In the city of Buenos Aires, on the eighteenth day of the month of June, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six, the members of the First Economic Criminal Court, Drs. Enrique Carlos Schlegel, Susana Pellet Lastra and Jorge Pisarenco, meet, who presides over it, with the presence of the authorizing Secretary Dr. Elizabeth A. Marum, for the purpose of rendering judgment in this case no. 1, entitled: "PERIS, Oscar Gustavo and TOM Distribuidora SRL s/ smuggling", in which OSCAR GUSTAVO PERIS, Argentine, born on October 82, 17 in Capital Federal, Federal Police Identity Card no. 1958, marital status married, occupation merchant, son of José Oscar and Aurelia Teresa Mullassi, with real address at 7.987.186 Arengreen Street in this city; and the company «TOM DISTRIBUIDORA SRL», registered in the General Inspection of Justice with the number 841 of Book 3779 of Limited Liability Companies, with legal address at Av. Díaz Vélez 84 of this Federal Capital. The Trial Prosecutor is Dr. Marta Inés Benavente, head of the Prosecutor's Office No. 5301; as Defense of the accused Dr. Jorge Enrique Kolon, with address at Sarmiento 3, 4602th floor, apartment «B» of this city; and as plaintiff the National Customs Administration, represented in this case by Drs. Nelson Pablo Brunotto and Roxana Mabel Villabona. In which,
RESULTS:
I. That on pages 182/4 and 271/2, respectively, the Examining Magistrate decides to order the prosecution of Oscar Gustavo Peris and the company "TOM DISTRIBUIDORA SRL" for the crime provided for in arts. 863 and 865, paragraph "f" of the Customs Code, considering the named author and both criminally responsible for the crime of documented import smuggling, for having brought in merchandise from the Iquique Free Trade Zone (Chile), an operation that would have been carried out through customs destination - import clearance no. 151488/91 -, under-invoicing its amounts, in order to pay less duties at the National Customs; and to decree an embargo on their respective assets. This, in accordance with arts. 308 and 518 of the CPP; resolutions that are final.
II. That on pages 395/404 the Examining Prosecutor, Dr. Emilio Guerberoff, makes a request for referral to trial for the crime of documented import smuggling, since an fraudulent presentation was made to the customs service of adulterated or false documentation necessary to complete the customs operation for the entry of merchandise into the country, provided for in arts. 863 and 865 inc. "f" of the Customs Code, with respect to the defendant Peris and the firm "Distribuidora Tom SRL", which he represents, as co-authors (art. 45 of the Criminal Code). He states that the National Customs Administration filed a complaint against the aforementioned firm since it had documented the entry of merchandise from the free zone of Iquique (Chile), through import clearance no. 151.488/91, stating in it lower values than those that were actually paid to the firm "Nuremberg SA" of that country, which in turn issued invoice no. 269. He added that a comparison of the values stated in said invoice, which is part of the documentation presented for the release of the merchandise to the market, with those that appear in the re-shipment invoices presented to the Chilean Customs by the exporter of that country, would arise notable differences. He then cites the evidence that, in his opinion, supports the statements made and the reasons on which the request is based.
III. That at pages 411/413 the investigating judge, despite the opposition of the Defense (pages 407/410), orders the investigation to be closed and the present case to be referred to trial, rejecting the request for dismissal made, in accordance with arts. 351 and 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
IV. That the complainant, when making its argument, accused Oscar Gustavo Peris of being the author of the crime provided for in arts. 864, sub. b) and 865, sub. f) of the Customs Code and requested that he be sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison and the additional penalties provided for in art. 876 of the same Code, setting the penalty of disqualification from exercising the activity of importer and exporter at 9 years and 5 years from exercising commerce. Likewise, it accused the firm "Tom Distribuidora SRL" because it considered that Peris acted on its behalf and that the latter obtained the benefits of the former's actions, requesting the withdrawal of the legal status and the cancellation of the registration in the Public Registry of Commerce.
