Roberto Leiva and others, case No. 180, to which Nos. 181, 204, 230, 248, 270, 272 and 275 are added.

Buenos Aires, August 12, 1999.

And Viewed:

This case No. 180, to which are added Nos. 181, 204, 230, 248, 270, 272 and 275, which are being processed before this Economic Criminal Court No. 1, composed of Drs. Enrique Carlos Schlegel, in his capacity as president, Susana Pellet Lastra and Jorge Pisarenco as members, brought against Roberto Leiva, Argentine, married, born on October 12, 1945 in Capital Federal, holder of DNI No. 4.531.327, merchant, son of Argentino Ramón Sebastián Leiva and Nélida Fernández, with address in District 2, Section 1, Block 8, defended by Drs. Práxedes Sagasta and Práxedes Sagasta (h); Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, Uruguayan, married and separated, born on September 28, 1950 in Colonia, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, holder of DNI (National Identity Document) No. 92.162.029, merchant, son of Gregorio Arce and Deolinda Elena Cajés, with address at 1438 Billinghusrt Street, floor "B", Capital Federal, defended by Dr. Julia Sulan; Julio César Arce Cajes, Uruguayan, married, born on September 11, 1947 in Colonia, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, holder of DNI (National Identity Document) No. 92.003.984, employee, son of Gregorio Arce and Deolinda Cajes, with address at 1760 Pasaje Crespó Street (Puerta Negra); Gustavo Ariel García, Argentine, single, born on May 10, 1967 in Morón, holder of DNI (National Identity Document) No. 17.373.654, administrative on commission, son of Jorge Isaac García and Irma Alvarez, with address at 4155 Charcas Street and La Salle and F. Moreno, José C. Paz, the latter two defended by Dr. Patricia Garnero; Aldo Julio César Díaz, Argentine, married, born on November 21, 1953 in Córdoba, holder of DNI (National Identity Document) No. 11.097.887, customs employee, son of Bonifacio and Rosario Aguilera, with address at 2522 Gallardo Street, Don Torcuato, defended by Dr. Horacio Galarza de la Cuesta; and Haroldo Gómez, Argentine, married and separated, born on April 27, 1961 in Capital Federal, holder of DNI No. 14.430.047, employee, son of Alfredo and Ester Sánchez, with address at Ambrosetti 276, 3rd floor, apartment "C" of this Capital Federal, defended by Drs. Luis Charró and Moira Name; intervening as trial prosecutor Dr. Marta Inés Benavente, and acting as plaintiff on behalf of the AFIP (Federal Public Revenue Administration), Drs. Nelson Brunotto, Jorge Oyuela, Silvina Pepe and Marcelo Goldberg, for the crimes of qualified smuggling and illicit association, and whose evidence,

Results:

A. The investigating prosecutor, Dr. Roberto Leanza, in his requests on pages 1/281 (case No. 181); 1/134 (case No. 180); 1/124 (case No. 204); 1/23 (case No. 230), 3/8 (case No. 248); 3/8 (case No. 270); 8/38 (case No. 272) and 3/5 (case No. 275), attributes to the aforementioned defendants different criminal activities, in accordance with the scheme detailed below and after the corresponding purification and classification according to the scope of this trial.

I. Crimes

1) Illicit association
The activity of different criminal groups made up of associated persons, whether as customs brokers, customs personnel, police personnel; directors of the Lingas bonded warehouse, individuals and owners of merchandise and intermediaries, with knowledge and willingness to collaborate for the introduction of merchandise into the country, evading the proper exercise of the functions that the laws grant to the customs service, is attributed. It particularizes the action of one of the criminal organizations whose activity was to illegally introduce merchandise of foreign origin into the country, simulating land transit operations, counting on the active participation of the Lingas SA (ex-TCO) bonded warehouse, owned by the firm Murchison Estibajes y Cargas SA, where all the imputed containers were deposited, which were then removed from it as transit, being transferred to private warehouses, where the merchandise was subsequently reduced.
To achieve this goal, this criminal structure had as organizers Roberto Leiva, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, Guillermo Taboada and Víctor Moszel.

Leiva was responsible for presenting the false documentation, hiring the transport agents, paying for the transport, freight and storage of the containers through his employees; he also shared the profits with the other members of the organization by distributing the illegally obtained income. According to the prosecutor, Leiva also contacted the customs officials in order to provide the schemes with a cloak of apparent legality. He also requested the transfer of the containers from the port terminals to the aforementioned bonded warehouse for storage through letterheads and faxes in the name of the consignees of the merchandise. As the responsible co-organizer, the investigating prosecutor accuses Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, who would be in charge of providing the apocryphal documentation to Leiva so that he could present it at the fiscal warehouse, also being in charge of contracting the freight for the transport of the containers from said warehouse to the private warehouses for the indicated purposes, and in turn, he contracted the organization's clients.
The prosecutor points to Julio César Arce Cajes, Gustavo Ariel García and others as logistical support for the organization, who would perform administrative and operational tasks. Thus, the first of those named would be in charge of receiving and unloading illegal merchandise at the private warehouse on Palestina 631 (formerly Rawson), organizing said tasks with the day laborers he hired for that purpose and classifying the merchandise by type and article.
Gustavo Ariel García, who depended on Roberto Leiva, was in charge of presenting the false documentation at the Lingas SA tax warehouse, which Leiva provided him, organizing the removal of the containers in order to transfer them to the private warehouses.

Due to the particularity of the crimes charged, this group has necessarily had the active participation of customs personnel in charge of control, without whose active commitment the criminal plan could not have been achieved.
In this segment, he indicts -among others- Haroldo Gómez and Aldo Julio César Díaz, who belonged to the customs police, acting with knowledge of the scheme concocted by the organization and in full exercise of their functions. The main contribution revealed by the investigating prosecutor, carried out by these subjects, focuses on providing protection to containers brought into the market illegally.

2) Smuggling
The previously described maneuver has been carried out in the following events:

a) Fact No. 1: This concerns the entry into national territory of container GSTU 610.179-7, which arrived at the Exolgan port terminal on 12-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on 18-1996-473. Said container contained 25 boxes of shirts and was removed from that location on 9-96-416 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 96/631, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at XNUMX Palestina Street (formerly Rawson).

(b) Fact No. 2: This is the entry into national territory of container MMMU 351.549-5, which arrived at the Exolgan port terminal on 12-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on 18-1996-320. The container contained 25 boxes of shirts and was removed from that location on 9-96-414 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 96/631, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, with its real destination being the warehouse at 38 Palestina Street (formerly Rawson), where part of the aforementioned merchandise was found (boxes 39 and XNUMX).

c) Fact No. 3: This is the entry into national territory of container TOLU 391.385-4, which arrived at the Exolgan port terminal on 5-9-96 and was transferred to the INGAS bonded warehouse on 11 September 1996. Said container contained 873 rolls of fabric and was removed from that location on 12-9-96 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 372/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at 449 Zañartú Street, where part of the aforementioned merchandise was found.

(d) Fact No. 4: This concerns the entry into national territory of containers MOLU 011.072-3 and MOLU 007.134-0, which arrived in our country on 9-9-96 and were transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse the following day. The container contained 500 boxes of shirts and was removed from that location on 12-9-96 through the apocryphal transfer request No. 369/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, with its real destination being the warehouse at 625 Herrera Street, where a large part of the aforementioned merchandise was found.

(e) Fact No. 5: This concerns the entry into national territory of container CRXU 295.643-6, which arrived at the Bactssa port terminal on 31/8/96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on September 4, 1996. Said container contained general clothing items and was removed from that location on 6/9/96 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 355/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street (formerly Rawson).

f) Fact No. 6: This is the entry into national territory of container TRIU 401.246-6, which arrived in our country on 11-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on September 16, 1996. Said container contained clothing such as jackets and shirts and was removed from that site on 19-9-96 through the apocryphal transfer request No. 0392/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at 4271 Sarmiento Street.

(g) Fact No. 7: This is the entry into national territory of container NDLU 401.290-9, which arrived in our country on 22-8-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on September 20, 1996. Said container contained 2.400 sets of sheets and was removed from that site on 24-9-96 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 410/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse on Aguirre Street 1247, where the merchandise was found.

(h) Fact No. 8: This is the entry into national territory of container KNLU 256.214-2, which arrived in our country on 9-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas Fiscal Warehouse on September 12, 1996. Said container contained 1233 rolls of fabric and was removed from that site on 16-9-96 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 376/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at 1429 Lisandro de la Torre Street, where part of the merchandise was found.

(i) Fact No. 9: This is the entry into national territory of container SCZU 555.416-2, which arrived in our country on 11-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on September 18, 1996. Said container contained 2400 sets of sheets and was removed from that site on 18-9-96 through the apocryphal transshipment request No. 381/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at 1247 Aguirre Street, where part of the merchandise was found.

(j) Fact No. 10: This is the entry into national territory of container TRIU 500.108-6, which arrived in our country on 18-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on 20-1996-23. Said container contained cosmetics and was removed from that site on 9-96-406 through the apocryphal transfer request No. 96/1077, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse at XNUMX Conesa Street.

(k) Fact No. 11: This is the entry into national territory of container CBHU 061.581-4, which arrived in our country on 9-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on September 20, 1996. Said container contained rolls of fabric and was removed from that site on 24-9-96 through the apocryphal transfer request No. 411/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, its real destination being the warehouse on Palestine 631 Street (Ex-Rawson).

(l) Fact No. 12: This concerns the entry into national territory of containers LIFU 235.002-5, LIFU 235.007-2, LIFU 235.018-2, LIFU 235-031 and TEXU 3-373.341, which arrived in our country on 7-2-8 and were transferred to the Lingas Bonded Warehouse on August 96, 9. Said container contained men's clothing and was removed from that site on 1996-14-8 using the apocryphal customs document No. 96/553, in order to be transported to the warehouse at 96 Palestina Street (Ex-Rawson), avoiding customs controls.

ll) Fact No. 13: This is the entry into national territory of container IEAU 412.752-7, which arrived in our country on 2-8-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on August 9, 1996. Said container contained 804 boxes of computer parts and was removed from that site on 13-8-96 using the apocryphal customs document No. 546/96, in order to be transported to the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street (formerly Rawson), thereby avoiding customs controls.

m) Fact No. 14: This concerns the entry into national territory of container MOLU 010.761-1, which arrived in our country on 24/7/96 and was transferred to the Lingas Customs Warehouse on July 31, 1996. Said container contained clothing and was removed from that site on 2/8/96 by means of the apocryphal customs instrument No. 539/96, in order to be transported to the warehouse on Herrera 625 Street.

n) Fact No. 15: This is the entry into national territory of containers TPHU 650.507-9 and INBU 472.640-7 which arrived in our country on 13-7-96 and were transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on July 25, 1996. Said container contained perfumery items and was removed from that site on 30-7-96 using the apocryphal customs document No. 499/96, in order to introduce the merchandise into the square, evading customs controls.

ñ) Fact No. 16: This is the entry into national territory of container KNLU 290.213-4, which arrived in our country on 15-4-96 and was transferred to the Ligas bonded warehouse on April 16, 1996. Said container contained textile merchandise and was removed from that site on 17-4-96 by means of the apocryphal customs instrument No. 0025/96, in order to introduce the aforementioned merchandise into the market, evading customs controls.

o) Fact No. 17: This is the entry into national territory of container MOLU 214.028-6, which arrived in our country on 9-8-96 and was transferred to the Lingas Fiscal Warehouse on August 14, 1996. Said container contained general clothing and was removed from that site on 16-8-96 using the apocryphal customs document No. 557/96, in order to illegally introduce into the market the merchandise housed in the aforementioned container.

p) Fact No. 18: This is the entry into national territory of container TRLU 291.680-7, which arrived in our country on 22-4-96 and was transferred to the Lingas Fiscal Warehouse on April 26, 1996. Said container contained 2024 rolls of fabric and was removed from that site on 29-4-96 using the apocryphal customs document No. 33/96, in order to evade customs control when introducing the merchandise into the square.

q) Fact No. 19: This is the entry into national territory of container JLSU 208.680-7, which arrived in our country on 7-4-96 and was transferred to the Lingas Customs Warehouse on April 11, 1996. Said container contained boxes of video games and was removed from that site on 12-4-96 by means of the apocryphal customs instrument No. 23/96, in order to illegally introduce the merchandise transported in it into the market.

r) Fact No. 20: This is the entry into national territory of container TOLU 254.318-5, which arrived in our country on 19/2/96 and was transferred to the Lingas Customs Warehouse on February 23, 1996. Said container contained boxes of video games and was removed from that site on 6/3/96 using the apocryphal customs document No. 17-1/96, in order to introduce the aforementioned merchandise into the market illegally.

s) Fact No. 21: This is the entry into national territory of container TEXU 378.107-7, which arrived in our country on 9-4-96 and was transferred to the Lingas Fiscal warehouse on April 11, 1996. Said container held 4.886 kg of merchandise of foreign origin.

t) Fact No. 22: This is the entry into national territory of container AMPU 273.879-0, which arrived in our country on 26-8-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse. Said container contained 434 boxes of computer parts and was removed from that site on 5-9-96 through the apocryphal transfer request No. 349/96, in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, but its final destination is unknown.

u) Fact No. 23: This is the entry into national territory of container TRIU 453.705-3, which arrived in our country on 28-4-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on May 7, 1996. Said container contained 587 boxes of video games and was removed from that site on 7-5-96 using the apocryphal customs document No. 40/96, in order to illegally introduce said merchandise into the market.

(v) Fact No. 24: This is the entry into national territory of container NYKU 658.906-8, which arrived in our country on 17/4/96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on the same day. Said container contained 680 boxes of TV-games and was removed from that site on 18/4/96 by means of the apocryphal customs instrument No. 28/96, in order to illegally introduce that merchandise into the market.

w) Fact No. 25: This concerns the entry into national territory of container PRSU 403.445-6, which arrived in our country on 11-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas Fiscal warehouse on September 24, 1996. Said container contained 581 rolls of fabric and was not removed from that site.

x) Fact No. 26: This concerns the entry into national territory of container TEXU 469.815-7, which arrived in our country on 5-9-96 and was transferred to the Lingas bonded warehouse on 16-9-96. Said container contained 1.342 boxes of cosmetics and was not removed from that site.

y) Fact No. 27: This concerns the entry into national territory on 22-8-96 of 40 packages covered by transport document No. IIOOO CWS9607004 and transferred to the Lingas Fiscal warehouse on 4 September 1996. In order to remove the merchandise from that location, transfer request No. 347/96 was falsified in order to simulate a transit operation to the city of Córdoba, in order to divert the packages to a private warehouse.

3) Intervention of the accused in the events and legal qualification

a) Roberto Leiva

Facts: Some U.S. jawboning cases involve officials conveying information with little innate coercive force, like a scientific agency’s assessment of vaccine efficacy or an election agency’s list of polling stations. Platforms generally lack their own expertise in these areas, and may independently seek such information.
-3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 (case No. 181)
-1, 2, 6, 8 (case no. 180)
-12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 (case No. 204)
-22, 23, 24, 27 (case no. 230)
-26 (case no. 248)
-25 (cause 275).

