[ad_1]
In a divided vote, the Court of Appeals dismissed the arguments of the prosecution and the Internal Revenue Service, who tried to bring him to justice for tax offenses. Persecutora, responsible for the case, has announced its intention to badyze a possible petition before the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 6:33 pm.
On Tuesday, the Santiago Court of Appeal dismissed the immunity claim of Senator of Christian Democracy, Jorge Pizarro, as part of the so-called Soquimich affair.
The decision was rendered. by the President of the Santiago Court of Appeal, Dobra Lusic, who reported that 19 ministers had voted against the request for waiver of parliamentary immunity and that 9 were in favor of his agreement.
The legislator is accused of tax offenses related to the misrepresentation of fake taxes, used for the illegal financing of political campaigns by the nonmetallic mining company. Bills were issued to SQM for about 45 million pesos, between 2011 and 2012, through Ventus Consulting, a company owned by their sons, Jorge, Sebastián and Benjamín.
Senator Pizarro's counsel, Cristóbal Bonacic, not only badyzed the Court's decision, but also stated that the Court of Appeal had generally accepted the facts which showed that there was no fact constituting a crime and, also, that the parliamentarian had no intervention on them.
"This resolution confirms what we have said since the beginning of this investigation, in April 2015: that the senator has not committed any crime, that the Attorney General's office has developed an investigation that does not respect not the principle of objectivity and does not want to see the abundant background that was accompanied, which shows that there is no crime. "
His counterpart, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation Paola Castiglione, expressed surprise at the rejection of the request for immunity presented by the magistrates. He said, however, that after studying the details of the decision's arguments, he could appeal to the Supreme Court.
"This is obviously not what the prosecution was waiting for, but we must know the outcome of the decision to see what are the grounds that gave the Court of Appeal reject the request for immunity and then evaluate the possibility of presenting the corresponding resources, "he said.
For the prosecutor In the SQM case, Mauricio Daza, the decision of the Court is bad news. However, he declared that the principle The chief prosecutor of Valparaiso, Pablo Gómez, is the culprit of the decision of the court
For the representative of the Intelligent Citizen Foundation, the persecutor should have expanded the investigation by means of of acts of corruption and not only by closing it with fiscal offenses. "The decision of an appeal court dismissing an immunity application would not be appealable, so I think we are faced with a final decision." The problem lies in the fact that the way in which the prosecutor's office dealt with the SQM case is totally wrong and insufficient, we are confronted with acts of corruption, which has not been the subject of an investigation is that, thanks to these illegal payments, officials have proceeded to some sort of management in favor of this company, "he said.
After four years. During the investigation, the prosecutor's office closed the investigation and only made tax accusations against Patricio Contesse, former director general of the SQM, Sebastián Pizarro Cristi, son of the senator, and against Jorge Pizarro Soto himself. The latter, as a senator, has parliamentary jurisdiction which prevents him from being deprived of liberty except in case of flagrant crime, he was asked to withdraw this advantage, in order to cause a cause in his country. . On Tuesday, the Santiago Court of Appeal dismissed the immunity claim presented by Senator Christian Democracy, Jorge Pizarro, in connection with the Soquimich case.
The decision was handed down by the president of the Alzada court of Santiago, Dobra Lusic, who reported that 19 ministers had voted against the request for loss of parliamentary immunity and that 9 were in favor of his agreement.
DC's lawmaker is accused of tax crimes related to malicious misrepresentation, used for the illegal financing of political campaigns by the nonmetallic mining company. Bills were issued to SQM for about 45 million pesos, between 2011 and 2012, through Ventus Consulting, a company owned by their sons, Jorge, Sebastián and Benjamín.
Senator Pizarro's counsel, Cristóbal Bonacic, not only badyzed the Court's decision, but also stated that the Court of Appeal had generally accepted the facts which showed that there was no fact constituting a crime and, also, that the parliamentarian had no intervention on them.
"This resolution confirms what we have said since the beginning of this investigation, in April 2015: that the senator has not committed any crime, that the Attorney General's office has developed an investigation that does not respect not the principle of objectivity and does not want to see the abundant background that was accompanied, which shows that there is no crime. "
His counterpart, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation Paola Castiglione, expressed surprise at the rejection of the request for immunity presented by the magistrates. He said, however, that after studying the details of the decision's arguments, he could appeal to the Supreme Court.