V. That the Trial Prosecutor, Dr. Marta I. Benavente, made her argument during the debate and accuses Oscar Gustavo Peris and the company "Distribuidora Tom SRL", which the aforementioned represents, for the reasons of fact and law that she stated, considering them co-authors of the crime of qualified import smuggling provided for in arts. 864 inc. b) and 865 inc. "f" of the Customs Code and requests that Peris be sentenced to 3 years in prison, which may be suspended, plus the legal accessories provided for in art. 876 incs. d), e) -one year-, f) and h) of the Customs Code; and that the firm "Distribuidora Tom SRL" be sentenced to the penalties provided for in arts. 876 and 1026 of the Customs Code, loss of concessions, privileges, prerogatives, withdrawal of its legal status and cancellation of its registration in the Public Registry of Commerce. In both cases with costs -art. 530 et seq. of the CPP-.
VI. That the defense attorney for the accused, Dr. Jorge Enrique Kolon, in his argument, requested the acquittal of his clients, considering that no crime was committed, that the veracity of the content of the requests for reshipment added to these proceedings could not be established, which - furthermore - were not required by the ANA in order to carry out the customs operation at the time when the merchandise was imported, so that the ANA circular establishing this cannot be applied retroactively. That, likewise, the value of the objects had been verified by the ANA appraisers when the import was carried out and they did not observe the amounts declared in the commercial invoice, documentation with which the import clearance procedure should have been carried out. That on the other hand, the fact could constitute, at most, a customs violation in the terms of art. 954 of the CA, but not a crime.
AND WHEREAS:
I. During the debate the following evidence was incorporated:
1) Import clearance matrix no. 151.488-4/91 with photocopies of invoice no. 269 issued by the firm "Nuremberg", reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as evidence.
2) Photocopies of import order no. 151.488-4/91, reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as evidence.
3) Partial 1 of DI no. 151.488-4/91, with certificate of the value of the maritime freight of the merchandise corresponding to the transfer from origin to the free zone of Iquique; declaration of elements related to the value in Customs; international road transport note; original of invoice no. 269 of "Nuremberg" in ten pages; and three payment certificates no. 554636, 559938 and 570360 made before the ANA. All of them reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as elements of conviction.
4) Photocopies of the requests for re-issuance of invoices Nos. 01476 to 01489 submitted by ANA; photocopies of the requests for re-issuance of invoices Nos. 01476 to 01489, with photocopies of invoice No. 269, certified by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Chile, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile and by the Consulate General of the Argentine Republic in the Republic of Chile, submitted by the Defense; invoice No. 680 from Marcelo Osvaldo Cascone; verification report of dispatch No. 151.488/91 with copy; invoice No. 23.817 issued by «Pedro Ricardo Nicolini y Asociados SRL»; fax No. 124 from «Nuremberg» to «Tom Distrib. SRL»; Facsimile copy of a credit note from Banco de la Nación (ANA branch) on four pages; invoice no. 9905 from «United General Supply»; photocopy of certificate no. 18.287 from «Coarco» on seven pages and photocopy of the check issued against Banco de Chile by «Consorcio General de Seguros SA»; incorporated into the debate as evidence.
5) Thirty-four forms for the Statistical Information Registry; a deposit receipt and two certificates of transfers made by Banco Credicoop, reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as evidence.
6) Thirty-five sets of "Redi" forms with details of global presentations, and a letter from "Wing Lei Co." with envelope and advertising, incorporated into the debate as evidence.
7) Photocopies of the instructions for Free Trade Zones issued by the Chilean Customs Directorate, of the Internal Operational Regulations and of the registration form in the Register of Importers and Exporters of the firm "Tom Distribuidora SRL", found on pages 6/32, incorporated into the debate as evidence.
8) Certified photocopy of the bylaws of the limited liability company "Tom Distribuidora", added to pages 46/54, incorporated as evidence in the debate.
9) Documentation provided by Legal Affairs of Banco Credicoop on pages 351/4, incorporated as evidence in the debate.
