Press "Enter" to skip to content

Oil Combustibles: for Justice, the handling of Cristóbal López and Fabián De Sousa was “ruinous and fraudulent”


Fabián De Sousa and Cristóbal López managed in a “fraudulent” manner, according to the Justice, the debt of billions of pesos of the Oil Combustibles company, of which they were owners Source: LA NACION

For Justice, Cristóbal López and Fabián de Sousa managed “fraudulently” the debt for billions of pesos that their oil companyOil Combustibles accumulated for years with the Federal Administration of Public Revenue (AFIP). So “fraudulent” that, in reality, the company went into default almost from the day the Patagonian duo bought it.





These conclusions make up two consecutive rulings issued by the Commercial Appeals Chamber in recent days to resolve different appeals by López and De Sousa, on the one hand, and by the trustees who were removed for delivering the file to their lawyer. AFIP original, which never appeared again.



The Court of Appeals thus endorsed the conclusions reached by the receivership itself and the judge who was in charge of the contest, Javier Cosentino, who estimated that López and De Sousa resorted “systematically” to “ruinous and fraudulent means” that evidenced the state of “default” in June 2011. That is, as soon as they bought it from Petrobras.


How is that? Both the receivership and Judge Cosentino, as now the Appeals Chamber in two rulings of 1 and 22 of this month, concluded that Oil Combustibles entered into default on June 22, 2011, the day the oil company had to pay the AFIP accumulated by the Tax on Liquid Fuels, “which it did not choose, instead, to enter the debt in fiscal payment plans, a behavior that was reiterated later.”


The commercial justice considered that Cristóbal López and Fabián De Sousa managed the Oil Combustibles company irregularly from the beginning
The commercial justice considered that Cristóbal López and Fabián De Sousa managed the Oil Combustibles company irregularly from the beginning Source: Archive


The maids Pablo Heredia, Gerardo Vassallo and Juan Garibotto they remarked that, from that moment on, the businessmen adopted this procedure on a recurring basis until they benefited from “a total of 192 payment facility plans granted by the AFIP, consolidated by the bankrupt [en alusión a Oil] from May 2011 to December 2015 “.

To this was added, the chambermaids recalled, that “many of such plans expired leaving unpaid balances to be refinanced that were included in the acceptance of subsequent payment plans” and that -according to an expert opinion- would be “a total of 48 new low payment plans this modality “in just five days of December 2012, which in turn were also defaulted, in a chain of setbacks and debts that accumulated over the years.

The Chamber also recalled that already in July 2013, the then representative of Oil Combustibles, Diego Gonçalves de Sousa, presented a note addressed to the then head of the AFIP, Ricardo Echegaray, in which he requested a special payment plan since, he argued, the oil company was in “financial conditions” that prevented “the timely fulfillment of obligations.” In other words, in default.

This way of proceeding, the chambermaids estimated, shows a “ruinous or fraudulent means used to obtain resources” by the owners of Oil destined to “conceal the lack of ordinary resources to meet the obligations that are due, obtaining liquidity or postponements to materially continue payments. ” But that, in practice, they reflect that the company could not develop by itself.

The version of López and De Sousa

On the contrary, the Chamber rejected the arguments of the lawyers of López and De Sousa, who argued that this default occurred in 2016, and due to the “fraudulent” action of the AFIP, already under the command of Alberto Abad, four months after Mauricio Macri assumed the Presidency.

“As you can see,” said the chambermaids, “the very words of the creek show their disorientation as to what the controversy is [.], since it is not a question of examining what happened in March 2016 or later, but rather of pondering what happened as of June 22, 2011 “. Why? Because, according to the chambermaids, it is a true fact” that the 22 June 2011, the bankruptcy’s state of cessation of payments was manifested by failing to comply with its tax obligations due on that date. “


Cristóbal López accuses of the problems of Oil Fuels to the macrista management of the AFIP
Cristóbal López accuses of the problems of Oil Fuels to the macrista management of the AFIP Source: File – Credit: Fabián Marelli / LA NACION

To these conclusions, made in its decision of December 1, other complementary ones were added in the second ruling, of Tuesday 22, in which the Chamber confirmed the displacement of the trustees for having delivered the file with all the original documentation of the AFIP to a lawyer for López and De Sousa, file that disappeared.

The file that disappeared

The receivership, the Chamber remarked, knew “more than enough” when giving that file to whoever should never have handed it over that the AFIP credit for billions of pesos “is the most economically significant, and that the fraudulent way in which it is now bankrupt managed his tax debt [.] it is the conceptual basis for the exercise of insolvency actions to reconstitute the assets of this bankruptcy, and also the basis for the criminal proceedings in progress “.

For this reason, the chambermaids considered, “the delivery of the documentary file to the lawyer of one of the interested parties constitutes a clearly irregular and inadmissible fact and that indisputably violated functional duties, thus accounting for a notorious poor performance.”

“For the greater gravity of all this – the chambermaids concluded -, [la sindicatura] He did it in favor of the lawyer representing whom he was interested [en alusión a López] in the result of an expert opinion that concerned the investigation of the composition of the credit insinuated in the files by the National State (AFIP); composition that, as the receivership itself duly understood and recently ratified by the Chamber, was the result of ruinous and fraudulent files. “

According to the criteria of

More information

BESIDES


Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *