It is an important definition of the trial process in a case Bribery notebooksthe The country’s Supreme Court rejected appeals filed by a group of businessmen Who requested consideration of their payments Campaign contributions, not bribes. They therefore intended to avoid prosecution and analysis of their spending by the electoral justice system.
With the signature of Justices Horacio Rosati, Carlos Rosencrantz, and Riccardo Lorenzetti, the Supreme Court rejected the businessmen’s defense offers. Hugo Dragonetti, Jorge Mauricio Balan and Armando Lawson.
In the Cuadernos de las Bribes case, Lawson declared that he was repentant, and in another parallel case he denounced that part of the references about him in the memoirs of the driver Oscar Centeno were fraudulent.
The court’s decision was based on the fact that the businessmen’s statements were not directed against a final ruling or a ruling similar to it.
This is the same response that has already received more than thirty proposals in recent weeks that sought to cast doubt on the case that began its trial at the beginning of November before the Federal Oral Court No. 7 (TOF 7), with former President Cristina Kirchner, former officials and businessmen in the dock.
Before TOF 7, Lawson’s defense maintained that the cash deliveries the Albanesi SA director admitted making in the case were limited. Campaign contributions for 2013 and 2015And that these payments do not involve personal benefit or advantage to their companies.
Lawson based his argument on the case of other businessmen such as: Manuel Santos Uribelaria, Alejandro Ivanisevic and Hugo OrnikianWho, in their view, in similar situations, were able to refer their cases, under investigation, to the electoral justice system. Performances were made to the same effect by the Dragonetti and Palan defences.
In February 2024, TOF 7 rejected the incompetence claim. Lawson was told that this argument was not new.Which were raised unsuccessfully in the investigation and should be rejected. The same happened with other presentations.
In June 2024, the First Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber accepted the two defences’ complaint. Among them was also a businessman Angelo CalcaterraWho said in his statements in the investigation from the beginning of the case that Kirchnerian requests for money were for the campaign. Calcaterra is a cousin Mauricio Macri.
At the end of November, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeals by a majority and confirmed that the businessmen should face an oral trial on charges of bribery.
In the case of businessmen whose resources have flourished, Santos Orbellaria, Hugo Ornikyan and Ivanisevic, whose cases were referred to the electoral justice system and avoided an oral trial. Prosecutor Carlos Stornelli agreed to declare incompetence.
The criterion was taken into account that businessmen They did not have public works contracts When they supposedly made those payments they stated it was an unrecorded campaign contribution.
In the Yornikian case, the judge concluded that “after exhausting all evidentiary procedures related to the event,” linked to a financial contribution close to the 2013 election campaign, in which the businessman participated “He was not a contributor,” according to reports from the National Electoral ChamberIt is appropriate that “electoral justice continues to intervene.”
Yurkian’s defense said the payments “could have been motivated by financing the Front for Victory group’s election campaign and not the payment of bribes.”
Regarding Ivanisevic, the judge held that “the only financial contribution would have been made to develop the corresponding election campaign for the year.” 2009″, where according to CNE reports, he will no longer appear as a shareholder. He also said in this case: “It is appropriate for electoral justice to continue to intervene.”
The same was resolved in relation to Uribellaria, whose financial contributions were supposed to be made “for the development of the corresponding 2015 election campaign.”