10) Original certification by a Notary Public of the Republic of Chile, reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as evidence.
11) Receipt of shipment from "DHL" (air waybill), reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as an element of conviction.
12) Three original memoranda from the Director of Commission 250/92, from the Undersecretariat of Public Finance of the ANA, reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as elements of conviction.
13) ANA notification certificate related to administrative file 413.813/93, incorporated as evidence.
14) Certificate from the Iquique Chamber of Commerce and Industry, incorporated into the debate as an element of conviction.
15) Copy of the newspaper «Clarín», with a list of prices and indexes, reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated as elements of conviction in the debate.
16) Photocopy of the International Transport document, carrier "Dibiagi", reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as evidence.
17) Original of the request for authorization submitted to the Consulate General of the Argentine Republic, reserved in the Secretariat and incorporated into the debate as evidence.
18) Form of the “Consorcio General de Seguros SA”, incorporated into the debate as an element of conviction.
19) Minutes of the Chilean insurance liquidator Alberto Atucha Cuiñas, incorporated into the debate as an element of conviction.
20) Photocopy of the letter-document addressed by "Tom Distribuidora SRL" to "Transportes Dibiagi", incorporated into the debate as an element of conviction.
21) Photocopy of the first page of the import dispatch no. 254.833/8, the deposit slip of the Banco de la Nación Argentina and the receipt from the General Tax Directorate and a copy of the international waybill no. 211/11 SCL of the transport company "Bras-Frio Limitada".
22) Disciplinary summary carried out against the firm "Tom Distribuidora SRL" and/or Oscar G. Peris, no. 413.813/93, incorporated into the debate as an element of conviction.
23) File EAAAnro. 571.056 of the ANA, which contains a photocopy of the Mutual Assistance Agreement between the Customs Services of Latin America, Spain and Portugal (Law 22.663), the GATT Valuation Law (Law Agreement 23.311), ANA circular no. 513, ANA resolution no. 1022/92, ANA resolutions no. 2203/82, 401/92 and 250/92; report of the Importation Technique Department on page 137 of the aforementioned ANA file.
24) Certified photocopies of ANA resolutions Nos. 1425/91, 2065/91 and 1924/93 and report of the head of the Personnel Division of that Administration, pages 496/504.
25) Reply to the letter of request on pages 72/139, including copies of the requests for reissue nos. 01476 to 01489 on pages 117/130, incorporated into the debate as evidence.
26) Written complaint made by the ANA, incorporated by reading into the debate, recorded at 1/5.
27) Testimonial statement and report presented by Mr. Francisco Sandoval, general manager of "Nuremberg SA" and testimonial statement provided by Eduardo Antonio Jimenez Doñas, before the Court of Iquique, on pages 115/6 and 136 and back respectively, incorporated by reading into the debate.
28) Reports from Banco Credicoop regarding the transfers made by the firm "Tom Distribuidora SRL" and José Oscar Peris to the Republic of Chile and notes from the same bank on pages 355, 386/8 and 490, incorporated by reading into the debate.
29) Report from the firm “Dibiagi Transporte Internacional”, pages 491/2.
30) Socio-environmental report prepared by the Federal Police on pages 188/9 and 284/9
31) Report on the accused's background from the National Registry of Recidivism and Criminal Statistics on pages 191/2 and pages 198 and 375.
32) Report from the Chilean Consulate on page 510 stating that the Commercial Attaché of the Chilean Embassy in the Argentine Republic reported the non-existence of incentives or other benefits for merchandise not originating in Chile exported to third countries from that free zone.
33) Testimony of Rubén José Lagger, given during the debate, in which he stated that, after being shown import clearance 151488/91, the reshipment requests and the commercial invoices, he recognised them. That his task was limited to locating the reshipment requests corresponding to the import operations and then making a comparison between them and what was declared in the import clearance. That the reshipment requests shown to him were searched for in the Chilean customs and authenticated by the Consul. That such operations were not carried out by him, and he did not know who did so. That he did not carry out a value study of the price of the merchandise, but rather a comparison of the commercial invoice and the reshipment invoice, reaching the conclusion that the first is apocryphal. That the reshipment request has seven copies and they are for the different agents involved in the operation, including the interested party, but not for the customs of destination. That the CIF value determined that the sale value in this country was lower than the value of entry into the Iquique free zone. That at the time the clearance was made official, the reshipment invoice was not required to carry out the customs operation, and was required later.
