2024-11-04 11:19:00
An interesting controversy has arisen before the Federal Court of Appeal in Cordoba. The case occurred during the resolution of an appeal filed by prosecutor Maximiliano Hairabedian against Federal Judge No. 3 Judge Miguel Hugo Vaca Nava Miguel Hugo Vaca Narvaja’s dismissal for fraudulent management of the Balnearia Mutual Fund.
Chamber A, by majority vote and expanded integration, with the first vote of member Abel Sánchez Torres, confirmed what Judge Vaca Narvaja had done and, therefore, accountant Daniel Alejandro Caporali should be dismissed, taking into account the fact of fraud. and repeated, rather than continued, as the prosecutor’s office intended.
The magistrate dismissed the request on the following principles: Doubts about the defendant Understand that “the statute of limitations must begin to run from the time of departure of Daniel Alejandro Caporali as a consultant to the company, since the possible damages caused by the fraudulent management carried out by co-defendant Mario are not The tenure of Juan Appendino and Miguel Ángel Rosso should be viewed as extending beyond the time during which he would be able to participate in any managerial action, let alone, as a necessary participant.
In this case, the prosecutor’s idea was rejected that “the offense of fraud arising from fraudulent management is a continuing offense, allowing Caporari’s involvement to extend to the removal of those who were directors of the company.”
Adding that from the evidence gathered, “there is nothing that would suggest that Caporari was located after the date expressed in his statement (mid-2011).”
vote. Rep. Abel Sánchez Torres wrote the majority vote. (file)
For this reason, from the guarantee Doubts about the defendantThe pre-trial judge held that the statute of limitations began to run in June or July 2011, so the criminal proceedings should be declared extinguished by the statute of limitations and Cappolari should be dismissed from office for the crime of fraudulent management.
they confirmed by majority vote
In resolving the appeal filed by Helabedian, the majority led by Sánchez Torres first noted that the “issue” at issue “is to elucidate whether the various acts of fraud or disloyalty committed during the exercise of ‘administration’ should In all cases it must be treated as a ‘continuing offense’ or, conversely, if the events constituting it are independent and separable, they must be treated as repeated offenses of fraud.
Sánchez Torres said that he was not unaware of the “Pompas” precedent, but insisted that although “generally speaking, if there is a single government, there will be a single crime, regardless of whether it is repeated within the scope of the authorization “Illegal conduct”, this standard “does not apply” in this case.
The majority of the Bundestag held that “the precedent ‘Pumpas’ has been given to an extreme, so that any crime of fraud due to a fraudulent or disloyal government will always take the form of what is called in the doctrine a ‘crime of fraud'” .
Sánchez Torres’s position quotes the opinion of Norberto Spolanski, who stated that “the mere presence of one governing body or administrative body is not sufficient to prove that each of the multiple illegal and harmful acts described actually constitutes a single act, Unless “Continue reading the text in the original provisions of the Penal Code was designed in a situation where there was an obligation on the part of the representative to provide an account. “
resource. Federal prosecutor Maximiliano Hairabedian filed the appeal, which was handled by the Federal Chamber of Commerce. (Sergio Cejas/Lavoz)
Sánchez Torres elaborates and maintains that his criteria have been set forth by the Attorney General of the Federal Court of Criminal Appeals, Javier Augusto De Luca, in the “PR Concerning Fraudulent Administrative Fraud,” in which he stated, “Even if the position “is that the law provides for penal units when various acts of infidelity or harmful abuse occur, we all agree that these acts and the consequences (work or practical) are distinct facts of life.
Different frauds under the same government can be considered in terms of continuing criminality (…). However, this would lead to an inability to maintain generality in all specific cases. Furthermore, he noted that “in the administration of an estate there are different facts which can be quite separated by their meaning (…). Whatever one may think of the crime of fraudulent administration, treat it simply as a continuing crime The case didn’t seem to fit.
Sánchez Torres concluded: “While the procedural situation of the alleged perpetrators is not in dispute, in order to analyze whether there is a continuing crime, it is necessary to analyze the actions taken by the different actors in the incident that are closely linked to each other.” Analysis, which will allow We were able to establish the existence of a single fact or a repetition of fraudulent conduct and, on that basis, determine whether criminal action against defendant Caporari was valid.
“In this case we are dealing with repeated criminal conduct, taking into account that Caporari stopped intervening in the conduct of the company between June and July 2011 and first requested a statement of investigation on August 17, 2017. “Clearly, the crime of fraud resulting from fraudulent management has exceeded the maximum statutory period and criminal proceedings have expired,” concluded the vote, which was supported by Assemblywoman Liliana Navarro.
Eduardo Avalos voted in favor, but for a different reason. The minority opposes the majority, led by waitress Graciela Montesi.
1730719426
#managers #mutual #aid #society #fired #crime #declared
**Interview with Legal Experts on the Cordoba Federal Court Case**
**Interviewer:** Today we are joined by legal expert Dr. Laura Camacho, to discuss a contentious ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal in Cordoba regarding fraudulent management within the Balnearia Mutual Fund. Welcome, Dr. Camacho.
**Dr. Camacho:** Thank you for having me.
**Interviewer:** The case has stirred quite some debate, particularly surrounding the dismissal of accountant Daniel Alejandro Caporali. Can you give us a brief overview of the court’s decision?
**Dr. Camacho:** Certainly. The court upheld the dismissal of Daniel Alejandro Caporali from his position due to fraudulent management. Judge Miguel Hugo Vaca Narvaja determined that the statute of limitations began when Caporali ended his consultancy in mid-2011, which led to the criminal proceedings being deemed extinguished by the statute of limitations.
**Interviewer:** The appeal, filed by prosecutor Maximiliano Hairabedian, argued that Caporali’s actions constituted a “continuing offense.” How did the court respond to this claim?
**Dr. Camacho:** The court rejected the notion of a continuing offense. The majority opinion, authored by Abel Sánchez Torres, concluded that the fraudulent acts should be treated as separate incidents rather than a singular offense. This distinction was crucial in determining the timeline for prosecution and ultimately resulted in Caporali’s dismissal being upheld.
**Interviewer:** Sánchez Torres cited precedents, mentioning the “Pompas” case. How does that precedent influence this decision?
**Dr. Camacho:** The “Pompas” precedent generally supports the idea that frauds occurring under a single authority may be treated as a single offense. However, Sánchez Torres argued that this does not apply universally, especially in this case. He emphasized that each act of fraud needed to be independently assessed, which allowed the court to classify the incidents involving Caporali as repeated offenses rather than a continuing one.
**Interviewer:** Given the implications of this ruling, what does it mean for future cases involving fraudulent management in similar contexts?
**Dr. Camacho:** This ruling could significantly influence how courts handle similar cases. It underscores the necessity for prosecutors to establish clear timelines and prove ongoing participation in fraudulent activities to avoid the statute of limitations running out. It may also encourage more detailed investigations into the actions of individuals in administrative roles.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Camacho, for your insights on this intricate case. It will be fascinating to see how the legal landscape evolves in response to such rulings.
**Dr. Camacho:** My pleasure. Thank you for discussing this important legal matter.
