Oil judgment turned to the analysis of another 1,648 plans granted by AFIP

With the aim of clarifying, Ocamica stressed that Oil Combustibles – at the time the advance against the company was ordered “had a first private plan of 30 installments, with 25 that were paid. There were some unpaid but they did not imply their expiration. It was current. And the second plan was for 60 installments, with one or two unpaid and it was also in force, "he declared. The expiration or not of the plans was of interest to the prosecution but the official explained that - beyond being unpaid - there should be "expiration conditions" for the plans to fall, which were more than two unpaid installments and 60 days after the last maturity, term until which any taxpayer could "rehabilitate" it. Now Ocamica was concerned to answer that they had not drawn conclusions in their reports, but rather gave a description of the scenario they encountered when they analyzed a sample of 80 plans out of the 1,648 granted during Ricardo Echegaray's administration. In the previous hearing, he had revealed that it was Alberto Abad himself who got involved to include certain companies in the sample that was used for the audit, 15 which for the defenses is conclusive in that it matches the conditions for granting this type of facility plans. "It delayed us everything," Ocamica tried to explain the delay in delivering the final report, arguing that other AFIP areas did not send answers to their queries on time. It was already Abbot's administration.

“Did you consult all the resolutions of all those plans?”, Asked the prosecutor Juan García Elorrio, who conducted an exhaustive questioning regarding each of the points that Ocamica had left in writing and asked him to acknowledge your signature on each document. "I think so," said the witness about the 80 cases surveyed. It was floating in the air that much of that documentation was prepared by imprecise areas or "field work" without much further development. When the prosecution asked to know "the source of information" about some of the conclusions made in the analysis, the witness launched a natural and extended "I do not rememberooooo."

If the previous hearing seemed to have been an autopsy regarding the steps taken by the collecting body to advance against Oil, revealing even the attempt to prepare witnesses, yesterday the hearing exceeded the case under debate and elaborated on what had been detected at a general level with the plans granted under these conditions. In each description there were conditions that, always in the absence of a regulation that regulates them, offered greater flanks. There was a question from the prosecution that was especially interested in marking Abad's “interest” in the case, based on his involvement.

The witness got mixed up with the dates again when trying to clarify how the OIP N ° 14 had It was “loaded” by system one day after N ° 15 was generated. He mentioned an earlier time window for what are called field assignments, a few weeks before the work formally began. It remained as a dark point. The prosecution paid special interest to what they had found in the rest of the plans that were not those of Oil, which the witness described as "potpourri" due to the variety of situations they encountered. None until now has been labeled illegal, something that is being investigated in another case that has not offered further progress since no irregularities have been found. Beyond a certain laxity in the controls, all the resolutions regarding the plans had their respective "traceability" and entry in the AFIP computer systems, indicated Ocamica.

In a strange section, he revealed that he gave testimonial statement in the framework of a related cause that he did not remember, but in passing, he said that they had not given him a copy of what he ended up declaring. A rarity that went unnoticed. He also gave a new detail of the preparatory meetings with the lawyers of the complaint, in this case with Ricardo Gil Lavedra, architect of the prosecution during the investigation. "We were required to explain the preliminary report 14, where the most technically complex issue was that of disagreements." Abad asked by email to be informed about the response of the AFIP agency that had triggered them. He also reported that there was another meeting with Gil Lavedra where the head of audit Néstor Sosa participated so that "we clarify how the issue remained between the preliminary report and the internal audit report." That hinted at the difference between the two. While the first aimed directly at Oil Combustibles, the second put the rest of the plans granted in its general guidelines on an equal footing and defined the chance of a crime if the same steps had been followed for the more than 1,600 cases.

Source link

Related Articles