34) Testimony of Mario Silvetti, given during the debate, when he stated that in order to value the merchandise according to the GATT Code, the free transaction value between the foreign value and the other is taken into account; if the value is not reasonable, a more in-depth study is carried out; that the commercial invoice is a necessary documentation for the importer and for the customs service in the import.
35) Testimonial statements by Susana C. de Aguirre, Amanda S. de Ruaro, Osvaldo M. Fernández and Mabel Caruso, given during the debate, in which they stated that they recognised one of the signatures on the import order shown to them as being in their own handwriting; that their task consisted of verifying that the values on the invoice match what was documented; that in order to carry out the valuation of the merchandise, they took into account the invoices and previous invoice records in the branch from the same countries and identical merchandise.
36) Testimony of Georgina Bórquez, given during the debate, when she stated that, based on the documentation she observed, it was a typical case of under-invoicing; that they did not verify but rather reviewed the reshipment invoice and compared it with the import clearance; that on the date of clearance, a reshipment invoice was not required in the country, but the waybill was.
37) Testimony of Marcelo Osvaldo Cascone, given during the debate, in which he stated that he was the customs agent for the operation in question; that in order to carry out the procedure, the importer brought him all the documentation; that he knows that there are reshipment certificates, but at the time of the clearance they were not required; that the reshipment request can be used as an invoice; that there is an adjustment in the value made to item 26 that was paid before the ANA clearance was issued; the other items were correct. When the Import Clearance, the commercial invoice and the original Bill of Lading were shown to him, he recognized them.
38) Testimonial statement by Jorge Carlos Clérici stating that the inspector is responsible for the entire container; if he has any doubts, he deconsolidates the entire container, if not, only selectively, which will happen if the merchandise is homogeneous. If it is heterogeneous, in general, the verification is not selective.
II. It is proven, with the evidence previously stated, that the firm "Tom Distribuidora SRL" purchased various merchandise from the firm "Importadora y Exportadora Nuremberg y Cía. Ltda.", in the Iquique Free Trade Zone (Chile). That in order to document the entry of the merchandise into this country, import clearance no. 151.488-4/91 was drawn up, recording therein the amount of US$ 42.535,05 including the FOB value, and invoice no. 269 dated June 27, 1991, for the same value, both documents being presented to the customs service in order to carry out the operation. That said amount is lower than that shown in reshipment invoices no. 01476 to 01489, presented by ANA as having been obtained at the Customs of the Republic of Chile. Such difference is evident from a mere comparison between the aforementioned invoice - which forms part of the documentation presented for clearance to the market - and the reshipment invoices cited, prepared by "Importadora y Exportadora Nuremberg y Cía. Ltda.". The total value of the reshipment invoices being US$ 65.558,65, the difference between both documents amounts to US$ 23.023,60.
However, it has not been possible to prove the real value for which the commercial transaction was carried out, that is to say which of the documents is, in this case, ideologically false, which will be analysed below.
III. First, the Court must point out the existence of two sets of copies of reshipment invoices in the case: the one provided by ANA, certified by the Argentine Consul in the city of Antofagasta, which coincides with the photocopies provided by the representative of the company that continues the limited liability company "Nuremberg", which, moreover, was recognized as valid when testifying; and the one provided by the defense at the stage of offering evidence, later withdrawn by it, but incorporated into the debate by decision of the Court at the request of the private plaintiff. The reason for this statement is that the values contained in both sets are different, so it must be concluded that one of them is not a true copy of the original on file at the Iquique Customs.
