They dictate dismissal due to application of the more benign Criminal Law / Argentina News

Iprofesional acceded to a recent ruling in a case whereby an important manager of a multinational company was dismissed.who exercised “ad honorem” the presidency of a traditional Club of CABA.

That Institution was charged by the alleged improper withholding of social security resources.

The journey in court extended from 2015 to the present, since, although the technical defense of the former president of the Entity, exercised from the beginning of the case by the lawyer Marcelo Echevarría, obtained a fault in the first place of merit, then the procedural situation it was aggravated with the dictation of the prosecution without preventive detention of the former president of the Institution, the latter owing face a millionaire embargo.

They dictate dismissal due to application of the more benign Criminal Law

At the precise moment when he was processing the appeal of the prosecution before the National Chamber of Appeals in Economic Criminal Matters, The promulgation of the new Criminal Tax Regime Law 27430 arises.

The defense presented its criteria, realizing that the amounts that arose from the criminal figures in their new wording called “objective conditions of punishment” were substantially higher those allegedly detained, for which, taking as precedents the decisions of the Court

Supreme Court of the Nation exposed in the case “Palero” and “Cristalux” should dismiss his client for the application of the constitutional principle of the most benign Penal Law.

The defense criterion was shared by both the court of first instance issuing the dismissal and by the Chamber of jurisdiction, ratifying it.

The problem arose with the mandatory appeals that prosecutors should make in compliance with Instruction 18/18 of the Attorney General of the Nation, as well as by the plaintiff AFIP-DGI.

Indeed, said cause fell to Chamber III of the Chamber Federal Court of Criminal Cassation who already had a different criterion than the other Chambers of the high court, understanding that the constitutional principle of the most benign Penal Law.

The aforementioned lawyer, who was already alerted by this situation that was previously replicated in other cases, before they resolve on the merits of the matter, complies with the necessary requirements imposed by law so that, in the face of an adverse ruling -such as It was foreseen not to lose the procedural opportunity to file the Appeal of Inapplicability of the Law and, through this, to unify the jurisprudence of all the Chambers of the Criminal Cassation Chamber.

Chamber III of the Cassation Chamber revokes the dismissal issued by the Investigating Court and duly ratified by the Economic Criminal Appeals Chamber.

Faced with this scenario, the Appeal of Inapplicability of Law iAttempting to unify the doctrine of the Chambers and, with a divided ruling (three against two judges), they decreed the inadmissibility of the appeal.

Notwithstanding this, they granted the Extraordinary Federal Appeal, leaving the case to be settled in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. In the aforementioned context, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation is extracted from the judgment “Vidal” itself, instructing to the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation to admit the appeals of inapplicability of the law that are filed from now on, noting:

“Also let the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber know – with a view to avoiding the reissue of situations such as those generated in the sub-exam- that its performance as the higher court of the case includes, based on the guidelines set forth in recitals 6 to 10, that of exhausting the exercise of its competition, in light of the principle of maximum performance, in whose scope the contradictory jurisprudence that gave rise to the question under examination should have been resolved and where any future attempt to enforce a solution that dispenses with applying what was resolved by the Court in rulings 330: 4544 (“Palero”) to reforms introduced in criminal offenses that contemplate “quantitative amounts” whether new and well-founded reasons are argued to clearly demonstrate the error or inconvenience of what is resolved therein and / or that are put forward new circumstances in fact to differentiate itself from that solution “.

Thus culminated this journey in justice through the issuance of a recent ruling that put an end to the uncertainty generated, being the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation itself who, through the “VIDAL” ruling, ratified the dismissals issued in a timely manner in this case both by the intervening investigating court and, in the same way, by the Economic Criminal Appeals Chamber regarding the application of the constitutional principle of the more benign criminal law.