Legal classification: criminal association (art. 210, last paragraph of the Criminal Code – cases Nos. 181, 180, 204 and 230-), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the Criminal Code, on seven occasions – case 181-; four occasions – case 180-; ten occasions – case 204-) in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 864 and 865 on four occasions – case 230-; and two attempted smuggling attempts with the same legal classification – cases 248 and 275-).

b0 Juan Ventura Arce Cajes

-3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 (Case No. 181)
-1, 2, 6, 8 (case no. 180)
-12 (cause 204)
-26 (cause 270)

Legal classification: illicit association (arts. 210 last paragraph of the CP – cases Nos. 181, 180 and 204-; in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 and of the CA, on seven occasions -case 181-; four occasions -case 180-; one occasion -case
204-) in real competition with aggravated attempted smuggling -case 270-.

c) Julio Cesar Arce Cajes

Facts: Some U.S. jawboning cases involve officials conveying information with little innate coercive force, like a scientific agency’s assessment of vaccine efficacy or an election agency’s list of polling stations. Platforms generally lack their own expertise in these areas, and may independently seek such information.
-1, 2 (cause 180)
-3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 (cause 272)
-12 (cause 204).

Legal classification: illicit association (art. 210 of the CP), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA, on two occasions -case 180-; in real competition with aggravated smuggling (863, 864 and 865 of the CA on six occasions -case 272-); in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 on one occasion -case 204-).

d) Gustavo Ariel Garcia:

-3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 1 1 (case No. 181)
-1, 2, 6, 8, (case no. 180)
-12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (case No. 204)

Legal classification: illicit association (art. 210 first paragraph of the CP -cases 181, 180 and 204-) in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 and of the CA on seven occasions -case 181-); in real competition on four occasions -case 180-; in real competition on ten occasions -case 204-.

e) Haroldo Gomez:

Legal qualification: illicit association (art. 210 first paragraph of the CP), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA) on eleven occasions as author -case 181-.

f) Aldo Julio Cesar Diaz:

Legal qualification: illicit association (art. 210 first paragraph of the CP) in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865) on two occasions, as author.

B. In turn, the plaintiff, in his writings on pages 309/454 (case No. 181); 140/285 (case No. 180); 127/156 (case No. 204); 18/29 (case No. 230); 10/18 (case No. 248); 10/18 (case No. 270); 43/55 (case No. 272) and 8/11 (case No. 275), attributes the following criminal acts to the defendants mentioned in the section:

1. Roberto Leiva: is charged with facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (cases Nos. 180 and 181), in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation and the participation of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs c) and f) of the Customs Code, as co-author, in real competition with 12 facts -, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, which he is a co-organizer of (art. 210, last paragraph of the Penal Code).

Likewise, it attributes to him the commission of criminal acts Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 (case No. 204) in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, as author, in real competition with 10 facts.
On the other hand, the complaint accuses him of facts Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 27 (case No. 230) in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, provided for in arts. 863, 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs a) and f) of the Customs Code, as author, in real competition with 4 facts -, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, which he is a co-organizer of (art. 210, last paragraph of the Penal Code).
In turn, he is charged with fact No. 26 (case No. 248) for the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, by the number of people and by the intervention of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs a), d) and f) of the Customs Code, in degree of attempt (art. 871 of the Customs Code) and as author, in real competition with the crime of illicit association, which he is a co-organizer of (art. 210, last paragraph of the Penal Code).
Likewise, in case No. 275, he is accused of committing fact No. 25, in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, by the number of people and by the intervention of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864, paragraph e) and 865, paragraphs a), d) and f) of the Customs Code, in degree of attempt (art. 871 of the Customs Code) and as author, in real competition with the crime of illicit association, which he is a co-organizer of (art. 210, last paragraph of the Penal Code).

2. Juan Ventura Arce Cajes: is charged with facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 (cases Nos. 180 and 181), in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation and the participation of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs c) and f) of the Customs Code, as co-author, in real competition with 6 facts -, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, which he is a co-organizer of (art. 210, last paragraph of the Penal Code).
Likewise, he is charged with the commission of criminal act No. 12 (case No. 204) in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, as co-author.
In turn, he is charged with fact No. 26 (case No. 270) for the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, by the number of people and by the intervention of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs a), d) and f) of the Customs Code, in degree of attempt (art. 871 of the Customs Code) and as co-author, in real competition with the crime of illicit association, which he is a participant in (art. 210, first paragraph of the Penal Code).

3. Gustavo Ariel García: is charged with facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (cases Nos. 180 and 181), in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation and the participation of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs c) and f) of the Customs Code, as a necessary participant, in real concurrence of 12 facts -, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, which he is a member of (art. 210, first paragraph of the Penal Code).
Likewise, he is charged with the commission of criminal acts Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 (case No. 204) in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, as a necessary participant, in real competition - 4 facts -.

4. Julio César Arce Cajes: is charged with facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 (cases Nos. 180 and 181), in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation and the participation of customs officials, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs c) and f) of the Customs Code, as a necessary participant, in real concurrence of 5 facts -, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, which he is a member of (art. 210, first paragraph of the Penal Code).
Likewise, he is charged with the commission of criminal act No. 12 (case No. 204) in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, as a necessary participant.

In turn, he is charged with facts Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 (case No. 272) in relation to the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation, provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, as a necessary participant, in real competition with 6 facts.

5. Haroldo Jorge Gómez: is charged with facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (cases Nos. 180 and 181), for the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation and for his status as a customs official, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs c) and f) of the Customs Code, as co-author, in real competition with 12 facts-, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, of which he is a member (art. 210, first paragraph of the Penal Code).

6. Aldo Julio César Díaz: is charged with facts Nos. 1 and 2 (cases Nos. 180 and 181), for the crime of smuggling aggravated by the presentation of false documentation and for his status as a customs official, provided for in arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs c) and f) of the Customs Code, as co-author, in real competition with 2 facts-, which also materially concurs with the crime of illicit association, of which he is a member (art. 210, first paragraph of the Penal Code).

C. In turn, the Examining Magistrate, on pages 595 to 869 (case No. 181), 337 to 422 (case No. 180), and 212 to 337 (case No. 204), proceeded to elevate the cases to trial by means of the corresponding order of elevation, and on pages 32 (case No. 230), 22 (case No. 248), 22 (case No. 270), 81 (case No. 272) and 14 (case No. 275), by simple decree, in accordance with the following scheme and taking into account the facts attributed to each of the accused.

10 Roberto Leiva

Legal classification: illicit association (art. 210 last paragraph of the CP – cases Nos. 181, 180, 204 and 230-), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA, on seven occasions -case 181-; four occasions -case 180-; aggravated smuggling in real competition (arts. 863, 864 l CA) on ten occasions -case 204-.

2. Juan Ventura Arce Cajes

Facts: Some U.S. jawboning cases involve officials conveying information with little innate coercive force, like a scientific agency’s assessment of vaccine efficacy or an election agency’s list of polling stations. Platforms generally lack their own expertise in these areas, and may independently seek such information.
-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, (case No. 181)
-1, 2, 6 (case no. 180)
-12 (cause 204)

-26 (cause 270)

Legal classification: illicit association (arts. 210 last paragraph of the CP -cases Nos. 181, 180 and 204-; in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA, on five occasions -case 181-; three occasions -case 180-; aggravated smuggling in real competition (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA on one occasion -case 204-).

30 Julio Cesar Arce Cajes:

Facts: Some U.S. jawboning cases involve officials conveying information with little innate coercive force, like a scientific agency’s assessment of vaccine efficacy or an election agency’s list of polling stations. Platforms generally lack their own expertise in these areas, and may independently seek such information.
– 1, 2 (cause 180)
– 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 (cause 272)
– 12 (case 204).

Legal classification: illicit association (art. 210 of the CP), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA, on two occasions -case 180-; in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 on one occasion -case 204-).

40 Gustavo Ariel Garcia

Facts: Some U.S. jawboning cases involve officials conveying information with little innate coercive force, like a scientific agency’s assessment of vaccine efficacy or an election agency’s list of polling stations. Platforms generally lack their own expertise in these areas, and may independently seek such information.
– 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, (case No. 181)
– 1, 2, 6, 8, (case No. 180)
– 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (case No. 204)

Legal classification: criminal association (art. 210 first paragraph of the Criminal Code - cases 181, 180 and 204-), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the Criminal Code on five occasions - case 181-); in real competition on four occasions - case 180-; in real competition on ten occasions - case 204-.

5. Haroldo Gomez:

Legal qualification: illicit association (art. 210 first paragraph of the CP), in real competition with aggravated smuggling (arts. 863, 864 and 865 of the CA) on five occasions as author -case 181-.

6. Aldo Julio Cesar Diaz

D. When making their argument, the attorneys representing the plaintiff considered that the evidence produced during the various hearings proved Roberto Leiva's participation in smuggling incidents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, as well as in the criminal association; of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in smuggling incidents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 26, as well as in the criminal association; of Julio César Arce Cajes in incidents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12, as well as in the illicit association; of Gustavo Ariel García, in facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and in the illicit association; of Haroldo Gómez in facts Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10 and 12, as well as in the illicit association; and of Aldo Julio César Díaz, in facts Nos. 1 and 2, as well as in the illicit association.
Regarding the accusation made by the plaintiff against the accused Haroldo Gómez, the Court informed all parties that it should not be taken into account with regard to the attribution of fact No. 12, since prior to the opening of the debate it ordered the partial annulment of the order to refer the case to trial in relation to the accused and based on such fact (see debate minutes dated May 31 of this year - page 1645).
As regards the legal classification, the party stated that the conduct of the accused Roberto Leiva and Juan Ventura Arce Cajes falls within the criminal types of arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. b) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition; and art. 210 last paragraph of the Penal Code, with which they also materially concur. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the application of the penalties of 10 years and 8 years of imprisonment, respectively, plus the accessory penalties provided for in arts. 876 of the Customs Code.
With regard to the defendants Gustavo Ariel García, Aldo Julio César Díaz and Haroldo Gómez, the complaint considered that the accused have participated in the commission of the crimes provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. b) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition; and art. 210 first paragraph of the Penal Code, with which they also materially concur; reason for which it requested the application of the penalties of 6 years, 3 years and 4 years of prison, respectively, plus the accessories of art. 876 of the Customs Code.

In turn, he argued that Julio César Arce Cajes has intervened as a secondary participant, with respect to the commission of the crimes provided for in arts. 863, 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. b) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition; and art. 210 first paragraph of the Penal Code, with which they also materially concur; requesting that the penalty of 3 years of prison and accessories of art. 876 of the Customs Code be applied to him.

E. For her part, at the same procedural opportunity, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Dr. Marta Benavente, accused Roberto Leiva based on facts Nos. 1 and 2 (which she deemed to be a single illegal act), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 27, considering him co-author criminally responsible for the crime provided for and punished in arts. 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition 23 times -; also materially concurring with the crime of illicit association as an organizer (art. 210 last paragraph of the Penal Code). For this reason, he requested the application of the sentence of 9 years of imprisonment and accessories provided for in subsections d), e)“5 years-, f) and h) of art. 876 of the Customs Code; as well as the application of the disqualification provided for in art. 12 of the Penal Code; all of this with costs.

On the other hand, the Court charged Juan Ventura Arce Cajes with facts Nos. 1 and 2 (which it deemed to be a single unlawful act), 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12, considering him to be a criminally responsible co-author of the crime provided for and punished in arts. 864 inc. e) and 865 incs. a) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition -8 opportunities-; also materially concurring with the crime of illicit association as an organizer (art. 210 last paragraph of the Penal Code). For this reason, it requested the application of the penalty of 7 years of prison and accessories provided for in incs. d), e) 5 years-, f) and h) of art. 876 of the Customs Code; as well as the application of the disqualification provided for in art. 12 of the Penal Code; all with costs.
Likewise, the Court charged Gustavo Ariel García with facts Nos. 1 and 2 (which it deemed to be a single unlawful act), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, considering him to be a criminally responsible co-author of the crime provided for and punished in arts. 864, paragraph e) and 865, paragraph a) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition 17 times; also materially concurring with the crime of illicit association (art. 210, first paragraph of the Penal Code). For this reason, it requested the application of the penalty of 3 years and eight months in prison and accessories provided for in paragraphs d), e) 3 years-, f) and h) of art. 876 of the Customs Code; as well as the application of the disqualification provided for in Article 12 of the Criminal Code; all with costs.

In turn, the Court charged Julio César Arce Cajes with facts Nos. 1 and 2 (which it deemed to be a single unlawful act) and 6, considering him a secondary criminally responsible accomplice to the crime provided for and punished in arts. 864, paragraph e) and 865, paragraph a) and f) of the Customs Code, in real competition on 2 occasions; requesting the application of the penalty of 1 year and 6 months of suspended imprisonment and accessories provided for in paragraphs d), e) 1 year, f) and h) of art. 876 of the Customs Code; all with costs. On the other hand, the Court requested the acquittal of the accused in relation to facts Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12 and with respect to the crime of illicit association.
Regarding the accused Aldo Julio César Díaz and Haroldo Gómez, he asked the court to acquit the accused of all the alleged acts, based on the principle of doubt.
Finally, he requested the acquittal of all the accused and of each one in particular with respect to facts 21, 25 and 26 that were the subject of indictments and orders for referral to trial.

F. In turn, the defense attorneys for the accused Leiva, Drs. Práxedes Sagasta and Práxedes Sagasta (h), requested first, for the reasons of fact and law that they set forth in their argument, that the order ordering the intervention of telephone lines, recorded on fs. 2 and all the actions taken as a result thereof, be declared null and void, considering that said measure was ordered in open violation of the provisions of arts. 123 and 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Nation, as it lacks any kind of foundation. The defense attorneys maintained that there cannot be a tacit reference by the investigating judge to the grounds given by the prevention for the purposes of legitimizing the aforementioned order, since they are based on false circumstances. The said party added that the nullity is also based on the circumstance that the order is directed to security forces outside the territorial and material sphere of jurisdiction. In this regard, the defense argued that the inability of the police personnel involved arises manifestly by virtue of the provisions of art. 980 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, the defense in question requested the nullity of the search of fs. 217, since the preventive personnel completely ignored the intervention of the customs personnel, thus contravening what was ordered by the Judge. Likewise, it affirmed that the acting officers failed to comply with what is established in art. 233 of the Civil Code, by not having made the inventory of the items seized during the aforementioned procedure, thus questioning their incorporation into the process. Finally, the defense argued that the commission of any of the crimes of smuggling and illicit association charged against Leiva has not been proven. Consequently, the defense attorneys requested: a) that the order of fs. 2 and of all the actions taken as a consequence be declared null and void and that Leiva be acquitted; b) alternatively, the nullity of the minutes on fs. 217 is decreed and the named party is acquitted of all the alleged facts and, c) his client is freely acquitted of guilt and charges due to the absence of sufficient evidence.

G. On the same procedural occasion, the defense attorney for the accused Juan Ventura Arce Cajes stated, for the reasons of fact and law that she set forth in her argument, that she fully adhered to the nullification claim articulated by the defense of the accused Leiva, with respect to the order on fs. 2 and all the actions taken as a result, regarding the lack of motivation and the strange participation of provincial prevention personnel in the area of the federal capital. In turn, she requested the nullity of the procedure on fs. 251/255 due to the fact that customs personnel did not participate in it when this had been stated in the search warrant, as well as for not having complied with the requirements provided for by the code of form for the purposes of preserving the evidence collected and because the statements of the procedural witnesses and the prevention officers with respect to the actions taken there were contradictory. He also agreed with the arguments made by Leiva's defense regarding the charge of criminal association and, in relation to the wiretaps, denied any participation by his client, highlighting that what was heard during the debate was significantly different from the transcripts made, also violating the provisions of art. 138 of the aforementioned normative body. In summary, he requested the annulment of the order on fs. 2 and of all the actions taken as a result, requesting the acquittal of Arce Cajes; alternatively, he requested the annulment of the order on fs. 251/255 and the consequent acquittal and, finally, he requested that the mitigating circumstances derived from the defendant's absence of a criminal record and from his own admission of the facts expressed during his investigation be taken into account when making a ruling.