Indeed, although the document provided by the defence has various certifications, it should be noted that they do not prove the authenticity of the original whose photocopy was presented. This is because the certification of the notary - Jorge Tomás Agurto Chamorro - is limited to attesting that it is a copy of the document in view, without indicating where and under what circumstances he consulted the originals mentioned in the certification note; the remaining certifications only refer to the ownership of the signatures therein.
On the other hand, the aforementioned document submitted by the defense presents peculiarities that determine that it should be deprived of any probative value with respect to the fact that is being attempted to be proven. Thus, the signature recorded in the application as corresponding to Jimenez Doñas differs at first glance from the one duly recognized by the named person, when the photocopy of the original sent by the Chilean customs was shown to him; the numbers on the stamp are partially outside the "acceptance" box on the upper left margin, as well as the "UVD Visa" box; lastly, the perforated one that says "UVD ZOFRI 02 07 91" presents irregularities in its preparation as it has crooked letters.
Notwithstanding the defence's withdrawal of the evidence consisting of the submission of the set of reshipment invoices, previously analysed, the plaintiff's claim for its inclusion in the debate is justified, and therefore the Court so decided in due time, since once the aggregation has occurred, it is not within the power of the proposing party to extract it, since it is already evidence of the process and not of the party. Hence, its merit in this judgment is appropriate, notwithstanding the will expressed by the defence, even to reduce its probative value at this time of weighing the elements of the trial.
Regarding the document accompanied by the ANA, the certification made by the Consul of the Argentine Republic certifies that a copy of the request for re-dispatch that is held at the National Customs Service of the Republic of Chile - Iquique Customs - has been seen and the respective comparison with the front and back has been made, certifying that the copy is authentic.
However, its effectiveness as a means of proof is equally doubtful, since although it is certified as signed by the Argentine Consul in Antofagasta, such signature, in turn, should have been certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Nation, as required by art. 229 of the Consular Regulations approved by Decree No. 8714/63. In effect, the aforementioned rule establishes that the signature of the consular official who authenticates the foreign document must, in turn, be authenticated in the Republic by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship. It also provides an exception to this principle referring to documents that, for customs purposes, are required by the Argentine public authorities. The document in question is not included in such exclusion, since at the time of the customs operation, the presentation of the request for re-shipment was not required in order to complete the importation of goods. It should be noted that customs circular no. 513 requiring this is dated 25/10/91.
IV. Under these conditions, in relation to the values attributable to the goods imported through import clearance no. 151.488/91, a dilemma arises between those resulting from the reshipment invoices, the acceptance of which as evidence has been made previously, and those recorded in invoice no. 269, which supported the customs procedure for the aforementioned clearance.
The commercial invoice that we have just mentioned supported the importer's declaration of value, and it has the peculiarity of coinciding with the copies of reshipment invoices, the effectiveness of which as evidence has been previously rejected. As a logical consequence, due to its transitive nature, such commercial invoice appears to be of dubious probative value. At the same time, the copies of the reshipment invoices presented by the complainant have dubious probative value, for the reasons already stated, which, although they do not completely diminish the effectiveness of these evidences, constitute clues that must be assessed in accordance with sound judgment. And it is the opinion of the undersigned that they are not sufficient as they are not accompanied by other clues or evidence.
In this regard, we cannot ignore the testimony of the valuers and the cross-checker of the ANA technical teams, since they all agreed that they carried out the verification of the dispatch and found no objections to the declared values, after consulting the records held by the department, except for one item, for which reason, and as it arises from the records of the dispatch, the rights for the difference in value were paid.
Likewise, when Sandoval and Jiménez Doñas testified (pages 115 and 136), they were evasive regarding the issue of invoice no. 269, not knowing about it and even claiming that the selling company does not keep a copy of it because it is only prepared in the original and delivered to the buyer, which is not reasonable, since no commercial accounting system can allow such a practice. However, in contrast to this, there is a certification from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Iquique which states that invoice no. 269 in question has been submitted for its corresponding visa by the company "Nuremberg", increasing the doubt about the non-intervention of the foreign seller in the preparation of the same, as suggested by its representative when testifying.
