The video fragments added a dynamic to which no one opposed and the image left behind interpretations of the witnesses’ statements, the angle that the prosecution had sought to save the requirement of elevation to trial, which was greatly shortened from the same allegation. from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, heard weeks ago. “The evidence speaks for itself,” said Beraldi, who began by distorting the idea that Oil was “created with the purpose of defrauding the State” and listed that to “mount a cause of these characteristics” a methodology was repeated that in 2013 had the same protagonists: a note in the newspaper La Nación published by the journalist Hugo Alconada Mon and a criminal complaint of Elisa Carrió which at that time resulted in a firm dismissal. The same procedure would have been repeated in 2016, only in that case – and with the intervention of Alberto Abad- led to this judgment.
Non-retention
To the list of “errors” that the newspaper article had (recognized by its author in the hearings) was added what was said by AFIP agents such as Sergio Flosi, where it was clear that Oil was never a “perception agent” or “retention” of the ITC, an issue that had been installed. “Oil never received money from consumers or withheld public funds owned by AFIP,” it was alleged. The network of service stations that loaded fuel to users belonged to third parties and these companies in turn paid deferred to the refinery, the only property of Oil that had to declare the tax on the sale it made, even if it did not collect it. The second objective of Beraldi was to present the oil company with numbers: between the purchase, the investments and its start-up, it required US $ 334 million under different items. “Not all this is done to pay the tax in installments,” launched the lawyer. The trial is for the granting of two general AFIP payment plans to which it adhered online and two individuals, under the same conditions as other 1,200 taxpayers. Beraldi mentioned that there were other oil companies that had requested the same. The main? YPF The reason? Investment plan. Identical to Oil. Yesterday another documentary piece was exhibited: the request for a plan made by the Council of the Magistracy with the same boxes completed but unlike the judges selection body, it had provided more documentation to the AFIP.
“Is it possible that this is a company set up for fraud?” Beraldi asked negatively. For this they were by the auditors who stated in the trial that they did not detect “preferential treatment” when they released all the plans that the AFIP had granted at that time. Pedro Ocamica, Adrián Salido, and even Juan Carlos Santos himself, one of Abad’s bishops, said it under oath. Flosi added that activities with “dependence on prices set by the State”, such as gasoline, were also recipients of plans. And that this analysis was not left in writing, but they saw it by system.
Impact
Beraldi was on the axis of the impact of the regulation of fuel prices and how it affected the business plan of the company, so he accepted the plans of AFIP and highlighted that “if the balance sheets had been properly analyzed” it would have been demystified that Oil bought the media and other assets with what was produced in 2012. In other words, it would not have been funded with taxes and plans (from 2013 and 2014) since the expansion of the Indalo Group had occurred chronologically before. “Did someone investigate if what had been put in the applications was false? Neither the commercial receivership nor the AFIP audit body made studies on economic-financial circumstances. They did not credit anything. They didn’t even investigate it, ”complained Beraldi, who pounded several times with omissions of evidence that were never sought. The main one: there was never a crossover of calls, emails, official records to establish contacts between Echegaray, López and De Sousa or with some of the other line officials involved. Neither did they call other officials who were not indicted in Oil 2. Even so, progress was made in plotting a collusion between the three. According to the lawyer, The ultimate objective of the maneuver was enshrined by the Abbot himself “canceling the plans by saying” falsely that they were false “.
“They brought (Néstor) Sosa, the chief of auditors, to trial as a star witness for the prosecution,” Beraldi said ironically to recall that he himself wondered what he was summoned for. “A taxpayer can ask the administration for whatever he wants. The responsibility is not on the taxpayer. There shouldn’t be any kind of reproach to the taxpayer, ”said Sosa, unusually defending Oil. “I have no doubt that Sosa will end up explaining why he came to this trial and that will be proven in another process,” the lawyer lashed out.
He went further: he argued that according to the expert opinion – ignored by the prosecution – it had shown that $ 2,625 million were paid by ITC, without loss of capital (151% of the capital was paid) plus interest of all kinds.
Pollicita received separate punishment: it was recalled that after six years, a dismembered investigation and a withdrawal from the AFIP to accuse the officials who intervened in the plan for what happened in this trial, it has not yet decided whether or not to raise the few officials who they have no lack of merit. For the defense, they wanted to prove that there was a “spurious relationship” through an email dated 12/15/2015 where an official who was not charged claims the oil company to regularize a debt of “$ 5.40”. Literal.
Loans
The highlight of the day was focused on loans between companies: “The flow between companies does not generate changes within the patrimony of an economic group,” Montanini said in the video, denying the hypothesis of emptying. “Were the amounts of inter-company loans significant? By numbers I saw something of 4 billion, it is important, they are all big numbers. In relative terms, it is an indebtedness of half a year of sales ”, related the testimony. Beraldi emphasized. Half-year. The lawyer concluded that the AFIP “never” analyzed what Oil actually did with the money it had left after availing itself of the plans “because it cannot do it.” And at the same time, he argued that the balance sheets were not read correctly because if interests that were settled were subtracted, the correlation of amounts disappeared. The prosecution “made the equivalences to the hammer blows,” he launched.
And the testimony of the doubting Jorge Schiaffini – alleged author of the Oil fiscal situation report that survived the entire case – was screened even though no one claimed responsibility for its preparation. Weeks after testifying, Schiaffini was raided.
–
