They appeal against the dismissal of the executives of Paolo Rocca and Techint in the laptop case

The proposal was made for the Federal Chamber to analyze what was resolved by the 11 federal court which was in charge of the late judge Claudio Bonadio and is now replaced by Ercolini. The point is that during the dismissal, the businessmen were considered to have made “illegal payments” – that is, bribes – but in a “state of necessity”.

Zabaleta and Betnaza claimed, as repentants, to have paid bribes. Rocca claimed she learned of the bribes from the media. Ercolini concludes that the illegal payments would have had “the sole and forced motivation of avoiding serious attacks on the liberty and integrity of the people who worked in Venezuela in one of the companies of the economic group to which they belonged (…) damages which could have resulted in the illegal payment of a large sum of money to a government public official, would have been justified by the need to save or avoid other damages which were imminent to occur ”.

Among the arguments, mention was made of the “arbitrary cut of evidence made by the judge who in his own resolution reports the existence of pending evidence”, was explained in the text.

The adhesive appeal is provided for in article 439 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure which “empowers the parties to express their disagreement with the resolution in a proceeding subsequent to that of the origin of the appeal”

“The FIU revealed that the decision which considers that the” state of necessity “alleged by the businessmen of the multinational is proven, lacks factual and legal basis, because no evidence could link the alleged payments of ‘money for the measures of force taken by the unions in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,’ he added.

However, one of the arguments of the decision was called into question, according to which the CEO of the Techint group, Rocca, “was not aware” of what had happened.

Ercolini sacked the businessmen in a resolution in which he sued former Under-Secretary for Coordination and Control of the Planning Ministry Roberto Baratta.

“It is debatable that in an offense of these characteristics in which two parties necessarily intervene, one of them is rejected while the other is prosecuted. It is therefore surprising that the investigating prosecutor -Carlos Stornelli – did not appeal. It remains to be known what decision the Chamber’s prosecutor will take in this regard, “the FIU indicated in the communication it made public.

The Techint investigation is dealt with separately from the main cause which has already been the subject of oral proceedings.

Ercolini believed that there were the alleged payments described in the notebooks of former Planning Department driver Oscar Centeno, although he exempted businessmen from their responsibilities, as he argued that the money had been spent to avoid “serious damage to liberty and integrity”. the multinational.

During the judicial inquiry, one of the directors of the Techint company argued that the alleged payments were linked to the need for the government of Néstor Kirchner to take action with the administration of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. in 2008, due to the alleged expropriation of the steel company Sidor.

“I understand that while the conduct entrusted to Betnaza and Zabaleta (of ordering and executing payments, respectively, to a public official) may have criminal relevance in terms of typical adequacy, I consider that on the basis of the proven facts which have been described, there would have been mediation of a cause of justification, under the terms of article 336, paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Nation, which entails the issuance of the dismissal of the persons appointed ” , Ercolini said.

“His actions would have had the sole and forced motivation to avoid serious damage to the freedom and integrity of people who worked in Venezuela in one of the companies of the economic group to which they belonged,” said the magistrate in this report. resolution now in appeal. by the CRF.

Ercolini’s decision was not challenged by the prosecutor investigating the case, Carlos Stornelli, but by the defense of the accused Baratta, who, according to the prosecution, received payment from ” gifts “from the company.