H. In their arguments, the defense of Gustavo Ariel García and Julio César Arce Cajes, both in charge of the Public Defender, Dr. Patricia Garnero, stated that they supported the motions for annulment made by Leiva's defense attorneys, as well as the motion for annulment made by the defense of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes. They also requested the annulment of the search conducted at Rawson 631 on September 25, 1996, on the grounds that the preventive officers acted without the corresponding order issued by the competent authority, which was only requested the following day; noting that their client Arce Cajes was inside the warehouse. They also requested the annulment of the transcripts of the wiretaps, considering that they do not match each other, and that the corresponding minutes have not been drawn up to grant legality to said acts. Furthermore, and beyond the indicated adhesions, he argued for the nullity of all the proceedings because the witnesses were not present at the time of the same. He also maintained that the seized merchandise was of national origin according to the testimonies of witnesses who testified in this regard; that therefore no crime can be attributed to Julio César Arce Cajes, who could not be a member of any illicit association due to his intervention in the events as a secondary accomplice, according to the accusations. As for his procedural godson Gustavo Ariel García, he requested a free acquittal in relation to facts 4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, since in his opinion there are no elements that allow proving his participation. With regard to facts 5, 8 and 13, he understood that there is reasonable doubt because none of the drivers recognized the named García as the person who carried out the procedures at TCO. Regarding facts 1 and 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10, he differs with the qualification made with the accusers because he considers that García did not have control over the fact, which Leiva, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes and Escobar did have, so his participation would be secondary; and regarding the competition rules, he maintained that he will not share what is argued by the accusations because he understands that in all the facts there is a link of continuity, since they were recorded in a short period of time and, in addition, it involves a single victim (the National Customs Administration). Finally, he stated with respect to his client García that he cannot be considered a member of the illicit association since he lacked decision-making power, limiting his performance to mere executor of procedures.

I. In turn, the defense attorney for the accused Aldo Julio César Díaz, Dr. Horacio Galarza de la Cuesta, articulated his argument pointing out three different aspects: two of them linked to the technical-legal field, regarding the charge of illicit association and smuggling and the third related to the personality of his client. Regarding the first of them, said party maintained that Díaz should be acquitted due to lack of evidence since the complaint only limited itself to indicating that the accused stepped on containers; also emphasizing that the contributions must be permanent for them to have a certain entity and this was not proven in any way by the private prosecution. Regarding smuggling, he maintained that there is not a single piece of evidence that allows to prove an action by Díaz that served as a contribution so that the containers of facts 1 and 2 could leave the TCO bonded warehouse. Finally, regarding the personal aspect of his client, he stated that the circumstance that he has no criminal record as well as his excellent professional career should be considered. For all these reasons, he reiterated his request for acquittal.

J. Finally, the defense of the defendant Haroldo Gómez stated that his client was never questioned in relation to facts 1 and 2, nor was he ever charged with these facts, as can be seen from the inquiry on pages 3.384/8 of October 30, 1996, and therefore requests the annulment of the indictment on pages 12.307/316 and all the acts issued as a consequence thereof, and since a reasonable period of time has elapsed since said resolution until now and by application of the doctrine of the Mattei ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, he requested the acquittal of the defendant in relation to these facts. In turn, said party stated that in the accusatory argument of the complaint there has been an absolute lack of evidence with respect to the accreditation of the extremes of the charge for smuggling and illicit association with respect to the facts identified during the debate as facts 7 and 10.

And Considering:

First: Nullities:

I. Requested by the parties

The Court will take note of the arguments put forward by the defence, and then address the treatment of the issues raised.

A. Leiva's defense:

Drs. Sagasta request that two procedural acts be declared null and void, each for various reasons that will be analyzed below.
1) Invalidity of the order on fs. 2 ordering the wiretapping and the instruction of the summary, due to lack of justification of the judicial resolution and the request for the execution of the measure (art. 236 of the CPP). Such invalidity is requested based on different reasons that, in the opinion of the defense, have arisen from the hearing of debate and that can be specified as follows:
a) The police officers have made a false statement by stating the existence of an anonymous informant; proof of this is that they already knew Rivero from a previous procedure. Even if this were not the case, the police officers should have identified the informant, as provided for in art. 184, paragraphs 3 and 9 of the CPP; instead of hiding his existence.
b) No steps were taken to corroborate the statements of the alleged anonymous whistleblower before ordering the intervention. On the contrary, the action was taken as if it were a fishing trip, in which there was no concrete hypothesis of any fact.
c) Lack of jurisdiction of the provincial police for customs crimes.
Once the questions have been raised in this way, the Court will deal with them independently.
With regard to the annulment of the ruling on fs. 2 due to lack of grounds, the undersigned have already issued a statement on the point, rejecting the invalidity of said resolution, on the basis of a similar claim made by other co-defendants (see the request for dismissal and annulment made by Rodón Heredia's defense which is related to case no. 205 entitled "Vazquez, M s/smuggling and illicit association", among others); without prejudice to which it will be analyzed whether, according to the evidence produced during the debate, that criterion could be modified due to the incorporation of a new circumstance that supports said cause for invalidity.

On that occasion, it was decided that the order on page 2 of the main proceedings is not void, because although it does not expressly state the elements of judgment that have been assessed by the instructor in order to issue the questioned order, they cannot be other than those contained in the previous page, that is, page 1, which initiates the procedure. In effect, the order being challenged has been based on the information provided by the preventive agencies on page 1 of the main proceedings, where it is made known that an investigation has been initiated into an organization that would be engaged in importing merchandise from abroad without paying the corresponding taxes, evading customs control through various tricks, for example by diverting merchandise to bonded warehouses that were in transit to neighboring countries, without reaching the destination stated in the documentation; at which time the intervention of telephone lines was requested.
It is clear then that in order to determine the existence of sufficient evidence to order the performance of said test, recourse must be had to the actions that precede it.

To motivate the resolutions means to record in writing the reasons that justify the logical judgment that they contain, that is, the obligation to record the causes that determine the measure taken and that have the capacity to legitimize it. Although it is true that the challenged resolution does not reproduce the elements of judgment that support the telephone interventions ordered therein; in view of the procedural state of the proceedings, the basis of the same could not be other than the description made on fs. 1, which is evident if one takes into account that it was the consequence of the request contained therein. In this way the judge has made the motivations expressed by the prevention an integral part of his resolution, so the requirement of art. 236 of the CPP appears to be fulfilled.
In this regard, it is unnecessary to bring up what was stated by the Honorable National Court of Criminal Cassation, when ruling on the existence of grounds for a wiretap: "the presence of a certain ambiguity in the presentation of the conclusions or technical flaws in the wording do not, in principle, constitute deficiencies of such magnitude that they imply invalidating or disqualifying the ruling as a jurisdictional act... That the requirement in question (due motivation)... is also fulfilled in certain cases... when the ruling refers clearly, precisely and specifically to the circumstances or evidence of certain parts of the case that are sufficient and indubitable to agree on the due support" (Chamber III "Tellos, Eduardo Antonio s/rec. de cassation", case 65, rta. 24/3/94, vote of Dr. Riggi).
Likewise, the Honorable National Court of Cassation has considered the requirement to be met "if the magistrate issued the respective orders in relation to the grounds set forth by the police authorities in charge of the investigation, which in each case set forth minimal but sufficient reasons for requesting them" (Chamber I, "Balsas, Daniel and others", rta. on 23/3/95).
On the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish two issues: one of them based on the circumstance of whether or not the order ordering the measure is founded; and the other, the cases in which, despite not being founded, it responds in an incontrovertible way to the only evidence of the case that precedes the decision of the magistrate. The distinction is of utmost importance, since in this last case there is no burden because there are, before the order for wiretapping, sufficient elements incorporated into the investigation, which allow a well-founded suspicion of the commission of a crime.

The Court considers that the above has not been moved by the new arguments provided by the defense, for the reasons set out below.
Regarding the fact that the investigators have issued a false statement by stating the existence of an anonymous informant; such statement lacks any basis, since the alleged circumstance that Rivero was already known from another previous procedure, does not prove anything in that sense, nor does it allow to rule out the contribution of information by a third party. In this regard, the police officer Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra stated when giving testimony during the trial hearing, who referred that the procedure was initiated by a report given to him by a person about the alleged people involved in smuggling acts, of whom he gave him the name and phone number, which was transmitted to Wesenack; that he told this person to testify with the confidentiality of his identity, but he refused because he feared reprisals; that he also received phone calls providing information, not knowing if it was this same person; that the declarant considered the information to be reliable and that this depends on the belief he has of the person who gave him the information (pages 1659/61). The Court sees no reason to doubt that this was the way in which the proceedings were initiated, since such statements have not been refuted by any element, but, on the contrary, such version was corroborated by Wesenack (pages 1736 back/7). Based on this, it can be inferred that the defence's argument lacks evidentiary support.

The alleged issue that the complainant should have been identified, as provided for in art. 184, paragraphs 3 and 9 of the CPP, although true in light of the provisions of art. 175 last part of the CPP, does not affect the validity of the procedure, since it is understood to have been initiated by police prevention and not by a complaint, since the latter lacks the essential requirements to be considered as such, valid as "notitia criminis".
In this regard, it has been held that the news received through anonymous telephone calls does not meet the requirements that the procedural law imposes for complaints, but is still a mere notification; and that the police warning, triggered by the anonymous telephone communication, displaces the fiscal requirement (art. 195 CPP) -CNCP Sala II, "Daltto, Rubén D and others s/rec. de casación", c. 187 of Sept. 1994-; a criterion entirely applicable to all anonymous complaints, regardless of the means by which the warning comes to knowledge -oral or written-.
As regards the fact that no measures were taken to corroborate the statements of the alleged anonymous complainant, before ordering the intervention and the statement made by the defence that it was a fishing trip, in which there was no concrete hypothesis of any fact, the Court does not share these allegations. In fact, when it comes to the initiation of the investigation, it is only necessary to require the presumption of the commission of crimes in order to proceed, and not that they be defined with exactitude and precision. From this angle, the description made by the warning on page 1, when referring to the importation of merchandise from abroad, without paying the corresponding taxes and through the evasion of customs control by diverting the merchandise to bonded warehouses without reaching the destination stated in the documentation, constitutes specific crimes; it can be stated that the indications that existed at that initial stage were later corroborated as the process progressed.

In regard to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the provincial police for customs offences; in regard to this point - request for wiretapping by the Quilmes Investigations Brigade, and issuance of the consequent jurisdictional order -, there is no reason for the nullity to be admissible, since it is the Judge who orders the measure, as required by the procedural order. In addition, the magistrate ordered its implementation by the State Intelligence Service, allowing access to direct listening and recording by personnel of the Quilmes Investigations Brigade; thus, it was that agency -SIDE-, which was in charge of carrying it out, having jurisdiction for such purposes. To which it is added that in the same decree the Judge resolved to issue a letter to the SIDE in order to request it to provide personal and material logistical support to the Quilmes Investigations Brigade in the investigative tasks that are carried out; Joint work between both departments should be carried out in a broad sense, that is, covering the various investigative tasks that may arise, among which is, without a doubt, the contested measure.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the contested decision was issued in accordance with the current legislative order. The wiretapping was ordered by a judge; there was sufficient evidence to justify it; and it also had an investigative purpose and to obtain evidence aimed at verifying the criminal act and the authorship, being proportionate in the specific case to this objective, taking into account the seriousness of the same; for this reason, the claim raised must be rejected.

2) Nullity of the search of the residence located at Tucumán 540, floor 8 "J", whose record appears on pages 217/19, argued by the defense based on the following reasons:
a) The police acted without customs personnel, despite the fact that the order stated such participation; the Quilmes Brigade was incompetent due to the subject matter and the place. In this regard, the defense cites the testimony of Humarán and Becerra given during the hearing, in which they state that they arrived at the place after the procedure had begun.

b) Absence of witnesses to the incident. The testimonies of González and Pérez are cited, who state that when they entered the office there were already people inside.
(c) The seized items have not been inventoried, as provided for in Article 233 of the CCP, since the record only shows the seizure of files; neither the officials nor the witnesses who testified during the hearing recall what documentation was seized.
d) the search and arrest of Leiva was carried out without a court order.
Once the questions have been formulated, the Court will address the study of each one of them.
As regards the fact that the contested search was carried out without the intervention of customs personnel, I consider that such a statement does not correspond to what happened in the case.
Indeed, it is clear from the search warrant that the investigating judge ordered that the measure be carried out by personnel from the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, province of Buenos Aires, together with the customs police (see fs. 216). From the minutes drawn up at the time of carrying out said procedural act, it arises that, although the presence of witnesses was required before the arrival of the customs personnel, as well as the interception of Leiva at the precise moment he was leaving the apartment that was to be raided; and even the aforementioned Leiva, the witnesses and the police personnel entered the place before the arrival of the customs personnel; It was only upon their arrival - Hugo Horacio Humarán and Raúl Becerra - that the search of Leiva and the attaché he was carrying began, as well as the raid of the aforementioned's office, as well as the seizure of various effects and documentation.

The police personnel belonging to the Quilmes Brigade have issued a similar opinion. Thus, Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra states that the search of Tucumán Street was also carried out with customs personnel, who according to the report are Humarán and Becerra (pages 1659/61). Carlos Cabanas also affirms this, clarifying that they were not accompanied by customs personnel from the beginning, as reflected in the cited report (pages 1664 back). Julio Cesar Figueroa (pages 1661 back) have issued a concordant opinion, stating that during the procedure in question there were police officers from another department, although he does not know when they arrived; and Wesenack (pages 1736 back/7), who explains that they began the procedure before the arrival of the customs police, due to the urgency of Leiva leaving. This is consistent with what was narrated by the other witnesses, in that when they arrived at the scene, Leiva was leaving the office, from which it can be concluded that there was no point in waiting for the customs police to proceed with the interception of the person named, since he had left the scene.
Likewise, this was corroborated by the statements of the customs personnel, Humarán (pages 1755 back/7), who refers to the procedure on Tucumán Street, that although when he arrived at the office the police personnel were already inside -which is also reflected in the report-; he clarifies that the documentation was still in the place to be searched. Raúl Oscar Becerra (pages 1785) expresses the same opinion when he states that he did not witness the interception of Leiva and that when he entered the place some things were on the table to be seized, but later more were seized. Regarding the objects that were found on the table, it can be inferred that they were the ones that Leiva had in his possession when he was intercepted, in light of what arises from the other testimonies already mentioned.
Finally, in accordance with the above, the witness of the procedure, Felix Maillo Gonzalez (page 1792) states that when he entered the office there were already people inside, but the search had not yet begun, which began half an hour or an hour after his arrival and that up to that moment they had not touched anything. In this regard, it is reasonable to infer that the postponement of the start was due to the wait for the customs personnel. In this regard, the other witness of the procedure, Gabriel Alberto Perez (page 1972 back) states that the police were waiting for the witnesses to begin the procedure, although he believes that when he went up to the place, the door of the office to be searched was already open and that he believes that when he entered there were already police officers in the place.

