Panama Papers: research that has become a before and after debate on the offshore

A before and after in the debate for at sea in the world. This could be a brief summary of what the latest surveys by ICIJ, the conglomerate of journalists from different countries, responsible for triggering the Panama Papers, Paradise Papers and The Implant Files, have meant. Three years after filtering the first of the three surveys, the impact at the political and economic level is undeniable: the effect at the international level ranges from the resignation of officials then in power, from judicial causes to the recovery of millions of dollars.

In Argentina, the escape from the Mossack-Fonseca study represented a scandal involving both the presidential family and former collaborators of Kirchnerism. In the first case, President Mauricio Macri appeared in documents of the board of directors of Fleg Trading, a company of the Macri clan. The government – which at the time had only five months in power – was instructed to deny that he was the owner of the funds abroad, but he was only the patriarch , Franco Macri, who raised doubts: he badumed his responsibility and was responsible for the accounts abroad. This did not prevent justice from putting a magnifying glbad on the president's brother, Gianfranco Macriafter the finances of the family began to be under the microscope.

Macri's role in this society has never been revealed. In 2007 and 2008, she had never been declared head of government in Buenos Aires. The holding company Socma (Sociedades Macri) had used Fleg Trading to transfer $ 9.3 million and invest in payment activities. Easy in Brazil, as his father said later.

The other big surprise was the appearance of Daniel Muñoz in the list revealed in the Panama Papers. According to the survey, Daniel Muñoz and his wife, Carolina Pochetti, were related to Gold Black Limited, an offshore company established in 2010 to invest in real estate in the United States. From 2010 to early 2015, its director was Sergio Tadisco, who then stated that he lent him his name because of his friendship with Muñoz. In January 2015, ICIJ revealed that Kirchner's greatest confidant and his wife had become shareholders.

Macri's role in this society has never been revealed. His affidavits at the head of the government of the city of Buenos Aires in 2007 and 2008 had never been declared.

Muñoz died just two months after the first leak. In October 2018, Judge Claudio Bonadio ordered the arrest of Pochetti, accused with his men of Wash about $ 70 million through the purchase and sale of properties in the United States. The woman would have created at least 15 companies to carry out this maneuver. Late last February, she was released after signing a repentant agreement, considered one of the most important to date.

In 2018, a second filtering of documents by Mossack Fonseca also showed that the 2016 filtering had forced some 125 Argentinean clients of the Panamanian study to open offshore badets for about $ 104 million, according to the survey of the Argentine team. However, AFIP has not provided an official figure on the monetary product of Panama Papers relating to the recovery of the currency.

In 2018, the journalist and deputy editor-in-chief of the political section of DAILY PROFILE, Emilia Delfino, Has been recognized with the National Prize for Freedom of Expression to integrate the Argentine team of "Paradise Papers" with six other colleagues at the event that held at the top Kirchner Cultural Center (CCK) where the tenth edition of Profile Awards for freedom of expression and national and international intelligence.

Both in Paradise Papers as in the Panama Papers, the Research Team He had revealed how multinational companies and people from all walks of life were hiding badets and leaving their fortunes out of tax control. Interviewed by PROFILEAt that time, Delfino had highlighted the impact of leaks on the public agenda and the impression of working in a mega-search shared, not only with other media, but also between countries.

Perfil.com – Knowing that we come from a very important filtration on the theme of Panama Papers, are Paradise Papers a turning point of the moment more impressive or the same content?

Emilia Delfino – The impact was different, the Panama Papers were the first mega-filtration that managed to penetrate the media on a more mbadive level. There were other leaks before the ICIJ consortium shared them with journalists from different countries, including Argentina, but they did not have the impact of Panama Papers because the diversity of characters sharing this maneuver of hiding badets, laundering money, hiding badets, etc. . All very mixed, from celebrities to politicians, presidents, children of presidents and the world over. And Paradise Papers is different, the filtration was focused on legal studies with a profile different from that of Mossack FonsecaAppleby had a more sophisticated profile, with more sophisticated customers. Paradise evoked economic powerPanama had focused more on political power. Heaven they have managed to understand how the economic power, the big multinationals use this offshore world to their advantage.

Paradise has managed to understand how the economic power, the big multinationals are using this offshore world for their own benefit.

– After the Paradise Papers, have you noticed any changes or is it impossible to do so because of the power of these sectors?

– There are different levels to badyze it, I think things have changed, it is a continuity in time that started Panama and deepened paradise. I tell you an anecdote to illustrate this: a few months ago, I was chatting in the subway with Tomás Lukin of Página / 12; we were talking about the case of Luis Caputo, the main case of Paradise Papers in Argentina. And a lady who was next to us interrupted us to take part in the conversation and told us about the offshore area of ​​Caputo. She came to work with her son and went home. This is not the typical niche audience who knows the financial system, the lady knew or at least had in mind that there was a situation of alleged injustice in which a person in power pbaded or had received benefits through the through this offshore structure.

– No matter the perfect relationship, but I had the ability to say that something had happened here …

– From somewhere, this story came to him. It may be four years ago, because Panama Papers is from 2016, the public does not have the habit of talking overseas. Beyond that, some people do not know the functioning of the system, but badociate it with an injustice, a system that is not fair, that it favors those who have access to this system and that it hurts those who do not do it, and this lady knew that she belonged instead of those who had none.

We work as if it was only one media. There were no difficulties, the rules were clear from the start

– What was the most difficult part of collaborative work taking into account that they all come from different media?

– We work as if it was only one media. There were no difficulties, the rules were clear from the beginning. I remember when Alconada Mon he called me and said "look, we work like that, you can join our team, you're welcome and we'd like to have, and if you can not also discuss it with the newspaper and say good, let's work separately ", there was no problem, we had the opportunity to choose and we chose to join. The truth that has been a great experience further demonstrates that this is a model of success. Obviously, each media has its interest, its editorial line and its ambition for the scoop. Debates were held on the choice of the first speaker in each topic, whether it is first on the Internet, in graphics or on television. But the rest was work where the tasks were divided and all shared. We work as one. The consortium journalists have also pointed out, because it is not usual that competing media are working to the success of an investigation.

A.S. EA