In addition, the representatives of the firm did not present the commercial books related to the operation when requested by the Chilean judge, arguing that they were missing, which is inconceivable when - as in this case - it is a succession of companies that requires that such books remain in the possession of the successor company.
Furthermore, it should be noted that for the purposes of paying the insurance for the damaged goods by the company "Consorcio General de Seguros", it has taken as a basis for calculating the compensation, the value of the items existing in invoice no. 269. This arises from the comparison between this document and the settlement of the aforementioned company reserved in the Secretariat, citing as an example the following items: telephones (item 122 of the invoice), hairbrush (item 162), radio recorder (item 129), plastic hand game (item 173), nylon sock (item 58), acrylic sock (item 61), poly slipper (item 62), walkie talkie (item 103), calculator (item 53), men's umbrella (item 19), whiskey glasses (item 123), men's bicycle (item 79). The above once again calls into question the values in the reshipment request, as well as the real ones; since in such case the insurance would have been contracted for those amounts, especially taking into account that Nuremberg was the contractor in favor of Tom Distribuidora SRL.
Finally, it should be noted that Oscar Gustavo Peris, when making a statement during the trial - as in his previous statements made in the investigation - denied having under-invoiced the merchandise in question, stating that invoice no. 269 that he presented to the customs service was delivered by the selling company, which did not request re-shipment because at that time it was not a necessary document for the purposes of importing merchandise.
It should be noted that the accused and his defense are right in that the document was required as an essential requirement to complete the customs operation some time after the importation of the vehicle, as already stated. As regards the aforementioned denial, it is necessary to point out that it is up to the accusing parties to destroy the allegations of the defendant with irrefutable evidence and not for the defendant to prove his innocence.
V. Under these conditions, we must conclude that there is a real state of doubt regarding the true values at which the goods referred to in the import clearance in question were purchased, which requires the solution provided for in art. 3 of the CPP. In effect, if the reshipment invoices provided by ANA suffer from the formal defect indicated and which removes their probative value, remaining a mere indication that is not supported by any evidence, and if invoice no. 269, despite the suspicion arising from its concordance with the reshipment invoices presented by the defense, finds support in the acceptance of the customs appraisers; the doubt remains in the minds of the undersigned about the existence of the materiality of the criminal act. This is so, because it has not been possible to prove that the document presented, necessary to complete the customs import operation, was false.
VI. In another order of ideas, it is appropriate to make a reference to the company "Tom Distribuidora SRL", which made a statement during the hearing, given that Peris has also acted on behalf of the aforementioned legal entity and against which the accusation was also formulated. In this regard, the arguments previously presented should be considered reproduced, as well as the conclusion reached regarding the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the crime investigated.
VII. The accusing parties have considered proven the fact that it has been classified as an illegal act of import smuggling, which prevented customs control, thereby subjecting the goods to a treatment different from that which corresponded to the purposes of their importation, which was the payment of duties in a lower amount than that which should have been paid, as a consequence of the reduction of the taxable base, through the presentation of commercial invoice no. 269, which they consider false. To this end, they have outlined various elements of proof, some of which have already been examined and others which will be analysed below.
The main argument is based on the difference in value between commercial invoice No. 269 and the copies of the requests for reshipment, to which the accusers grant full validity from the formal and ideological points of view, which has already been duly studied in Recitals III and IV, to which the Court refers in order to avoid unnecessary repetition. It should only be added that the fact that the copies of the requests for reshipment submitted by ANA coincide with those submitted by the representatives of "Nuremberg" does not add anything to the question concerning the veracity of their content, since it was this company that submitted the aforementioned documents to the Chilean customs.