The defense adds that it is irrelevant that the procedure had been initiated in the presence of witnesses, since the prior entry of the police to the place leaves latent the possibility that some type of evidence had been left there. However, the possibility referred to by the defense must be analyzed specifically, that is, based on the circumstances of the case and not by abstracting from them. From this perspective, there is no reason to doubt whether the evidence was placed there by the prevention officers, since Leiva was present there from the beginning. On the other hand, when giving his statement at pages 5960/64, he stated that the bag containing the stamps was in his office because a few days earlier Juan's dark-skinned cadet had left it there. In addition, the items seized there are not the only pieces of evidence against him, but, with the limitations that will be seen - only the typewriter, the bag of stamps and two invoices - they will be assessed later, in conjunction with the other items that were submitted to the proceedings and which rule out the person named's involvement in the events and the alleged circumstance that such items had been left there for no reason. In short, an abstract possibility such as the one alleged is not enough if it has no basis whatsoever and there is not the slightest indication that this would have happened.
For this reason, and given that customs officials were involved in the raid in question, as ordered by the investigating judge, the procedure cannot be invalidated on the basis of such arguments.

With regard to the alleged absence of witnesses, based on the fact that Gónzalez and Pérez stated that there were already people inside the office when they entered, we can only refer to their statements made during the trial hearing in which they recount, in a consistent manner, that the preventive staff postponed the start of the procedure until the arrival of the witnesses, as previously mentioned.
With respect to another of the arguments invoked by the defense, based on the fact that the seized items have not been inventoried, as provided for in art. 233 of the CPP, it can be stated that this is correct in relation to the folders that were seized from Leiva's possession, in which only the number of pages they contain is identified but their content is not detailed, limiting itself to stating that they are customs documentation. However, this will not be grounds for invalidity, since the cited rule does not expressly provide for that sanction. In effect, our formal order adopts a system according to which procedural acts will only be considered null when the expressly prescribed provisions have not been observed under penalty of nullity (art. 166), with the exception of the general nullities provided for by art. 167, within whose assumptions the one invoked cannot be included.

In this regard, the Honorable Criminal Cassation Court has repeatedly ruled that art. 166 of the Code of Procedure defines a taxative system of nullities that prevents the declaration of invalidity of procedural acts that exhibit formal defects -with the exception of violation of constitutional guarantees-, if their disqualification has not been expressly provided for, or if there is no non-compliance with the provisions relating to the capacity of the Court, the participation of the Public Prosecutor's Office or the intervention, assistance and representation of the accused (Chamber I, case no. 27, reg. 27, «Freire, Roberto A. s/ law 23.737, rta. on 11/8/93; case no. 186, reg. 274, «Terramagra, Juan I. s/ rec. of cassation» rta. 25/8/94; case no. 102, «Aguilera, Oscar s/rec. of cassation», rta. on 23/3/94, reg. 147). Furthermore, the legal provisions on nullity must be interpreted restrictively if one does not want to distort the legal system through an extensive or analogical interpretation (Chamber III, case no. 302, «Ausili, Gustavo M. and another s/ rec. of cassation», rta. 22/6/95, reg. 128; «Alvarez, Domingo Vicente, s/rec. of cassation», reg. 100 bis of 30/3/94; «Mendoza, K. and Amaya, JR s/rec. of cassation», reg. 122, of 19/4/94; «Malaguarnera, Josefa del Carmen s/rec. of cassation», reg. 133 of 27/4/94, among others).
The Court considers, however, that, as the defense stated in the reply given at the oral and public hearing, the issue raised relates to the assessment of the evidence and the probative value that may be granted to said elements, anticipating that some of them will not be considered or evaluated when addressing this point, in light of the rules of sound criticism that govern our procedural system. This criterion extends to the folders that were seized in the attaché that Leiva carried, since there is no certainty regarding what their content was; since the documents were not identified, nor signed by the witnesses involved, nor protected in any way. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that, as will be seen, most of the documentation seized there will not be taken into account either, as it lacks relevance to the resolution of the present case.
In this way, it makes no sense to grant the requested invalidity, since it is not possible to declare a nullity for the sake of nullity itself, but rather this institute should only be used when it is significant because it has specifically affected the right that the party invokes, which must also be demonstrated. Nullities should not respond to formal questions, but rather to correct the actual damages that could arise from the flawed act. In this sense, our Highest Court has ruled that "procedural nullity requires a specific damage for one of the parties, because when it is adopted in the sole interest of formal compliance with the law, it implies a manifest ritual excess that is not compatible with the good service of justice" (Rulings 295:961; 298:312; 311:237, among others).
Therefore, the request for annulment will not be granted.

Regarding the fact that the search and arrest of Leiva was carried out without a court order, it can only be noted that from the mere reading of the record it is clear that the arrest order was given by the investigating judge through the clerk; which cannot be doubted given the tacit validation provided by the magistrate upon receiving the proceedings.
And although the defense stated when exercising the right to reply that the order cannot be issued by telephone, art. 283 last part of the CPP expressly provides for the possibility that in case of urgency the Judge may issue the order verbally or by telephone. Based on this and having been ordered by a competent authority -art. 18 CN-, the act cannot be legitimately questioned.
Finally, it should be noted that Leiva's presence at the premises before the court order was issued was based on the powers conferred on him by art. 184, paragraph 3) of the CPP, in the sense of ordering that the persons who are at the premises do not leave it while the corresponding proceedings are being carried out, immediately notifying the Judge. In relation to the search, the Court considers that the search warrant for a home includes the search of the persons who are inside it, or as in the case, who are leaving it; since security reasons so require. But even if it were not considered so, it is obvious that in the case there were reasons of urgency to proceed as was done; and therefore the Court will also reject this request for invalidity.

B. Defense of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes:
Dr. Sulam raises two questions:

1) supports the request for annulment of the order on fs. 2 and of all the actions carried out as a consequence thereof, formulated by Leiva's defense, in order to which it is appropriate to refer to what has already been stated and
2) requests the declaration of invalidity of the following procedural act: Nullity of the search of the domicile located at Paraná 446, floor 9E "D", belonging to Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, whose record appears on pages 251/5, based on the following arguments:
a) It was not carried out by personnel corresponding to the National Customs Administration.
b) The witnesses of the kidnapping were not shown the documentation that was being banned. He cites, in support of this, the statements made by Nudelman and Arce during the hearing.
c) The seized evidence that was being analyzed by the Brigade was not preserved and was only sent to the Court one year later.
d) The report was not drawn up at the scene of the raid, but at the Quilmes Brigade, where it was also signed.
Regarding the search being carried out without the presence of customs personnel, it emerges from the reading of the minutes on fs. 251 that Guillermo Daniel D' Ursi, a customs officer, was present. Although he arrived at the scene after the procedure had started, the entire act was witnessed by the summoned witnesses, who remained at the scene from the beginning of the procedure, which is why there is no room for doubt as to what happened there, as shown in the minutes.

In regard to the failure to show the documentation to the witnesses of the seizure, it should be noted that it arises from the statements of both witnesses - Nudelman and Arce - who witnessed the discovery of the documentation that was seized; and although it is true that neither of them was informed of the content of each document, it is worth noting that it is not required that they read each of the seized instruments, but that they can attest that said seizure was actually carried out, in relation to which the named ones did issue statements. The opposite would mean requiring that they also understood the content of the instruments, for which it would be necessary to resort to experts in customs matters and not simple witnesses of the action.
It should be noted in this regard that the witness Gustavo Martín Arce (page 2186 back) stated during the trial hearing that they were looking for folders inside the office and showing them to the declarant and the other witness; and also the witness Nudelman (page 1973) said that they reviewed everything in his presence; thus, the legal requirements have been met (art. 138 CPP).
On the other hand, the defense requests the acquittal of its client based on the nullity of this acquittal, but has not demonstrated what is the specific damage that the alleged defect indicated has caused him, nor how the evidence collected there would affect the assessment of the responsibility of its client in the facts charged by the accusing parties. Instead, it has limited itself to claiming a nullity for the nullity itself, which lacks legal support, since it is not expressly provided for (art. 166 of the CPP), having not demonstrated either the relevance of its statement and its entity in the resolution of the procedural situation of its client.
The same can be said in relation to the fact that the evidence seized at that time was not preserved, which was analyzed by the Brigade, and was sent to the Court only one year later; as art. 233 CPP does not provide for a sanction of nullity in the case of non-compliance; without prejudice to its impact on the assessment of what was seized there, which will not be taken into account as evidence, given that such seized elements will not be used for the decision on the merits of the case.

The fact that the report was not drawn up at the place of the search, but at the Quilmes Brigade, where it was also signed, is not grounds for nullity, since it is not provided for as such in the procedural order, nor is it noted that such circumstance would have caused any harm to the accused, or that it would have violated his constitutional rights. Note in this regard that art. 228, 3rd and 4th paragraphs CPP provides that once the search has been carried out, its result will be recorded in the report, with an expression of the circumstances useful for its investigation, which will be signed by all those present; requirements fully complied with. For this reason, this claim will suffer the same fate as the previous ones.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is appropriate to order the extraction of testimonies in order to investigate the possible commission of a public crime in the police action, in light of the statements made by the witnesses who participated in the procedure, in relation to the fact that electrical appliances were taken from the place -which do not appear in the seizure report-; and also because the attitude of the Quilmes Police is highly questionable, which forced two minors, aged 18, to go to that Brigade late at night in order to sign a report that could have been made at the place of the procedure, writing it by hand if mechanical or electronic instruments were not available, without even being able to notify their families of such transfer (conf. the statement made by the witness Nudelman during the trial hearing).
It should also be noted that with regard to the claim of invalidity of the transcripts of the wiretaps formulated by Dr. Sulam when responding to the accusing parties, this will not be addressed as it was not introduced when formulating the argument. Notwithstanding this, the matter relating to the evaluation of both the transcripts and the wiretaps will be addressed when assessing the evidence.

C. Defense of Gustavo Ariel García and Julio César Arce Cajes.
Dr. Garnero, when formulating her argument, supported the nullity of the order on fs. 2 raised by the defense of the co-defendant Leiva and formulated a new cause for invalidity:
Nullity of the procedure carried out at Rawson 631 on 25/9/96, recorded on pages 195/98, due to violation of art. 18 CN and 224 of the CPP. This request is based on the entry into the premises without a court order of search, and the search of the boxes carried out that same day is also null and void.
In relation to this argument, the Court considers that it is not viable, since it is clear from a mere reading of the minutes that give an account of the procedure in question, that after the trucks were intercepted, a telephone call was made to the investigating judge who, through the Secretary, ordered that the trucks be moved to the depot located at 631 Rawson Street and that the vehicles be entered there; therefore, in the event of a court order, there is no objection to such entry. Nor can the veracity of what is stated therein regarding the court order be called into question, since the procedure was validated by the investigating judge upon arrival of the proceedings, there being no reason to doubt that this happened.
Regarding the search of the boxes referred to by the Defence Attorney, there is no evidence in this regard; on the contrary, the record shows that the warehouse was closed, with a police checkpoint outside, for the subsequent inspection of the merchandise.

Furthermore, the same considerations apply as with respect to the other contested admissions. This is because for an act to be covered by a declaration of nullity, it must have violated a constitutional right, causing actual harm, which implies proving the specific harm that the alleged procedural defect could have caused and demonstrating how it would have influenced the specific case if that defect had not existed; which the petitioner has not indicated. In this order of ideas, it has been resolved that "if the allegations that the defendant would have refrained from exercising or the evidence that he would have proposed in these questioned acts if they did not exhibit the alleged defect that motivates the questioning have not been specifically indicated, the demonstration of what the affectation to the defense guarantee would be has not been assumed, nor is the usefulness of the invalidation sought or decreed seen (CNCP, Chamber I, case 186 "Terramagra, Juan I. s/rec. de casación", rta. 25/8/94, case nE 102 "Aguilera, Oscar S., s/ rec. de casación", rta. 23/3/93 and CSJN Fallos 287:230; 297:291; 300:353; 301:969; 302:179; 303:359; 303:1497 and 1626; 305:1140; 306:149 and 281; 307:1131, among others, cited there).
In the specific case, and since no seizure was made in the procedure in question, the utility of his declaration is not observed, nor is the specific damage that the person invoking it could have suffered, and this claim appears again as a nullity for the sake of nullity itself. Note in this regard that the seizure of various elements in that place was carried out subsequently (pages 302/303 and other subsequent procedures).
With regard to the wiretaps and the lack of preparation of minutes and witnesses, this will be addressed when assessing said evidence, since it has not been raised by Dr. Garnero as a cause for nullity when formulating the argument.

D. Defense of Haroldo Gómez.
Dr. Name, in her presentation, requests that the following act be declared invalid:
Annulment of the indictment of Haroldo Gomez fs. 12.307/16, due to the fact that no statement was received from the person named in relation to facts 1 and 2 (see fs. 3384/88), highlighting that, even, the evidence shown to him at that time is not related to said facts.
This claim must be upheld and the partial nullity of the order of prosecution and preventive detention recorded on pages 12.307/16 must be declared insofar as it is considered proven, within the scope of said procedural stage, that the accused participated in events 1 and 2, as well as everything done as a result.

Indeed, the defense is right in that no statement has been received from Gómez in relation to these facts, which were included in the order of prosecution and preventive detention, by the Public Prosecutor in the request for referral, and by the complaint in the accusation formulated during the debate, thus affecting the guarantee of defense in court contained in art. 18 of the National Constitution.
Now, the preliminary investigation statement is the act of material defense of the accused of greatest relevance in the criminal process, so that the failure to inform him at that time that he was charged with those facts affects the right of defense, since Gómez lacked the opportunity to issue a statement on the point, and was consequently deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the same. (CSJN c.547. XXI, 22/6/87; c. «Ancich, Juan», 2/4/87, 310:745).
The criminal process requires a specific charge of crime, which is intensified as the process develops, until reaching the procedural act of the accusation. Prior to this act, the charge in the course of the process is manifested in essential acts: inquiry, indictment, preventive detention. Such charge is necessary to effectively ensure the defense in court, because every person must know with respect to which particular and concrete facts, he must face his defense (see Carlos Rubianes «Derecho Procesal Penal» T II, ed. Depalma 1977, p. 87). Hence, the CPP requires that the accused be informed in detail of the fact that is attributed to him and what evidence exists against him (art. 298).
Hence, the preliminary investigation statement is an essential prerequisite for issuing the order of prosecution and preventive detention (art. 307 of the CPP) and appears as a necessary procedural act for the investigation to progress, since it substantially contains, in the event that the accused agrees to testify, the response to the charge.
The principle of consistency that must exist between the preliminary investigation, the prosecution, the request for referral to trial made by the Prosecutor, the accusation and the sentence has been affected, since two facts have been included in said procedural acts, which Gómez did not even know were being imputed to him. In this sense, the SCJN has repeatedly established that the guarantee enshrined in art. 18 of the National Constitution requires observance of the substantial forms of the trial relating to the accusation, defense, evidence and sentence (Rulings 125:10; 127:36; 189:34; 308:1557; G. 445.XXI "Gordillo, Raúl H." of 29/8/87, among others).
The necessary correlation required by the principle of congruence prevents the inclusion in the sentence and in the acts indicated of facts for which there was no material investigation -when the accused explained or answered about the fact- or formal investigation. The summons or information about the alleged fact, and the evidence against him, tends to facilitate the exercise of the material defense. The object of the investigative statement must coincide with that of the imputation or attribution of a fact from which criminal responsibility must arise; every judicial pronouncement must be related to the facts on which the investigative statement was based (CCC Fallos TV, page 405; t VII page 79). The principle of congruence requires that there be identity between the reported fact and the one included in the accusation.
In this way, article 307 of the CPP has been violated, which provides that the prosecution of the accused may not be ordered without having received a preliminary investigation statement, or without his refusal to testify being recorded, expressly establishing the penalty of nullity. The nullity incurred is absolute and may be declared ex officio, by virtue of being expressly established as such - specific nullity - (art. 307 of the CPP) and of violating constitutional norms, since it concerns the accused's involvement in the process (arts. 166, 167 inc. 3E and 168 of the CPP).

