For the judge, “both officials who acted in said process, were part of the execution of a complex cog of different maneuvers, but all of them destined to direct the rehire of the concessions with interest, favoring the concessionaire business groups, thereby breaking trust. deposited in accordance with the public function that they performed and in a detriment to the coffers of the State ”. Specific, the Acceso Norte and Acceso Oeste concessions, the first in the hands of a firm that integrated the family as a shareholder Macri; the second linked to the Albertis group.
To dictate the prosecution, the judge assessed the accumulated evidence. The situation in Iguacel had been compromised by the statement made last year by the former director of Legal Roads Affairs, Julieta Ripoli, who had said that the former official was responsible for granting “differential” treatment to Autopistas del Sol (AUSOL), one of the historic companies linked to the Macri group.
The cause, initiated by a complaint by the Kirchner deputies Rodolfo Tailhade, Adrián Grana, Carlos Castagneto and Leopoldo Moreau It deals with irregularities in the extension of concessions for ten more years without bidding. In addition to paying companies almost u $ s500 million for alleged unamortized investments, in the face of an apparently fictitious claim filed with the ICSID by the company $ 1 billion– and the subsequent sale of shares that Mauricio Macri had in Ausol to a company, Natal Inversiones. That sale came after the tolls increase in those brokers was released, allowing the companies’ shares to trade 400% higher than before the official decision.
By instruction of Dietrich and Iguacel, without there being any opinion, audit or financial-economic report on the operation of Ausol and ruling out the numerous defenses that could be alleged before ICSID, the government decided to settle for the amount of u $ s499 millionIn what “constitutes a dispossession of public property that must be investigated by the criminal justice system,” the legislators of the bloc FpV-PJ-Unidad Ciudadana maintained at the time.
According to the Canicoba Corral resolution, in the case of Saravía Frías, “It was not only he who drafted and initialed the opinions that allowed the Approval of the Agreements, stating that they were legally viable, but he was also the one who represented the State, within the framework of the lawsuit filed on December 7, 2015, before ICSID , carried out by Abertis SA, which allowed it to learn about the details of its process, times and possibilities of success, an arbitration case that turned out to be the nucleus and justification, among others, of the amount recognized and agreed with the concession companies, in the contracts comprehensive renegotiation, despite being an uncertain credit. “
On Javier Iguacel, the judge ruled that “he agreed with the businessmen to start the approval process of the Agreement, dated August 18, 2017, as well as all the supplementary minutes on modifications to it that were subsequently drawn up, despite all the irregularities indicated” .
–