"This is obviously not what the prosecution was waiting for, but we must know the outcome of the decision to see what are the grounds that gave the Court of Appeal reject the request for immunity and then evaluate the possibility of presenting the corresponding resources, "he said.
For the prosecutor In the SQM case, Mauricio Daza, the decision of the Court is bad news. However, he declared that the principle The chief prosecutor of Valparaiso, Pablo Gómez, is the culprit of the decision of the court
For the representative of the Intelligent Citizen Foundation, the persecutor should have expanded the investigation by means of of acts of corruption and not only by closing it with fiscal offenses. "The decision of an appeal court dismissing an immunity application would not be appealable, so I think we are faced with a final decision." The problem lies in the fact that the way in which the prosecutor's office dealt with the SQM case is totally wrong and insufficient, we are confronted with acts of corruption, which has not been the subject of an investigation is that, thanks to these illegal payments, officials have proceeded to some sort of management in favor of this company, "he said.
After four years. During the investigation, the prosecutor's office closed the investigation and only made tax accusations against Patricio Contesse, former director general of the SQM, Sebastián Pizarro Cristi, son of the senator, and against Jorge Pizarro Soto himself. The latter, as a senator, has parliamentary jurisdiction which prevents him from being deprived of liberty except in case of flagrant crime, he was asked to withdraw this advantage, in order to cause a cause in his country. . On Tuesday, the Santiago Court of Appeal dismissed the immunity claim presented by Senator Christian Democracy, Jorge Pizarro, in connection with the Soquimich case.
The decision was handed down by the president of the Alzada court of Santiago, Dobra Lusic, who reported that 19 ministers had voted against the request for loss of parliamentary immunity and that 9 were in favor of his agreement.
DC's lawmaker is accused of tax crimes related to malicious misrepresentation, used for the illegal financing of political campaigns by the nonmetallic mining company. Bills were issued to SQM for about 45 million pesos, between 2011 and 2012, through Ventus Consulting, a company owned by their sons, Jorge, Sebastián and Benjamín.
Senator Pizarro's counsel, Cristóbal Bonacic, not only badyzed the Court's decision, but also stated that the Court of Appeal had generally accepted the facts which showed that there was no fact constituting a crime and, also, that the parliamentarian had no intervention on them.
"This resolution confirms what we have said since the beginning of this investigation, in April 2015: that the senator has not committed any crime, that the Attorney General's office has developed an investigation that does not respect not the principle of objectivity and does not want to see the abundant background that was accompanied, which shows that there is no crime. "
His counterpart, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation Paola Castiglione, expressed surprise at the rejection of the request for immunity presented by the magistrates. He said, however, that after studying the details of the decision's arguments, he could appeal to the Supreme Court.
"This is obviously not what the prosecution was waiting for, but we must know the outcome of the decision to see what are the grounds that gave the Court of Appeal reject the request for immunity and then evaluate the possibility of presenting the corresponding resources, "he said.
For the prosecutor In the SQM case, Mauricio Daza, the decision of the Court is bad news. However, he declared that the principle The chief prosecutor of Valparaiso, Pablo Gómez, is the culprit of the decision of the court
For the representative of the Intelligent Citizen Foundation, the persecutor should have expanded the investigation by means of of acts of corruption and not only by closing it with fiscal offenses. "The decision of an appeal court dismissing an immunity application would not be appealable, so I think we are faced with a final decision." The problem lies in the fact that the way in which the prosecutor's office dealt with the SQM case is totally wrong and insufficient, we are confronted with acts of corruption, which has not been the subject of an investigation is that, thanks to these illegal payments, officials have proceeded to some sort of management in favor of this company, "he said.
After four years. During the investigation, the prosecutor's office closed the investigation and only made tax accusations against Patricio Contesse, former director general of the SQM, Sebastián Pizarro Cristi, son of the senator, and against Jorge Pizarro Soto himself. The latter, as a senator, has parliamentary jurisdiction which prevents him from being deprived of liberty except in case of flagrant crime, he was asked to withdraw this advantage, in order to cause a cause in his country. . against.
[ad_2]
Source link