This is so because the failure to establish the alleged fact in the act of inquiry is not merely formal. On the contrary, it results in real and concrete harm to the affected party, since the defect that motivated it deprived the accused of the effective exercise of a fundamental right - such as the guarantee of defence in court -, causing irreparable harm, configuring a defect that cannot be remedied or validated.
As a result of the above, the partial nullity of the indictment and preventive detention order and of all actions taken as a result thereof must be declared. In effect, the latter will be limited to the smuggling acts related to containers GSTU 6101797 and MMMU 3515495.
The remaining actions tainted with nullity extend to the request for referral to trial, the subsequent judicial act, and the accusation of the complaint made during the trial.
Finally, it should be noted that, given the absolute nullity of the defect indicated, it must be declared ex officio at any stage and level of the process in which it is detected, which is why it is appropriate to declare it at this time.
It should be added that the fact that the balance sheets of TCO, which contain the containers referring to facts 1 and 2, were shown to him at the time of the preliminary investigation, as alleged by the plaintiff, does not prevent the declaration of invalidity, since said balance sheet contains a large number of containers that were not part of the procedural object of the case. Such a circumstance cannot, therefore, replace the due notification, even less so when the rest of the evidence exhibited does not refer to such facts.
The nullity will result in the acquittal of the accused in relation to such facts, taking into account the time elapsed since this voluminous process was initiated, which would require processing it again in relation to the omitted facts and the provisions of art. 18 CN as it establishes the right of defense in court.

Indeed, our High Court has ruled (Mattei, CSJN, Fallos 272:188) that both the principle of progressivity and the principle of preclusion recognize their basis in the need to achieve a rapid administration of justice within reason, thus avoiding that the processes be prolonged indefinitely; but also, and this is essential in view of the values that come into play in criminal trials, they obey the imperative of satisfying a requirement inherent to the respect due to the dignity of man, which is the recognition of the right of every person to be freed from the state of suspicion that comes with the accusation of having committed a crime, through a sentence that establishes, once and for all, his situation before the criminal law.
He adds that the right of every accused to obtain a ruling that puts an end as quickly as possible to the situation of uncertainty and undeniable restriction of freedom that criminal prosecution entails must be considered to be included in the guarantee of defence in court enshrined in Article 18 of the Constitution.
The SCJN also recently ruled in a similar sense in the Polack, Federico G. case, dated 15/10/98 (JA, 1999-Ip.334) in which it expressed that the principles of progressivity and preclusion, which prevent the retrogression of the process, are applicable to the extent that, in addition to having observed the essential forms of the trial, the declared nullity is not a consequence of conduct attributable to the defendant.

II. Of informal treatment

The request for trial on pages 3/5 of case no. 275/98 was made against Roberto Leiva for the crime of smuggling in relation to container PRSU 4034456. However, given that no statement has been received from the person named in relation to this fact, it is appropriate to declare the partial nullity of the request for trial with the limitation indicated; due to the violation of the right to defense in court enshrined in art. 18 CN, in attention to the same reasons previously cited. Based on this, it is also appropriate to acquit Leiva in relation to the fact referred to said container, since a new processing of this long process, in relation to the same, would violate the right to obtain a quick criminal pronouncement, included in the aforementioned art. 18 CN; as well as the constitutional guarantee of ne bis in idem that prohibits the risk of a new submission to trial of someone who has already been tried for the same fact.

Second: Materiality of the facts.

I. Prior to examining the facts discussed during the course of the various hearings, it is essential to make some clarifying considerations regarding the method followed in this final ruling.
First of all, it should be noted that the exercise by this Court of the control activity authorized by art. 354 of the CPPN has made it possible to clearly observe the constitution of a hypertrophied criminal procedure, developed on the basis of a centralizing criterion of the investigating body consisting of bringing together within the same process an investigation oriented towards different criminal activities of different natural and legal persons, whose common center would reside in the discovery of countless smuggling maneuvers carried out within the scope of the different customs offices of the country.

Such an inquisitorial pretension, equivalent to trying to gather in a single case all the crimes of the same type, has been devouring material and human resources while piling up an endless number of chaotically arranged records in a gigantic file that grew day by day as a consequence of the unsystematic accumulation of the results obtained as a result of the innumerable procedures carried out.
However, reasons of various kinds caused that centralizing criterion to give way and what began as a single judicial investigation ended up being subjected to the empire of procedural times - to a decentralization mechanism consisting of the fractioning of the main case in order to obtain the formation of different independent cases in conditions of being able to be elevated to the trial stage, although also in an anarchic manner, separating the persons involved in the same event and the different cases in which the same persons were involved, without considering the consequences that could arise from this.
This is the situation that the Court has found itself facing.
Therefore, in order to provide coherence to the debate, it was decided to unify different processes that had been partially elevated and that were duly joined by the Court at fs. 1327, also taking into account in this regard the resolution at fs. 1378/1381, in which the accumulation of case No. 186 is annulled, not only on the basis of criteria such as identity of charge, the relationship of the different defendants with respect to the facts specifically attributed in the different cases brought, but also taking into account the real material possibilities that this jurisdictional body has had.

This decision was motivated in turn by the urgent need to avoid, on the one hand, jurisdictional waste, and on the other, the unnecessary submission to trial within the same process of defendants involved in isolated events or linked to different cases by intervening in specific sections of the different actions.
For this reason, since it is strictly necessary to organise the disparate elements brought to our attention in a coherent manner in order to achieve a perfect understanding of the various facts alleged during the trial. The Court has decided that the analysis be carried out in chronological order, as the events unfolded, in order to locate not only these in relation to time, but also the exact location of the participants in each of them, avoiding jumping from one piece of evidence to another in an incoherent manner and preserving the uniformity of the various pieces of evidence produced during the debate.
It should also be clarified that, leaving unchanged the real content of the facts for which these proceedings were brought to trial, each customs operation linked to a customs document used to circumvent due state control will be considered as an independent fact.
Such a situation can be observed in the elevation to trial of facts Nos. 1 and 2, because even though the containers related to them entered national territory at the same time, also leaving customs together, they were taken as two different facts due to the fact that two different transfer requests were used to carry out the maneuver.

For this reason, the statement made by the Public Prosecutor's Office in this regard will not be accepted, adopting the criteria already stated on this topic.
Along these lines, it is also worth mentioning as an example that fact No. 12, despite referring to five containers, was treated as a single fact because it corresponded to a single customs destination recorded through a single document.
Based on the above arguments, it should be noted that fact No. 4 will be split up since it is linked to two containers removed from Customs through two different transshipment requests. Likewise, a similar situation is reflected in fact No. 11, since, despite being a single container, the merchandise housed there corresponds to two different customs destinations that required the use of two different transshipment requests.
The purpose of this clarification is to achieve an understanding of the way in which the different factual assumptions were arranged in this ruling, without prejudice - we reiterate - to the significance that this will have when the legal framework of the same is carried out.

II. Having established this, we will proceed to analyse all the facts under debate, which will be identified with the letters from A to Z, indicating for each of them the number with which they were identified during the successive hearings of debate.

A. Entry into the country of container TOLU 254.318-5 (Fact No. 20)

It is reliably proven that on February 19, 1996, the container TOLU 254.318-5, containing boxes of video games, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions, aboard the vessel ISE, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 010974H and bill of lading No. CHHONSE-0037/96; consigned in the name of Herold SRL, and was deposited at the Río de la Plata SA port terminal.
On February 22, 1996, by means of TLAT 002377V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the tax warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On March 7, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 17-1/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
For this reason, beyond the fact that the real destination of the container in question is unknown, the circumstance mentioned in the preceding paragraph implies the introduction of the merchandise in question into the country without the exercise of the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.

The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Photocopy of the bill of lading No. SE 0037/96 (page 1 of file No. 20), dated January 20, 1996, in which the company Vector International Freigth (HK) LTD reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container TOLU 254.318-5, consigned to the order of Herold SRL, which contained a total of 402 boxes of general merchandise, with a gross weight of 5.355 kg. from the port of Hong Kong, China.
2. Duplicate of invoice No. 0001 00073964, dated 21/2/96, added to page 2 of folder No. 20, issued by the company Terminales Río de la Plata SA for the stowage service of the container in question.
Triplicate of the document called Departure from the Primary Customs Zone, added to page 9 of folder No. 20, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Río de la Plata SA port terminal to the Lingas SA warehouse.
3. Photocopy of the customs document called TLAT, No. 002377V, dated February 22, 1996, which appears attached to pages 11/12 of folder No. 20, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through it the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse was carried out.

4. Originals of invoice No. 0009-00001123, dated 5/3/96 -pages 16 and 18 of folder No. 20-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Herold SRL as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
5. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated March 6, 1996, through customs document 0017-1 (see page 10 of folder No. 20).
6. Photocopy of the note sent by fax by the company Herold SRL to the firm Murchinson SA, added to page 24 of file no. 20, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
7. Original receipt No. 15643 of delivery of the container in question, which appears on page 19 of folder No. 20, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Herold, which shows the date of entry 17/2/96 - and exit 7/3/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.

8. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5852 of the main file a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in March 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 17/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 39 packages containing parts for agricultural tractor accessories, consigned in the name of MR ELMER EGUEZ, destined for the Pocitos (Salta) customs office - see bill of lading for said operation on page 5853 of the main document.

B. Entry into the country of the TEXU container 378.107-7 (Fact No. 21)

It is clearly established that on April 9, 1996, the container TEXU 378.107-7, containing 4.886 kg of merchandise of foreign origin, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel CSAV Rosario, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 616982 and bill of lading No. NYKS480492868; consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, and was deposited at port terminals 1 and 2.
On April 11, 1996, by means of TLAT 13816V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Fax copy of bill of lading No. SEAR 96-1401/005 (page 1 of file No. 21), dated March 10, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hongkong reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container TEXU 378.107-7, consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which contained a total of 206 boxes of merchandise, with a gross weight of 4.800 kg. from the port of Hong Kong, China.
2. Fax copy of the document called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise No. AE 005225, dated 3/4/96, added to page 2 of folder No. 21, issued by the shipping agency Multimar SA, by which the delivery of the container arrived at the port of Buenos Aires to the owner of the merchandise is accredited.
3. Photocopy of the note sent by fax by the company Inversora Kilmy SA to the firm Murchinson SA, added to page 3 of file no. 21, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.

C. Entry into the country of container JLSU 208.680-7 (Fact No. 19)

It has been reliably proven that on April 7, 1996, the container JLSU, containing boxes with video games, entered national territory under house to house condition, aboard the vessel CSAV Rosario, being identified by cargo manifest No. 020612U and bill of lading No. CHHONSEAR96-1401/004; consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, being deposited at the Río de la Plata port terminal.

On April 11, 1996, by means of TLAT 004941U, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On April 12, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 23/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container was not the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond ignoring the same, the introduction of the merchandise in question into the market has been carried out by evading the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service on the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. SEAR 96-1401/004 (page 1 of file No. 19), dated March 10, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hongkong communicates the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container JLSU 208680-7, consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which contained a total of 595 boxes of TV games, with a gross weight of 8.195 kg. coming from the port of Hong Kong, China.

2. Duplicate of invoice No. 0001 00081782, dated 9/4/96, added to page 4 of folder No. 19, issued by the company Terminales Río de la Plata SA for the stowage service of the container in question.
3. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, added to page 5 of folder No. 19, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Río de la Plata SA port terminal to the Lingas SA warehouse.
4. Two photocopies of the customs document called TLAT, No. 004941U, dated April 11, 1996, which appear attached to pages 14/15 and 29/30 of folder No. 19, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through which the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse is carried out.
5. Two original copies of invoice No. 0009-00002040, dated 12/4/96 - pages 19 and 26 of file No. 19 -, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Inversora Kilmy SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.

6. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated April 12, 1996, through customs document 0023-96 (see page 13 of folder No. 19).
7. Photocopy of the note sent by fax by the company Inversora Kilmy SA to the firm Murchinson SA, added to page 28 of file no. 19, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.

8. Duplicate of receipt No. 15969 for delivery of the container in question, which appears on page 21 of folder No. 19, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which shows the date of entry 11/4/96 - and exit 12/4/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
9. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5846 of the main file a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in April 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 23/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 7 boxes, consigned in the name of CHEMICAL SRL, destined for the Clorinda customs office (Asunción) - see bill of lading for said operation on page 5847 of the main file.

CH. Entry into the country of container KNLU 290.213-4 (Fact No. 16)

It is reliably proven that on April 15, 1996, the container KNLU 290.213-4, containing textile merchandise, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Nedlloyd Seoul, identified by cargo manifest No. 022050S and bill of lading No. IIOOVPUSAF968; consigned in the name of Beak Jin Ho, being deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On April 16, 1996, by means of TLAT 005120K, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On April 17, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 0025/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container was not the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond ignoring the same, the introduction of the merchandise in question into the market has been carried out by evading the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service on the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Originals of the bill of lading No. PUSAF 968, dated March 12, 1996 (pages 1 and 4 of folder No. 16), which states that the company Nedlloyd received at the port of Pulsan, Korea, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, the container KNLU 290.213-4 consigned in the name of Beak Jin Ho, which contained textile merchandise, with a gross weight of 10.800 kg.

2. Original and copies of invoice No. 40440, dated April 16, 1996, issued by the firm BACTSSA, which certifies payment for the transport service, cargo storage and door passage of said container, from the ship to the port terminal (see pages 15 and 6, 16 and 17 respectively of folder No. 16).
3. Original of receipt No. 7591 of the document called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise, dated 16/4/96, issued by the maritime agency Dodero SA, by virtue of which the ownership of the merchandise housed in the container in question is accredited, in the name of Beak Jin Ho, and may be withdrawn from the Bactssa port terminal.
4. Original and triplicate of the documents called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 16/4/96, added to pages 25 and 10, respectively, of folder No. 16, which contain the details of the container, vehicle used and driver for the respective transport from the port terminal to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
5. Copy of the customs document called TLAT, No. 005120 K, dated April 16, 1996, which appears attached to pages 12/13 of folder No. 16, in which the identification of the container referred to is noted for the purpose of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
6. Copy of the fax dated April 16, 1996, sent by the company Herold SRL to the firm Murchinson SA, attached to page 31 of file no. 16, in which the transfer of the aforementioned container from port terminal No. 5 to the headquarters of said fiscal warehouse is requested.