The accusers also state in their arguments that the payment made by Peris for this transaction exceeds the amount of $42.535,05; from which it can be deduced that the real value of the same is that which arises from the copies of the requests for re-dispatch submitted by the ANA. However, there was no agreement between the Prosecutor and the complainant regarding which bank transfers should be imputed to the transaction in question. Thus, the complaint stated that Peris paid for the purchase of merchandise with the transfer of $23.000, because if the amount of $42.535,05 appearing on the commercial invoice is added to it, it gives an approximate value of $65.558,65 shown on the copies of the requests for re-dispatch. The prosecution, on the other hand, considers that Peris made the payment with the three transfers whose records are in the file, that is, the $17.000 dated 12/6/91, the $23.000 dated 19/6/91 and the $10.650 dated 22/10/91, plus the check for $3.522 with which the insurance company "Consorcio de Seguros" settled a claim due to partial theft of merchandise. The above indicates, by itself, that the allegations made by the accusers are mere presumptions lacking evidentiary support, since each one elaborates a version of the facts regarding the payment of the operation that, in truth, has not been able to be proven. Indeed, when giving his statement, Peris stated that the third transfer corresponds to a second commercial operation that he carried out with “Nuremberg” and that the payment for the one that is the subject of the proceedings has been paid with the other two transfers (page 355), plus the check for $3.500 from the insurance company, which corresponded to him since the missing amount was detected at destination and he paid for the entirety of the merchandise. He added that with the difference between that amount and that of the operation, “Nuremberg” paid the freight. What the accused said constitutes another hypothesis about the matter, which has not been refuted by the accusing parties, which is why no evidence has been put together regarding this point.
VIII. All of the above shows that the commission of any criminal offense by the defendant has not been proven; however, it does not rule out the possibility that, as repeatedly stated by the defense, a customs violation may have been committed in the terms of art. 954 of the CA, as a consequence of the processing of customs clearance no. 151.488/91, the investigation of which is the responsibility of the ANA.
IX. In another order of ideas, and in light of what is expressed in Recital III regarding the copies of the requests for reissuance submitted by the defense to this Court at the time provided for in art. 354 CPP; it is appropriate to extract certified copies of the respective records in order to investigate the alleged commission of a public action crime that could result from the preparation, use and presentation by the Defense of the requests for reissuance attached
Regarding the complaint's request for the extraction of photocopies of the rulings provided by the defense in the evidentiary stage, for the purposes of filing a complaint before the Public Bar Association for a possible violation of ethical rules due to the revocation of said rulings, the request will be granted even though said evidence was not incorporated into the debate because it was denied because it deals with law - see fs. 451 back, point 3) B. c) -, since it is that entity that must determine whether such a violation exists.
For all the above, in accordance with arts. 396, 399 and 402 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Nation, and as read on June 13, XNUMX by this Oral Court,
RESOLVED:
I. TO ACQUIT OSCAR GUSTAVO PERIS, of the other personal conditions already referred to, and "TOM DISTRIBUIDORA SRL" of the crime of aggravated import smuggling provided for in arts. 864 inc. b) and 865 inc. f) of the Customs Code, for which they were the subject of the prosecution and the complaint -art. 3 of the CPP-.
II. NOT TO IMPOSE THE COSTS of the process on the plaintiff, considering that he has had plausible reason to litigate (art. 530 and 531 of the CPP).
III. ORDER the submission of testimonies to the ANA in order to investigate the alleged commission of a customs violation - art. 954 of the CA-.
IV. ORDER the referral of testimonies to the Criminal Court, in order to investigate the possible commission of public action crimes that could result from the preparation, use and presentation by the Defense of the attached requests for reissuance.
V. ORDER the delivery of the relevant photocopies requested by the ANA
VI. NOT TO REGULATE the fees of Drs. Agustín J. Alvarez and Jorge Enrique Kolon, who acted jointly as defense attorneys for the defendants, for not having complied with the provisions of art. 2 of Law 17.250.
VII. NOT TO REGULATE the fees of Drs. Roxana M. Villabona and Nelson P. Brunotto, attorneys representing and sponsoring the complaint, for not having complied with the provisions of art. 2 of Law 17.250.
Register, notify and once it is approved or enforced, communicate where appropriate, add the incidents to the main document. Dated, file.
