the piece that completes the evidence that emerged in the Oil trial and in the Servini case investigating Macri and Abad

ILLEGAL SYSTEM

One of the most impactful findings was that of the computer system developed by AFIP under the guise of monitoring “large debtors”. Within the orbit of Recaudación, that system remained hidden until Marcó del Pont's audit discovered it this year. He had Cristina and her family monitored and "two economic groups." Totally irregular due to its discretion, it was targeted at the Austral group of Lázaro Báez and Grupo Indalo (de López y De Sousa) with their related companies. AFIP Audit Director Pedro Ocamica - the last to testify in the Oil trial - said that he had learned of this development "in the corridors" of the collecting body.

The problem is that the document that found him now bears his signature. Perhaps he assumed that the AFIP was not going to make it public in the case of Martínez de Giorgi. To make matters worse, Juan Carlos Santos declared before Servini under oath that in Large Taxpayers they had day-to-day debt reports for the entire registry, so he never used that subsystem. Another witness who commanded an agency said that they made the "tool" available to him but that it did not serve to alleviate work. He hinted that it had purposes other than tax monitoring.

ABAD, TO THE FRONT

Santos, Sergio Flosi, Ocamica and Oscar Ramos Rivera acknowledged that Alberto Abad called weekly meetings to discuss the Oil issue. Ocamica revealed that Abad instructed him to set up the prompt audit on Oil in a short time and with advances to bring to justice. And that the same former administrator intervened in selecting part of the audited sample. “How is a preliminary report without responses from the audited areas on a diversion used to make a criminal complaint? An audit of a specific taxpayer? That has another methodology. From the number of audits that have been done on me, I would never think that they will make a criminal complaint with a report. We had never seen him, "said Adrián Salido, one of the AFIP bosses who complained to Leandro Cuccioli about the indictment of treasury officials. Partial information was used in order to establish a criminal complaint. It is another of Marcó del Pont's findings that finds a factual basis in other files.

In fact, it was Horacio Castagnola who gave one of the most forceful testimonies before Servini investigating an illicit association headed by Macri, members of the “Judicial Table” and the leadership of AFIP. “The Oil case was something really atypical. Here it was the federal administrator who called. The one who monitored and saw what happened was Abad ”. Castagnola was the No. 2 of the AFIP and directly blamed his superior for something irregular for the agency. He pointed to the press conference he gave at the time: "that is around the violation of fiscal secrecy", he lashed out.

The curious thing is that the AFIP exome affirms that they found out about Oil's plans not from the press, but from a certain “Amelia Aguirre” who “knew a lot about what was happening in the AFIP”, but “had no position functional. Mystery. Carlos Bo reportedly told his boss that "there was no situation of risk or evasion" in March 2016. That statement appears in the Servini case. What was progress then for? Castagnola was in charge of affirming that he had no interference or knowledge in the development of the criminal complaint and the internal movements of AFIP. Other witnesses corroborate that he was explicitly kept apart.

To finish burying Abad -now more complicated with what the AFIP presents-, Castagnola declared under oath that unlike what always happened with the General Resolutions that started from the Subdirectorate of Revenue, which was directed against Oil departed from Abad. "A decision of this type does not seem frequent to me." Abad must face an investigation before Servini in mid-2021.

CRIMES COMMISSION

“A factual base was built to sustain a complaint about something that was not,” said Ramos Rivera in a trial against the oil company. Point of contact with the series of irregularities now found by the audit: “the possible commission of certain acts by AFIP officials during the efforts of Alberto Abad and Leandro Cuccioli that could be framed in the crimes of abuse of authority, non-compliance with the duties of a public official and illegal association ”, they indicated to Martínez de Giorgi. The data is that without it being disclosed, the current AFIP would have targeted Jaime Mecikovsky, a strong man linked to Elisa Carrió (also a whistleblower in Oil) and whose role would have been strategic in handling information under fiscal secrecy.

FRAGUATED AUDITS

In the case of the former president, the departure from the regulations regarding audits on a taxpayer acted in mirror with the process that began against Cristóbal López's oil company in March 2016, with an audit called OIP 14, in which the witnesses who marched through the oral trial confirmed that they were asked to make "advances" to the Julián Ercolini court. So much so that a "draft" was provided to the Justice, without the final status of the analysis that revealed that a liquid and enforceable tax debt was never in discussion, but was camouflaged in an alleged survey to an agency in which it was registered the oil company.

From this study, the opinion of the audited areas that discarded and explained the "findings" and "observations" that were used to cement the tax requirement was not authorized. As it was incomplete, as stated by all the interveners -and even Ocamica himself- they never reported the rejection of most of the points and enabled the accusation to start from a factual basis that had already been disproved by the intervening parties themselves, something which was reflected in the following audit, OIP 15.

Part of it, the so-called “disconfirmations” of debt tickets, highlighted in the elevation of the case, were minimized by Fabián Barroso of AFIP. It is that more than half were discovered that they were correct, but not with the draft used, but with an analysis that was presented at the end of 2019, at the request of the complaint of the heads and directors of AFIP whose criminal charges resulted from incomplete information . Before Servini, Santos acknowledged that they never approached other companies with payment plans for ITC: "we do not control the others."

As a footnote, Carlos Bo - one of Elisa Carrió's men in the AFIP - said that his mere intervention had only been based on the recommendation of the risk that Oil would pass to Large Taxpayers due to its level of billing . In the Vicentin case, a reverse process occurred: by order of former President Mauricio Macri and with the management of Leandro Cuccioli, the Grandes agro-exporter was removed and sent to an agency in Santa Fe. During the PASO.

PERSONNEL MOVEMENT

Another of the points exposed in the audit that Martínez de Giorgi is already investigating refers to the series of promotions, transfers and alternation of bosses and officials who intervened in Oil processes. Most of them were newcomers to the position, or they had occasional passage through the area that had to carry out the task. Corps of inspectors, who prepared field work, and who prepared reports. At the trial, Schiaffini was vague and said he did not remember who had written them. He just said that he wrote two paragraphs. Ocamica suggested that Santos had been the one who included - on a non-letterhead paper - part of the concluding text.

THE ROLE OF EXTERNAL LAWYERS

To that was added what Ocamica revealed in the trial about the role of the lawyers in the lawsuit: “I saw him in a couple of meetings in which we were with (the lawyer Alejandro ) Carrió, in the complaint, and where he told us that we were going to be witnesses. We were going to have a preparation to attend as witnesses. Two or three meetings went and it was planned to go to his study ”, he indicated. The same situation had been replicated with Ricardo Gil Lavedra, during the investigation. In theory, AFIP officials are public officials. Why should I "prepare" them if their role required them to act within the framework of the law?