7. Original and photocopy of invoice No. 0009-00002144, dated 16/4/96 - pages 34 and 27, respectively, of folder No. 16 -, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of Herold SRL as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container.
8. Original of the internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure from said site of the referred container dated April 17, 1996 (see pages 11 of folder No. 16), through customs instrument No. 0025 -see specifically the box: Imp. Dispatch No.-.
9. Original receipt No. 776, dated April 17, 1996, issued to Beak Jin Ho for storage and delivery of the container in question - page 28 of folder No. 16 - corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse. It states that the aforementioned container entered the bonded warehouse on April 16, 4 and left the following day by direct dispatch.
10. Original copies of the receipt for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 31065, from which it is clear that the container in question left the Fiscal warehouse on 17/4/96 (see pages 22/23 of file No. 16), by means of the truck identified with license plate SFV 410 and tractor No. V 008814, said vehicle being driven by Cattaneo, with ID No. 10.817.509.
11. Photocopy of the delivery document of the container in question (Can Leave), which is on page 32 of folder No. 16, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued in the name of Beak Jin Ho., which records the departure of the container in question from the headquarters of the fiscal warehouse on April 17, 1996.

12. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5825 of the main file a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in April 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 25/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 4 packages containing oenological machinery, consigned in the name of BODEGAS Y VIÑEDOS LA CABAÑA, destined for the customs office in Orán (Salta) - see bill of lading for said operation on page 5826 of the main document.
13. Testimonial statement by Carlos Alberto Cattáneo, given during the debate, in which he stated that as a driver for the company OMI, he drives the truck identified with license plate V008814, Chassis SFV 410, and that he remembers having taken a container guarded by two people aboard a white car, to a warehouse in the Villa Devoto area, near Juan B. Justo and López de Vega, ignoring the name of the dispatcher and the type of merchandise.

D. Entry into the country of container NYKU 658.906-8 (Fact No. 24)

It is reliably proven that on April 17, 1996, container NYKU 658.906-8, containing 680 boxes of TV games, entered national territory under house to house condition, aboard the ship Nantai Venus, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 022096F and bill of lading No. CHHONSEAR96-1458/013; consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, and was deposited at the port terminal Río de la Plata SA.
On April 17, 1996, through TLAT 005106Y, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On April 18, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 28/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container did not turn out to be the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond being ignored, this circumstance implies an introduction into the market of the merchandise in question without the exercise of the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. SEAR 96-1458/013 (page 1 of file No. 24), dated March 16, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hongkon communicates the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container NYKU 658.906-8, consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which contained a total of 680 boxes of TV games, with a gross weight of 9.180 kgs. from the port of Hong Kong, China.
2. Photocopy of the customs document called TLAT, No. 005106Y, dated April 17, 1996, which appears attached to pages 2/3 of folder No. 24, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through it the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse was carried out.
3. Copy of invoice No. 0009-00002223, dated 18/4/96 -page 9 of folder No. 24-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Inversora Kilmy SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
4. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated April 18, 1996, through customs document 28-96 (see page 4 of folder No. 24).
5. Photocopy of the note sent by fax by the company Inversora Kilmy SA to the firm Murchinson SA, dated April 15, 1996, added to page 8 of file no. 24, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
6. Duplicate of receipt No. 15995 for delivery of the container in question, which appears on page 10 of folder No. 24, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which shows the date of entry 17/4/96 - and exit 8/4/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.

E. Entry into the country of container TRLU 291.680-7 (Fact No. 18)

It is clearly established that on April 22, 1996, container TRLU602-291.680, containing 7 rolls of fabric, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions aboard the ship Intelligence Coic2024. The container was identified by cargo manifest No. 023741D and bill of lading No. KSPUS6B0371; consigned in the name of Casa Lapidus SA and deposited at the Río de la Plata port terminal.
On July 26, 1996, by means of TLAT 005634U, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (exT.CO).
On July 29, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 33/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container was not the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond ignoring the same, the introduction of the merchandise in question into the market has been carried out by evading the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service on the entry of merchandise into the country.

The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Three originals of the bill of lading No. 6B 0371 (page 1/3 of folder No. 18), dated March 15, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hong Kong reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container TRLU 291.680-7, consigned in the name of Casa Lapidus and transferred, on the back, to the firm Trade Mark, which contained a total of 2024 rolls of fabric, weighing 10.844 kg. from the port of Pulsan, Korea.
2. Duplicate of invoice No. 0001 00085540, dated 25/4/96, added to page 4 of folder No. 18, issued by the company Terminales Río de la Plata SA for the stowage service of the container in question.
Original receipt No. 12398, dated 26/4/96, added to page 36 of folder No. 18, by virtue of which the receipt by the company Gemez SA of the sum of $566,28 paid by the firm Trade Mark SA, according to invoice No. 7861, is accredited.
3. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, added to page 12 of folder No. 18, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Río de la Plata SA port terminal to the Gemez SA warehouse.

4. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 26/4/96, added to page 18 of folder No. 18, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Gemez SA warehouse to the Lingas SA bonded warehouse.
5. Two photocopies of the customs document called TLAT, No. 005634U, dated April 25, 1996, which appear attached to pages 15/16 and 41/42 of folder No. 18, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through which the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse is carried out.
6. Original and copy of invoice No. 0009-00002526, dated 29/4/96 -pages 37 and 39 respectively, of folder No. 18-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Casa Lapidus SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
7. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated April 29, 1996, through customs document 0033-96 (see page 13 of folder No. 18).
8. Receipt for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 31076, which shows that the container in question left the Fiscal warehouse on 29/9/96 in a truck identified with license plate RNV 369 and chassis RLM 181 (see pages 33 of folder No. 18)

9. Photocopy of the note sent by fax by the company Trade Mark SA to the firm Murchinson SA, added to page 47 of file no. 18, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested; a copy of the bill of lading is attached.
10. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on November 22, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry to the fiscal warehouse on 25/4/96-, without mentioning any exit (see page 25 of folder No. 18).
11. Original and photocopy of receipt No. 980 of delivery of the container in question, which appears on pages 21 and 22 respectively of folder No. 18, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Casa Lapidus SA, which shows the date of entry 26/4/96 - and exit 29/4/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
12. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5839 of the main file a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in April 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 33/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 678 boxes containing household items, consigned in the name of ARMENIO SHULTZ, destined for the Porto Alegre (Brazil) customs office - see bill of lading for said operation on page 5840 of the main file.

F. Entry into the country of container TRIU 453.705-3 (Fact No. 23)

It is clearly established that on April 28, 1996, container TRIU 453.705-3, containing 587 boxes of video games, entered national territory on a house-to-house basis on board the vessel Ipanema. It was identified by cargo manifest No. 025428H and bill of lading No. CHHONSEAR96-1766/001; consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA and deposited at the Río de la Plata port terminal.
On April 29, 1996, by means of TLAT 006010J, the aforementioned container was transferred to the tax warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On May 7, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 40/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container did not turn out to be the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond being ignored, this circumstance implies an introduction into the market of the merchandise in question without the exercise of the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.

The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. SEAR 96-1766-001 (page 1 of file No. 23), dated March 30, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hongkon communicates the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container TRIU 453.705-3, consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which contained a total of 587 boxes of TV games, with a gross weight of 8.333 kg. from the port of Hong Kong, China.
2. Original of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 6/5/96, added to page 14 of folder No. 23, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Río de la Plata SA port terminal to the Lingas SA warehouse.
3. Two photocopies of the customs document called TLAT, No. 006010J, dated May 6, 1996, which appear attached to pages 3/4 and 5/6 of folder No. 23, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through which the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse was carried out.

4. Original and copy of invoice No. 0009-00002787, dated 7/5/96 - pages 22 and 15 respectively of folder No. 23 -, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Inversora Kilmy SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
5. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated May 7, 1996, through customs document 40-96 (see pages 2 of folder No. 23).
6. Photocopy of the note sent by fax by the company Inversora Kilmy SA to the firm Murchinson SA, dated May 4, 1996, added to page 9 of file no. 23, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
7. Duplicate of receipt No. 13220 for delivery of the container in question, which appears on page 17 of folder No. 23, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Inversora Kilmy SA, which shows the date of entry 29/4/96 - and exit 7/5/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
8. Document called may leave, which appears on page 21 of folder No. 23, in which all the data relating to container TRIU 453.705-3 are recorded, highlighting among them the date of departure from the TCO tax warehouse, which occurred on 7/5/96.
9. Original receipt of equipment exchange No. 31085 of the firm Murchison SA, from which it is clear that the container in question left the Fiscal warehouse on 7/5/96 (see pages 12 of folder No. 23), by means of the truck identified with license plate SDT 465 and tractor No. RJC 090.

G. Entry into the country of the container MOLU 010.761-1 (Fact No. 14)

It is clearly established that on July 24, 1996, the container MOLU 010.761-1, containing men's clothing, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions aboard the vessel Meridiam Challenger. It was identified by cargo manifest No. 047989A and bill of lading No. CHSHA400142538; consigned to the order of Carlos Meta, and was deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On July 31, 1996, by means of TLAT 010457T, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On August 2, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 539/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 625 Herrera Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. 400142538 (page 1 of folder No. 14), which states that the company Mitsui OSK Lines, Ltd. receives in the port of Shanghai, China, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, the container MOLU 010.761-1, consigned in the name of Hardeal SRL, which contained 402 boxes of men's shirts.
2. Original and copy of invoice No. 51275 issued by the firm BACTSSA, which confirms payment for the transport service, cargo storage and door passage of said container, from the ship to the port terminal (see pages 2/3 of folder No. 14).
3. Original copy of the document called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise No. 21269, dated 22/7/96, added to page 5 of folder No. 14, consigned to the order by the maritime agency Sudocean SA, through which the delivery of the container arrived at the port of Buenos Aires to the owner of the merchandise is accredited.
4. Original and photocopy of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 31/7/96, added to pages 25 and 7, respectively, of folder No. 14, which contains the details of the container, vehicle used and driver for the respective transport from the port terminal to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
5. Customs document called TLAT, No. 010457T, dated July 30, 1996, which appears attached to pages 10/11 of folder No. 14, in which the identification of the container referred to is noted for the purpose of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.

6. Three photocopies of the second page of the fax dated July 29, 1996, sent from telephone number 394-0604 by Ramón Carlos Meta to the firm Murchinson SA, attached to pages 22/24 of folder no. 14, in which the transfer of the aforementioned container to the headquarters of said fiscal warehouse is requested. Together with said note, a photocopy of the bill of lading and a photocopy of receipt no. 21269 of the firm Sudocean were sent by the same means, with page numbers 01 and 03 appearing on the upper right corner, respectively (see pages 14 and 19 of folder no. 14).
7. Original and photocopy of invoice No. 0009-00005360, dated 2/8/96 - pages 32 and 33 of folder No. 14 -, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of Carlos Meta as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container.
8. Original of the internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure from said site of the referred container dated August 2, 1996 (see pages 9 of folder No. 14), through customs instrument No. 539/96 -see specifically the box: Imp. Dispatch No.-.
9. Original and photocopy of receipt No. 14152 of delivery of the container in question, which appears on pages 35/36 of folder No. 14, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Carlos Meta, which shows the date of entry 31/7/96 - and exit 2/8/96 - of the container in question from the referred bonded warehouse.

10. Photocopy of the list of containers existing in the firm Murchison SA consigned in the name of Carlos Meta, from which it is clear that on July 31, 1996 the container in question entered the headquarters of that firm, leaving on August 2 of the same year (see page 39 of folder No. 14).
11. Photocopy of the delivery document for the container in question (Gate Out), which appears on page 38 of folder No. 14, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to order, which shows the departure of the container in question from the headquarters of the fiscal warehouse on August 2, 1996, through customs document No. 539/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
12. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry to the fiscal warehouse on 31/7/96-, without mentioning any exit (see page 37 of folder No. 14).
13. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on pages 5792/93 of the main files a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in August 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 539/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 200 boxes containing sets of printed sheets, consigned in the name of JUAN VILLALBA, destined for the Clorinda customs office.

H. Entry into the country of containers TPHU 650.507-9 and INBU 472.640-7 (Fact No. 15)

It is reliably proven that on July 13, 1996, containers TPHU 650.507-9 and INBU 472.640-7, which contained perfumery articles, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel DG Columbia, and were identified by cargo manifest No. 0043466J and bill of lading No. USNYOSENUNYC50777; consigned in the name of Centauro International and deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On July 25, 1996, by means of TLAT 010111G, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On July 30, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 499/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container was not the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond ignoring the same, the introduction of the merchandise in question into the market has been carried out by evading the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service on the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original and copy of the bill of lading No. NYC 50777, dated June 7, 1996 (page 1/3 of file No. 15), which states that the company DRS-Senator Lines GMBH Bremen received in the port of New York, United States, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, containers TPHU 650.507-9 and INBU 472.640-7, consigned in the name of Centauro International, which contained perfumery merchandise.
2. Originals of invoices Nos. 50238 and 50239 issued by the firm BACTSSA, which prove payment for the service of transport, storage of cargo and passage through doors of said containers, from the ship to the port terminal (see pages 53 and 54, respectively and copies added to pages 16,17 and 53; 18/19 and 55, also respectively-, of folder No. 15); and original and copy of invoice No. 0006- 8801 issued by the same port terminal on 24/7/96, which is complementary to the aforementioned invoice No. 50238 see pages 56 and 23 and 57 respectively, of the folder in question-.
3. Original of the invoice/receipt No. 8430, dated 17/7/96, issued by the company Centauro International SRL in the name of the firm Rualfe SA, as payment for the ocean freight of the cargo related to the bill of lading No. NYC 50777.

4. Originals of the documents called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise, receipts Nos. 17A and 17B, both dated 29/7/96 (added to pages 29 and 30, respectively, of folder No. 15), consigned in the name of Centauro International by the transport agent Inchcape Shipping Services Argentina SA, and receipts Nos. 2581 and 2663, dated 27/7/96 and 29/7/96, respectively, granted by this company in the name of Rualfe SA.
5. Originals of the documents called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 25/7/96, added to pages 34 and 35 of folder No. 15, which contain the details of the container, vehicle used and driver for the respective transport from the port terminal to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
6. Photocopy of the customs document called TLAT, No. 010111G, dated July 24, 1996, which appears attached to pages 51/52 of folder No. 15, in which the identification of the containers referred to is noted for the purpose of documenting their transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
7. Photocopies of the note dated July 22, 1996, sent by the company Rualfe SA to the firm Murchinson SA, added to pages 33 and 49 of file no. 15, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
8. Original and photocopy of invoice No. 0009-00005226, dated 30/7/96 - pages 58 and 25, respectively, of folder No. 15 -, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of Centauro SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the containers.
9. Photocopy of the internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure from said site of the referred containers dated July 30, 1996 (see page 28 of folder No. 15), through customs instrument No. 499/96 -see specifically the box: Imp. Dispatch No.-.

10. Photocopy of receipt No. 2285, dated July 30, 1996, issued to Centauro Int. for storage and delivery of the containers in question - page 41 of folder No. 15 - corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse. It states that both containers entered the bonded warehouse on July 25, 7 and left on July 96, 30 with direct dispatch.
11. Photocopy of the delivery document for the container in question (Gate Out), which appears on page 50 of folder No. 15, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued in the name of Centauro Int., which shows the departure of the containers in question from the headquarters of the fiscal warehouse on July 30, 1996, through customs document No. 499/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
12. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5799 of the main file a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in July 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 499/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 3 pieces containing parts for agricultural machinery, consigned in the name of SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA COL.CHORTITZER KOMITEE, destined for the Clorinda customs office - see bill of lading for said operation on page 5800 of the main document.

