Samid's defense asserted that the businessman had fled because "it was not in his mind" and asked for expertise in psychiatry



[ad_1]

The defense of Alberto Samid felt that the businessman is not in "his cabals" and that, for some unknown emotional reason, he left the country in oral proceedings for alleged unlawful badociation. That's why the lawyer Vicente D'Attoli He requested psychiatric expertise when he returned from Belize, where he has been detained since Friday night.

The command also has a future effect: set the stage for home prison because of health problems.

"Samid has diabetes and this could influence his behavior, he could be emotionally destabilized", D'Attoli said Infobae.

"His departure from the country was very rare and he speaks of someone who does not have the right mind, to which he adds everything he has said on television", added his defense.

Why was the departure from the country strange? Because he did it legally, he flew to Panama and, upon arriving in Belize, indicated the address of the hotel where he was staying. "If a person wants to escape, she does not leave any trace of her movements ", noted the lawyer. Add to that that there was no risk that Samid would be imprisoned at the trial.

One of the interviews given by Samid while he was on the run

That is why the defense wants Samid to be subjected to psychiatric expertise. The proposal is not new. This was done several days ago. It was the first time Samid had publicly said that the prosecutor Gabriel Perez Barberá He asked for $ 1,800.00 not to accuse him, which was denied by the employer's own defense. To this, he added that at some trial hearings, Samid wanted to speak to the witnesses while declaring himself.

Oral Economic Criminal Court, composed of judges José Michilini, Diego García Berro and Ignacio Fornari, 1 has not yet resolved to call on expertise in psychiatry.

The study will be used for the house arrest order prepared by the defense for the transfer of Samid to the country. The first step is to ask for freedom, which the defense does not think it can achieve. The court has enough arguments to imprison the businessman because of the risk of absconding.

The second step is to request a house arrest. In addition to his age – Samid is 71 years old – will argue that his health problems are imprisoned in a prison. Psychiatric expertise can be useful for this strategy.

The defense also objects that Samid is deported from Belize for a migration problem. "He legally left Argentina and entered Belize in the same way. He said that he was a tourist and that he did not lie, because when he entered, he had no arrest warrant. ", says D'Atolli.

Samid left Argentina on March 24 for Paraguay. From there, he flew to Panama on the 26th and another to Belize. The court ordered him to leave the country on March 27 and on April 3, he ordered his arrest at the national and international levels because he did not attend the hearing.

The expulsion for administrative irregularity is immediate. The alternative is an extradition involving a criminal case that may delay the delay. For this, the family of Samid – his wife Marisa Scarafia and his son José went to Belize where they will look for a lawyer.

Samid was arrested Friday night in the city of San Pedro, located on Ambergris Caye, one of the Belize Islands. Since then, he has been detained at the local police station. His family said that he did not have the necessary medication for his illness and that because of the intense heat of the place, he had been allowed to leave the cell to sit down in a hallway.

On March 18, the businessman began to be tried with seven other people, including his sister Alicia, for the allegedly illegal VAT fraud scheme for the purpose of marketing meat. The charge of escape is prescribed.

The prosecutor requested that either Samid be sentenced to six years and six months in prison and that with the rest of the defendantsevuelvan 23 million pesos fine. The Federal Tax Administration (AFIP), which acts as plaintiff, He asked for a seven-year sentence. Neither of the two charges required the arrest of the employer.

[ad_2]
Source link