share with you the Legal Expert Opinion that I requested last year from Dr. Rodolfo Carlos Barra on the responsibilities of the Presidency of the Nation in matters of control or supervision in the bidding processes for public works of the National Directorate of Roads, as well as as well as about the legality of decree 54/2009; because they are the assumptions of the sentence that banned me in 2022", presents the former vice president in X.
After praising Barra's extensive resume, Cristina recalls that "As everyone knows, Dr. Barra, who
was appointed by President Javier Milei as Attorney for the Nation's Treasury
, is perhaps the greatest expert in Administrative Law in the country. and, furthermore,
she has participated and participates in political spaces of which I have always been an opponent
."
"It is public and well-known that our ideas and our political militancy are diametrically opposed, but the texts of the Constitution and the laws dictated in its consequence,
on this we do agree with Dr. Barra, should be the same for everyone
. Here one of the main problems of the country and perhaps explains better than anything the unprecedented situation that our country is experiencing today," Cristina closes.
In what Néstor Kirchner's widow describes as "a true piece of law";
Barra attributes to the Chief of Staff "the constitutional competence to exercise the general administration of the country and execute the national budget," recalling that
the National Highway Directorate "is autonomous
and subject to controls by the Ministry of Economy, but
does not receive direct instructions from the President "
, and concludes that "there is no objective criminal responsibility of the President for the decree or for possible crimes related to contracts or works", since "the Congress and the Auditor General of the Nation approved accounts related to the management, supporting legality" .
"In conclusion,
the President has no administrative or criminal responsibility in the case
, since he is unrelated to the general administration, a function in charge of the Chief of Staff."
Starting at 10, the third of the six hearings that Chamber IV of the Federal Cassation will begin, at the end of which it will be in a position to rule on the sentence that the Federal Oral Court 2 (TOF) issued in December 2022. 2), and which earned the former president and vice president
their first conviction in a corruption case.
"In the first pages of the appealed sentence it was made clear that the sentence handed down against Cristina Kirchner
does not have direct evidence to support it
, but rather was based on a series of circumstances that the magistrates classified as
evidence
," said the judge.
defense lawyer, Carlos Beraldi, when he presented the appeal against the criteria of TOF 2.
For Cristina, the foundations of the sentence are “absolutely arbitrary and devoid of the slightest logical, factual and legal support.”
Her defense attorney stated through the appeal that the former vice president is
“the person who has been most harassed through complaints in all of Argentine history.”
The vice president's appeal, which will be supported by Beraldi during the hearing, reiterates that the 51 public works contracts in Santa Cruz that under her presidency and that of her husband Lázaro Báez "
were documented, legal, within the corresponding administrative circuits
and with the control organizations fulfilling their respective roles".
"The lack of evidence against our client is not due to the pretexts used by the court, but is a direct and immediate consequence of the fact that, as was proven in the trial,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is absolutely innocent of the alleged crime
by the "which was unjustly convicted," is one of the main arguments of her lawyer.
The prosecutor asked to double the sentence
This criterion is in contrast to what was requested by Attorney General Mario Villar who, two weeks ago, requested that the former vice president receive a greater sentence upon understanding that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the accusation - in addition to fraudulent administration - for
illicit association in boss character.
This would carry a prison sentence of twelve years.
The conviction for acts of corruption against Cristina Kirchner came out unanimously.
The vote was majority when evaluating whether the crime of illicit association had to be attributed to her as a leader.
Judges
Rodrigo Giménez Uriburu and Jorge Gorini agreed in saying no
, while Andrés Basso differed from them, endorsing the prosecution's accusation.
For the defense of the former vice president, not only
is this a "typical lawfare case"
but also, during the oral and public trial, "there was pressure to unjustly condemn Cristina Kirchner and as a consequence disqualify her." perpetually for the exercise of any public office.”
Corruption accusations
In this case, the 51 road tenders that Lázaro Báez received between 2003 and 2015 were analyzed, becoming
the winner of 86% of the contracts that the national government
awarded on Santa Cruz soil.
The mechanisms were reiterated during the twelve years:
directing of tenders, undue advance payments, modification of work deadlines increasing costs
, added to a circuit of exclusive payments and a permanent omission of control organizations.
When analyzing the great puzzle that represented the benefit that Lázaro Báez obtained - 46,000 million pesos - the trial Court placed other essential pieces: the multiple businesses that the Kirchner couple maintained with the State contractor, the financing of those agreements with the only holding company's income: public road works.
The same one that was
50% unfinished and that exposed large overprices.
In summary: contractor K “
irregularly collected million-dollar 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,” concluded TOF 2. "The profit that Fernández de Kirchner obtained thanks to Báez is more than enough to explain the setup of such a fraudulent operation."
This “scheme of corruption on the front line of the State”, expressed the magistrates, “product of greed for personal benefit, projected its dire effects on public contracts carried out in road matters in the province of Santa Cruz, surpassing all ethical limits.” to constitute, plain and simple, a criminal offense.”
See also
See also
"Chocolate" case: the administrative heads of the Buenos Aires Legislature are summoned to testify
See also
See also
The government must decide what to do with a million-dollar lawsuit against Cristina Kirchner