I. Entry into the country of container IEAU 412.752-7 (Fact No. 13)

It is clearly established that on August 2, 1996, container IEAU 412.752-7, containing 804 boxes of computer parts, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions aboard the vessel San Antonio. It was identified by cargo manifest No. 048235X and bill of lading No. USMIAMA006; consigned in the name of Hardeal and deposited at the Exolgán port terminal.
On August 9, 1996, by means of TLAT 011005J, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On August 13, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 546/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. MA006 (page 1 of folder No. 13 and 2 photocopies added to pages 2 and 8 of the same folder-), dated July 16, 1996, which states that the company Columbus Line received in the port of Miami, United States, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, the container IEAU 412.752-7, consigned in the name of Hardeal SRL, which contained 804 boxes of computer parts.
2. Summary statement on page 20 of file No. 13, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM).
3. Original of the document called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise No. 96 8008703, dated 6/8/96 and proof of payment of the same date, added to pages 24 and 23 of folder No. 13 respectively, issued by the shipping and commercial company Delfino SA in the name of Hardeal, by which the delivery of the container arrived at the port of Buenos Aires to the last mentioned firm as owner of the merchandise is accredited, as well as the payment of the freight by the same.
4. Original and photocopy of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 9/8/96, added to pages 10 and 11 of folder No. 13, which contains the details of the container, vehicle used and driver for the respective transport from the port terminal to the Lingas bonded warehouse.

5. Photocopy of the customs document called TLAT, No. 011005J, dated August 7, 1996, which appears attached to pages 5/7 of folder No. 13, in which the identification of the container referred to is noted for the purpose of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
6. Original and photocopy of invoice No. 0009-00005602, dated 13/8/96 -pages 17 and 18 of folder No. 13-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Hardeal SRL as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container.
7. Original and photocopy of the internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure from said site of the referred container dated August 13, 1996 (see pages 3 and 4, respectively, of folder No. 13), through customs instrument No. 546/96 -see specifically the box: Imp. Dispatch No.-.
8. Photocopy of the note sent by the company Hardeal SRL to the firm Murchinson SA, added to page 9 of file no. 13, in which the transfer of the referred container to the headquarters of said fiscal warehouse is requested.
9. Original and photocopy of receipt No. 14261 of delivery of the container in question, which appears on pages 18/19 of folder No. 13, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued to the company Hardeal SRL, which states the date of entry 9/8/96 - and the days of storage four - of the container in question in the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
10. Photocopy of the list of containers existing in the firm Murchison SA consigned in the name of Hardeal SRL, from which it can be seen that on August 9, 1996, the container in question entered the headquarters of that firm, leaving on the 13th of the same month and year (see page 22 of folder No. 13).

11. Photocopy of the delivery document for the container in question (Gate Out), which appears on page 21 of folder No. 13, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Hardeal, which shows the departure of the container from the headquarters of the fiscal warehouse dated August 13, 1996, through customs document No. 546/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
12. Original of the note dated August 5, 1996, signed by a managing partner of the company Hardeal SRL whose signature is certified by authorities of Banco Bansud - which was addressed to the shipping and trading company Delfino SA. Through this, the aforementioned company confirms the transfer at its own expense and risk of the container IEAU 412.752-7 to the warehouse it owns at Pte. Sarmiento 1230 in the town of Avellaneda, Province of Buenos Aires, for the purposes of its deconsolidation (see pages 25/26 of folder No. 13).
13. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5775 of the main files a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in August 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 546/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to 4 pallets containing electronic musical instruments and accessories, consigned in the name of IMPORT MUSIC, destined for the Gualeguaychú customs office.

14. Testimonial statement by Eduardo Alberto Turina, given during the debate, in which he stated that he transported the IEAU 412.752-7 container in his truck from the TCO bonded warehouse to Rawson Street 631 in this city, charging the sum of $100 for said transport and that he was hired by Juan Carlos Ortíz.

J. Entry into the country of containers LIFU 235.007-2, LIFU 235.002-5, LIFU 235.031-3, LIFU 235.018-2 and TEXU 373.341-7 (Fact No. 12)

It is reliably proven that on August 2, 1996, the containers LIFU 235.002-5, LIFU 235.007-2, LIFU 235.018-2, LIFU 235. 031-3 and TEXU 373.341-7, which contained men's clothing, entered the national territory under the house to house condition, aboard the vessel Paraguay Feeder, being identified by cargo manifest No. 051167G and bill of lading No. UYMVD96MOBU019; consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, and deposited at the Exolgán port terminal.
On August 9, 1996, by means of TLAT 010926V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On August 14, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 553/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.

However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. A fax copy and two photocopies of the bill of lading No. 96MOBU 019 (page 1/3 of file No. 12), dated August 1, 1996, which states that the company Lineas Feeder received from Miguel A. Roverano in the port of Montevideo, Uruguay, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, the following containers: LIFU 235.007-2, LIFU 235.002-5, LIFU 235.031-3, LIFU 235.018-2 and TEXU 373.341-7, consigned to the name of Furtex SRL, which contained, respectively, the following merchandise: 383 boxes of men's pants; 120 boxes of men's jackets; 119 boxes of men's jackets; 112 boxes of men's jackets and 243 boxes of men's shirts, with a total weight of 13,590 kg.
2. Sheet fs. 60/63 of folder No. 12, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Original of invoice No. 71592, dated 7/8/96, added to page 4 of folder No. 12, issued by the firm Exolgan SA to the company Furtex SRL for the service of loading, unloading and delivery of containers.

4. Triplicates of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 9/8/96, added to pages 12/14 of folder No. 12, which contain the data of the containers, vehicles used and drivers, for the respective transports from the Exolgan SA port terminal to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
5. Customs document called TLAT, No. 010926U, dated August 7, 1996, which appears attached to pages 17/18 of folder No. 12, in which the identification of the five containers referred to is noted for the purpose of documenting their transfers to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
6. Original of invoice No. 0009-00005628, dated 14/8/96 -page 28 of folder No. 12-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Furtex SRL as payment for the transfer and delivery of five containers.
7. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure from said site of the five containers referred to on August 14, 1996 (see page 15 of folder No. 12), through customs instrument No. 553/96 -see specifically the box: Imp. Dispatch No.-.
8. Receipts for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA Nos. 493598, 493599, 493635, 493638 and 493640, from which it can be seen that the five containers referred to left the Fiscal warehouse on 14/8/96 (see pages 45/50 of folder No. 12)

9. Original of receipt No. 14268 of delivery of the five containers in question, which appears on page 29 of folder No. 12, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued to the company Furtex SRL, which states the date of entry 9/8/96 - and exit 14/8/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
10. Original of the fax and photocopies thereof, sent by the company Furtex SRL to the firm Murchison SA, attached to pages 25 and 11 and 26/27 respectively - of file no. 12, in which the transfer of the referred containers to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
11. Documents on container consultation in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 21, 1996, the containers in question recorded as their last movement the entry to the fiscal warehouse on 9/8/96, without mentioning any exit (see pages 31 and 64, respectively, of folder No. 12).
12. List of containers existing in the firm Murchison SA consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, from which the entry of the containers in question and the data relating to them can be seen (see pages 56/57 of file No. 12).
13. Originals of the five documents of delivery of the containers in question (Gate Out), which appear on pages 51/55 of folder No. 12, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Furtex SRL, in which the respective withdrawals from the warehouse headquarters on August 14, 1996 are recorded, using customs document No. 553/96 (see boxes for the dispatch number).

K. Entry into the country of the container MOLU 214.028-6 (Fact No. 17)

It has been reliably proven that on August 9, 1996, the container MOLU 214.028-6, containing general clothing, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions, aboard the vessel DG Columbia, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 052987R and bill of lading No. CHSHA400142544; consigned to the order of Carlos Meta, and was deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On August 14, 1996, by means of TLAT 011302J, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On August 16, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal customs document No. 557/96, by virtue of which a certain customs destination is simulated in order to evade definitive customs controls and achieve the nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container was not the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond ignoring the same, the introduction of the merchandise in question into the market has been carried out by evading the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service on the entry of merchandise into the country.

The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Fax copy of bill of lading no. 400142544 (page 1 of folder no. 17), which states that the company Mitsui OSK Lines, Ltd. receives at the port of Shanghai, China, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, container MOLU 214.028-6, consigned to order, which contained 230 boxes of men's shirts, with a gross weight of 6.440 kg. On pages 14, 15 and 16 of the aforementioned folder, three photocopies of the aforementioned document appear attached.
2. Original copies of invoices Nos. 53014 and 9359, both dated August 12, 1996, issued by the firm BACTSSA, which certify payment for the transport service, cargo storage and door-to-door passage of said container, as well as its return (see respectively pages 5/6 and 9 of folder No. 17).
3. Original copy of the document called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise No. 21758, dated 6/8/96, added to page 10 of folder No. 17, issued by the maritime agency Sudocean SA, by which the delivery of the container arrived at the port of Buenos Aires to the owner of the merchandise is accredited.

4. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 14/8/96, added to pages 37 and 12, respectively, of folder No. 17, which contain the details of the container, vehicle used and driver for the respective transport from the port terminal to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
5. Customs document called TLAT, No. 011302 J, dated August 12, 1996, which appears attached to pages 24/25 of folder No. 17, in which the identification of the container referred to is noted for the purpose of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
6. Original of the first page of the fax dated August 12, 1996, sent from telephone number 394-0604 (Stellium SRL) by Ramón Carlos Meta to the firm Murchison SA, added to page 44 of folder no. 17, with photocopies on page 45, in which the transfer of the aforementioned container to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested. Together with said note, the bill of lading was sent by the same means, with page number 02 appearing on the lower left corner (see page 1 of folder no. 17).
7. Original and photocopy of invoice No. 0009-00005697, dated 16/8/96 -pages 20 and 21 respectively of folder No. 17-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of Carlos Meta as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container.
8. Original of the internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure from said site of the referred container dated August 16, 1996 (see pages 23 of folder No. 17), through customs instrument No. 557/96 -see specifically the box: Imp. Dispatch No.-.

9. Original and photocopy of receipt No. 14243 of delivery of the container in question, which appears on pages 42 and 43 respectively of folder No. 17, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued in the name of Carlos Meta, which shows the date of entry 14/8/96 - and exit 16/8/96 - of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
10. Certified photocopy of the list of containers existing in the firm Murchison SA consigned in the name of Carlos Meta - the original of which is on page 40 of folder No. 14 - from which it can be seen that on August 14, 1996 the container in question entered the headquarters of that firm, leaving on August 16 of the same year (see page 46 of folder No. 17).
11. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry to the fiscal warehouse on 14/8/96-, without mentioning any exit (see page 29 of folder No. 17).

12. Report submitted by the Safekeeping Division of the former National Customs Administration, which includes on page 5835 of the main file a true copy of the only customs document that the aforementioned agency had on file in August 1996, the date on which the container in question was removed from Murchison - with identification number 557/96, corresponding to a MIC/DTA linked to container MOLU 808.852-3 which contained 689 boxes of electronic devices, consigned to order, destined for the Paso de los Libres customs office (Posadas) - see notice added on page 5836.

L. Entry into the country of container APMU 273.897-0 (Fact No. 22)

It is reliably proven that on August 26, 1996, container APMU 273.897-0, containing 434 boxes of computer parts, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions aboard the vessel TRSL Tenacious. It was identified by cargo manifest No. 057602G and bill of lading No. MIA603116; consigned in the name of Hardeal, and was deposited at the Exolgan port terminal.
On August 30, 1996, by means of TLAT 012568B, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 5, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 349/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.

However, the actual destination of the container did not turn out to be the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond being ignored, this circumstance implies an introduction into the market of the merchandise in question without the exercise of the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Photocopy of the bill of lading No. 000474015 (page 1 of folder No. 22), dated August 10, 1996, which states that the company Maersk Line received in the port of Miami, United States, to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires, the container APMU 273.897-0, consigned in the name of Hardeal SRL, which contained 434 boxes of computer parts.
2. Certified copy of the document called Single Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise, dated 28/8/96, added to page 5 of folder No. 22, issued by the shipping and commercial company Maersk Line in the name of Hardeal, by which the delivery of the container arrived at the port of Buenos Aires is accredited, to the last mentioned company as the owner of the merchandise.
3. Photocopy of the note sent by the company Hardeal SRL to the firm Murchison SA, dated 30/8/96, added to page 24.631 of the main proceedings, in which the transfer of the aforementioned container to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.

4. Photocopy of the customs document called TLAT, No. 012568B, dated August 30, 1996, which appears attached to pages 24.633/634 of the main proceedings, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through it the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse was carried out.
5. Photocopy of invoice No. 0009-00006202, dated 5/9/96 - page 24.638 of the main proceedings, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Hardeal SRL as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
6. Photocopy of receipt No. 14299 for delivery of the container in question, which appears on page 24.637 of the main proceedings, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued to the company Hardeal SRL, which shows the date of entry 3/9/96 and the date of exit 5/9/96 of the container in question from the aforementioned bonded warehouse.
7. Photocopy of the delivery document for the container in question (Gate Out), which appears on page 11 of folder No. 22, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Hardeal, which shows the departure of the container from the headquarters of the fiscal warehouse dated September 5, 1996, through customs document No. 349/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
8. Photocopy of the internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site through customs document 0349/96 (see pages 24.637 of the main files).
9. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 349/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 7/8 of file No. 22.

10. Original receipt for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA, which shows that the container in question left the Fiscal warehouse on 5/9/96 (see pages 9 of file No. 22), using the truck identified with license plate SBC 494 and tractor No. RHF 461.
11. Photocopy of the maritime import manifest No. 057602G, added to page 2 of folder No. 22, which includes, among the various knowledge items, the one corresponding to the container APMU 273.897-0, entered into national territory under the house to house condition, also observing that no transit or transshipment has been declared.
12. Certified copy of the transshipment request No. 349/96 sent by Customs (see pages 17/24 of file No. 22), from which it can be seen that through said document the land transit to Córdoba of merchandise consisting of auto parts belonging to the company Ciadea SA was instrumented.
13. Testimonial statement by Aníbal Hugo Rodríguez, given during the course of the debate, in which he stated, once the transfer request No. 349 was exhibited, glossed on pages 7/8 of file No. 22, that neither the signature nor the stamp stamped on it belonged to him; clarifying with respect to it that although there are imitative features, it is nevertheless quite different from his own.

14. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

LL. Entry into the country of container CRXU 295.643-6 (Fact No. 5)

It has been reliably proven that on August 28, 1996, container CRXU 295.643-6, containing general clothing items, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions aboard the vessel Argentina Star. It was identified by cargo manifest No. 057084K and bill of lading No. FRLEH10FLEBU; consigned in the name of Saint Honore SACFIA and deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On August 30, 1996, by means of TLAT 012736V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 6, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 355/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.

1. Photocopy of the bill of lading No. 10FLEBU (page 1 of folder No. 5), where the company Euresa reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container CRXU 295.643-6, consigned in the name of Saint Honoré SACFIA, which contained 122 boxes of general clothing, weighing 2348 kg, from the port FRLEH-Le Havre.
2. Summary statement on container consultation recorded on page 37 of folder No. 5, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number and the maritime import manifest.
3. Original of the document called Unique Authorization for Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise of the Delfino SA Shipping and Commercial Agency, which states the receipt of the container in question on behalf of and by order of the consignee Saint Honoré SACFIA (see pages 11 of folder No. 5).
4. Originals of invoice No. 56385, dated 2/9/96, issued by the firm Bactssa SA, which confirms payment for the transport services, cargo storage and door passage of the referred container.

