Odebrecht bribery case: accused receives decree from Javier Milei to transfer the case to the anti-money laundering division
In a high-profile corruption case involving the Odebrecht scandal, the legitimacy of the Financial Information Unit (UIF) acting as a plaintiff is under scrutiny. The case, which involves allegations against former Minister of Federal Planning Julio De Vido, among others, has been elevated to trial.
The case, which centres around irregularities in the bidding processes for the construction of the Paraná de las Palmas water treatment plant and the Berazategui Wastewater Treatment System, was awarded to consortia including Construcciones Norberto Odebrecht SA, Benito Roggio e Hijos SA, Supercemento SAIC, and José Cartellone Construcciones Civiles SA.
The investigation is looking into the alleged illicit direction by AySA authorities in the bidding processes for the infrastructure projects under its jurisdiction, as well as the payment of bribes by the representatives of all the involved firms.
Initially, Carlos Ben, a former president of AySA, made a request to remove the UIF as a plaintiff during an oral and public trial. This request was based on a decree by President Javier Milei that prohibited the UIF from having a role in criminal cases. However, the Federal Oral Tribunal No. 7 rejected this removal, arguing that it was admitted during the investigation and that decision is final.
Against this ruling, Ben filed a cassation appeal, which was declared inadmissible, and then a complaint. The new decree does not dispose of the cessation of the UIF's participation as a plaintiff in ongoing cases, but in new ones.
The III Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Court has now resolved to open the complaint and analyze the merits of the discussion on the UIF's legitimacy to act as a plaintiff in this case. The removal of the UIF, if successful, would weaken the accusation, as only prosecutors would remain as accusers.
It is important to note that the appropriateness of removing the UIF as a plaintiff in such a high-profile case depends on legal considerations such as jurisdiction, the UIF's role in the investigation, and procedural rules governing plaintiffs in criminal proceedings. The Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation in Argentina typically evaluates such decisions based on legal merits, ensuring due process and adherence to procedural law.
However, specific statements or rulings from the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation concerning the UIF's removal as a plaintiff in the Odebrecht case are not currently available. For a precise analysis and the court's stance, further details or a more specific jurisdiction would be required. Consulting official court documents or reputable legal analyses relevant to the Odebrecht case in the appropriate jurisdiction would provide more insight into this matter.
Read also:
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
- Tinubu's administration allegedly causing issues within every political party as Peter Obi's name surfaces - Obidient Movement asserts