5. Customs document named TLAT No. 012736V, which appears attached to pages 3/5 of folder No. 5, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas warehouse.
6. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (see pages 26 and 14, respectively, of folder No. 5).
7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006253, dated 9/9/96 (page 10 of folder No. 5), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Saint Honoré SAC as payment for the storage of the container in question.
8. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 355/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 15/16 of file No. 5.
9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site on 6/9/96 (see pages 19 of folder No. 5).
10. Equipment exchange receipt No. 14.340, which shows that the container in question left the Lingas Fiscal warehouse on 6/9/96, in a truck belonging to the company OSPAQ, identified with license plate RAU 120-RKF 046 (see pages 17 of file No. 5).

11. Receipt of delivery of the container, No. 14.423 dated 6/9/96, which appears on page 29 of folder No. 5, issued by the Lingas warehouse to the Saint Honoré company, in which telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.
12. Photocopies of the note dated 2/9/96 sent by the firm Saint Honoré SA to Murchison SA, requesting the transfer of the container from the terminal to the Lingas headquarters (see pages 12 and 13 of folder No. 5).
13. Original of the aforementioned note, which appears attached to page 30 of folder no. 5.
14. Two summary statements regarding container consultation in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 18, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see pages 34 and 38 of file No. 5).
15. List of containers obtained from Murchison dated 15/10/96, which includes the data relating to the container in question, as well as the date of entry and exit from said bonded warehouse.
16. Container delivery document (Gate Out), found on page 31 of folder No. 5, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Saint Honoré SAC, which records the removal of the aforementioned container.

17. Original of the duplicate of the consignment note No. 4027 of the company OSPAQ in which the loading in the TCO warehouse of the container CRXU 6-9 and its transport to the recipient is documented on 96/295.643/6, appearing as such the company Saint Honoré SAC with address at Rawson 300 of this city.
18. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
19. Testimonial statement by Aníbal Hugo Rodríguez, given during the course of the debate, in which he stated, once the transfer request No. 355 was exhibited, glossed on pages 15/16 of file No. 5, that neither the signature nor the stamp stamped on it belonged to him; clarifying with respect to it that although there are imitative features, it is nevertheless quite different from his own.
20. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

21. Statement by Claudio Juan Quinteros, given during the debate, who as driver for the OSPAQ firm stated that he drove the Mercedes Benz truck identified with license plate RAU 120, chassis RKF 146 that was transporting the container in question from the TCO bonded warehouse to Rawson Street 631 in this city, delivering it to a person with the surname Ponce, as stated in the consignment note No. 4027 which is added to page 36 of folder No. 5, which was shown to him, the declarant recognizing his signature in the box "received in conformity."
22. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that when he went to the TCO bonded warehouse he was able to observe a red Mercedes Benz truck, license plate RAU 120, with the inscriptions OSPAQ SRL transports, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 631 Rawson Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 98/103, he recognized them as those he had extracted at the time; they record the circumstances described above.

M. Transfer Request No. 347 (Fact No. 27).

It is clearly established that on August 22, 1996, forty packages entered national territory aboard the steamer Namaz, identified by bill of lading and port No. CWS9607004 IIOOO; consigned in the name of Chang Hang Joon.
On September 4, 1996, through TLAT 012044V, the aforementioned packages were transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).

On September 5, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 347/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalizing the transported merchandise.
However, the actual destination of the goods was not the one indicated in the aforementioned request, and beyond the fact that it was ignored, this circumstance implies the introduction of the goods in question into the market without the exercise of the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of goods into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 347/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of 40 boxes containing fabrics from the Lingas bonded warehouse destined for the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to page 1/2 of folder No. 27.
2. Document proving the delivery of the packages (under LCL condition), which appears on page 3 of folder No. 27, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued in the name of Chang Hang Joon; from which it can be seen that the forty packages were extracted from the aforementioned bonded warehouse, through transfer request 347/96, dated 5/9/96, also listing the carrier and the license plate of the tractor used for this purpose.

2. Certified copy of the transshipment request No. 347/96 sent by Customs (see pages 9/16 of file No. 27), from which it can be seen that through said document the land transit to Córdoba of merchandise consisting of auto parts belonging to the company Ciadea SA was instrumented.
3. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
4. Testimonial statement by Aníbal Hugo Rodríguez, given during the course of the debate, in which he stated, once the transfer request No. 347 was exhibited, glossed on pages 1/2 of file No. 27, that neither the signature nor the stamp stamped on it belonged to him; clarifying with respect to it that although there are imitative features, it is nevertheless quite different from his own.
5. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

N. Entry into the country of container MOLU 011.072-3 (Fact No. 4)

It has been reliably proven that on September 4, 1996, the container MOLU 011.072-3, containing 300 boxes of shirts, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Tropical Challenger, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 061774L and bill of lading No. CHSHA 400142763; consigned to order and deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On September 10, 1996, by means of TLMD 003181L, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 12, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 0368/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 625 Herrera Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading Nos. CHSHA 400142763, (page 1 of file No. 4), where the company Mitsu OSK Lines, Ltd. reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of the container in question, consigned to the order although it appears as Carlos Moto-, which contained a total of 300 boxes of shirts (65% Polyester and 35% Cotton), coming from Shanghai, China.

2. Sheets on pages 64 and 66 of folder No. 4, which show the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading numbers.
3. Originals of invoices/receipts Nos. 33304/05 of the Maritime Agency Sudocean SA, issued in the name of Carlos Meta, which prove payment for the transfer of the containers from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 44 and 45 of folder No. 4).
4. Originals of invoices Nos. 57715/16 issued by the firm Bactssa SA, which appear on pages 42 and 43 of file No. 4, by means of which the corresponding payments for the services of transport, storage of cargo and door passage of two containers among which is the aforementioned one, by the port terminal are accredited.
5. Customs document named TLMD No. 003181L, which appears added to pages 3/5 of folder No. 4, where the identification of two containers is noted - the one in question is present here - for the purpose of documenting their respective transfers to the Lingas warehouse.
6. Document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicles used to transport them and the signatures of the drivers who transported them to the Lingas warehouse (page 25 of folder No. 4).

7. Original of the apocryphal transshipment request No. 368/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of container MOLU 011.072-3 from the Lingas bonded warehouse bound for the Córdoba customs office, with its corresponding route sheets; which appears added on pages 8/9 of folder No. 4.
8. Two internal documents from the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, dated 12/9/96, which show the departure of the container in question from the aforementioned warehouse (see page 14 of folder No. 4).
9. Receipts for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA, Nos. 16.125 and 16.126, which appear on pages 20/21 and 22 of folder No. 4, which show the departures of the containers removed by trucks: RRZ 343/RHF 461 (container MOLU 011.072-3) and V008.817/SFV 410 (container MOLU 007.134-0).
10. Delivery document for the container in question (Gate Out), which appears on page 37 of folder No. 4, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Carlos Meta, which contains the number of the transfer request submitted to customs for the removal of the container from the aforementioned warehouse - see box for dispatch number.
11. Original of the note dated 9/9/96, by virtue of which Carlos Meta appears requesting Murchison to transfer the container in question from the port terminal to the bonded warehouse, which appears added to page 40 of folder no. 4.
12. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), from which it is clear that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 18, 1996, the last movement was recorded as the entry to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see pages 64/65 of folder No. 4).

13. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
14. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse he was able to observe a Chevrolet truck, license plate RRZ 343, with a RHF 461 semi-trailer, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 625 Herrera Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 116/117 and 119/121, he recognized them as those he had extracted at the time; they record the circumstances described above.
15. Testimonial statement by Mario Oscar Santos Laya, given during the debate, who stated that he was the owner of a Chevrolet truck, license plate RRZ 343, which was driven by a person with the surname Vallejos; that he was asked for two trucks to carry out container transfers, so he sent two trucks, one of his own and one belonging to his partner Loisi; that he knows that the means of transport referred to carried containers from the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse in the Barracas area; that the documentation was kept by the custody and that at the location the merchandise was loaded onto vans.

16. Testimonial statement by Edgardo Rubén Loisi, given during the debate, who said that he shared the office with Santos Laya; that on one occasion the trucks of both -Cattáneo is his driver- made a trip from TCO to a place that he later learned was on Herrera Street.
17. Testimonial statement by Carlos Alberto Cattáneo, given during the debate, who stated that he was Loisi's driver, clarifying that on the day they transported the two containers, because the merchandise was unloaded very late, the empty containers were returned to TCO the following day.
18. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 4, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 8 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
19. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

Entry into the country of container MOLU 007.134-0 (Fact No. 4)

It has been reliably proven that on September 4, 1996, the container MOLU 007.134-0, containing 300 boxes of shirts, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Tropical Challenge, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 061774L and bill of lading No. CHSHA 400142855; consigned to order, and deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On September 10, 1996, by means of TLMD 003181L, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 12, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 0369/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 625 Herrera Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. CHSHA 400142855 (page 2 of folder No. 4), where the company Mitsu OSK Lines, Ltd. reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of the container in question, consigned to order although it appears as Carlos Moto-, which contained a total of 300 boxes of shirts (65% Polyester and 35% Cotton), coming from Shanghai, China.

2. Sheet on pages 66/67 of folder No. 4, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM).
3. Originals of invoices/receipts Nos. 33304/05 of the Maritime Agency Sudocean SA, issued in the name of Carlos Meta, which prove payment for the transfer of the container from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 44 and 45 of folder No. 4).
4. Originals of invoices Nos. 57715/16 issued by the firm Bactssa SA, which appear on pages 42 and 43 of folder No. 4, by means of which the corresponding payments for the transport services, cargo storage and door passage of the container in question, by the port terminal, are accredited.
5. Customs document named TLMD No. 003181L, which appears attached to pages 3/5 of folder No. 4, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its respective transfers to the Lingas warehouse.
6. Document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the signature of the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (page 26 of folder No. 4).
7. Original of the apocryphal transshipment request No. 369/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of container MOLU 007.134-0 from the Lingas bonded warehouse bound for the Córdoba customs office, with its corresponding route sheet; which appears added on pages 11/12 of folder No. 4.

8. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, dated 12/9/96, which shows the departure of the container in question from the aforementioned warehouse (see page 15 of folder No. 4).
9. Receipts for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA, Nos. 16.125 and 16.126, which appear on pages 20/21 and 22 of folder No. 4, which show the departures of the containers removed by trucks: RRZ 343/RHF 461 (container MOLU 011.072-3) and V008.817/SFV 410 (container MOLU 007.134-0).
10. Two copies of the document for the delivery of the containers in question (Gate Out), which appear on pages 13 and 67bis of folder No. 4, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Carlos Meta, in which the number of the transfer request submitted to customs for the removal of the container from the aforementioned warehouse appears - see box for Dispatch No. -.
11. Original of the note dated 9/9/96, by virtue of which Carlos Meta appears requesting Murchison to transfer the container in question from the port terminal to the bonded warehouse, which appears added to page 41 of folder no. 4.
12. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), from which it is clear that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 18, 1996, the last movement was recorded as the entry to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see pages 66/67 of folder No. 4).

13. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
14. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse he was able to observe a Fiat 619 truck, license plate V008.814, with a SFV 410 semi-trailer, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 625 Herrera Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 118/120, he recognized them as those he had extracted at the time; they record the circumstances described above.
15. Testimonial statement by Mario Oscar Santos Laya, given during the debate, who stated that he was the owner of a Chevrolet truck, license plate RRZ 343, which was driven by a person with the surname Vallejos; that he was asked for two trucks to carry out container transfers, so he sent two trucks, one of his own and one belonging to his partner Loisi; that he knows that the means of transport referred to carried containers from the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse in the Barracas area; that the documentation was kept by the custody and that at the location the merchandise was loaded onto vans.

16. Testimonial statement by Edgardo Rubén Loisi, given during the debate, who said that he shared the office with Santos Laya; that on one occasion the trucks of both -Cattáneo is his driver- made a trip from TCO to a place that he later learned was on Herrera Street.
17. Testimonial statement by Carlos Alberto Cattáneo, given during the debate, who stated that he was Loisi's driver, clarifying that on the day they transported the two containers, because the merchandise was unloaded very late, the empty containers were returned to TCO the following day.
18. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 4, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 11 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
19. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

O. Entry into the country of container TOLU 391.385-4 (Fact No. 3)

It is conclusively proven that on September 4, 1996, the container TOLU 391.385-4, containing 873 rolls of fabric, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel YO, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 060618H and bill of lading No. TWCILQLF086KEEBUE511; consigned in the name of Textil Pagoda San Luis SA, and was deposited at the Exolgan port terminal.
On September 11, 1996, by means of TLAT 013167U, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 12, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 0372/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 449 Zañartú Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. TWCILQLF086KEEBUE511 (pages 1 and 2 of folder No. 3), where the company Platex International Trading CO. LTD. reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container TOLU 391.385-4, consigned in the name of Textil Pagoda San Luis SA, which contained a total of 873 rolls of fabric (96/4% Polyester), weighing 16.707 kg.

2. Original INVOICE from the company Platex International Trading CO., LTD., dated 2/8/96, detailing the quantity and type of merchandise transported on the ship âYO from Taiwan bound for Buenos Aires.
3. Sheet on page 42 of folder No. 3, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
4. Official receipt No. 1224 from the company Mercomar, issued in the name of Saint Honoré SA, which certifies the collection of the demurrage of the container in question from 11/9/96 to 14/9/96 (see pages 38 and 39 of folder No. 3).
5. List of containers by Terminal Number Río de la Plata SA, from which the entry of the container in question arises.
6. Original invoice No. 0001-00118426 dated 10/9/96, issued by the company Terminales Río de la Plata SA, which confirms payment for the stowage service corresponding to the container in question.
7. Customs document called TLAT No. 013167U, which appears attached to page 3/4 of folder No. 3, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas warehouse.

8. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (pages 19 and 7, respectively, of folder No. 3).
9. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006410, dated 12/9/96 (page 6 of folder No. 3), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Textil Pagoda as payment for the storage of the container in question.
10. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 372/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 11/12 of file No. 3.
11. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site on 12/9/96 (see pages 13 of folder No. 3).
12. Document from the firm Murchison SA, used to return the container once the transported merchandise was unloaded, which shows that it was removed by truck AQY 207, chassis No. AFS 922 (see pages 17 and 18 of folder No. 3).
13. Document certifying the delivery of container TOLU 391.385-4 (Gate Out), which appears on page 21 of folder No. 3, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the Textile Pagoda company, which also contains the license plate numbers of the tractor and semi-used vehicle AQY 207 and AFS 922, respectively, for the purpose of transporting the aforementioned container.

14. Original of the Fax sent by the firm Textil Pagoda San Luis SA, from telephone number 394-0604, to Murchison SA, where, dated 9/9/96, the transfer of the container from the port terminal to the Lingas headquarters is requested (see page 25 of folder No. 3, a photocopy of which appears on page 26 of the same folder).
15. Original of the note that gave rise to the fax mentioned above and which appears attached to page 36 of folder no. 3.
16. List of containers housed in the Murchison SA Tax Warehouse and consigned in the name of Textil Pagoda, dated 15/10/96, from which the existence of the container in question arises.
17. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see page 42 of folder No. 3).
18. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.

19. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse he was able to observe a Mercedes Benz truck, license plate AQY 207, with semi-trailer AFS 922, leaving the place, which carried the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 449 Zañartú Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 110/113, he recognized them as those he had extracted at the time; they record the circumstances described above.
20. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 3, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 11 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
21. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

P. Entry into the country of container KNLU 256.214-2 (Fact No. 8)

It is conclusively proven that on September 9, 1996, the container KNLU 256.214-2, containing 1.233 rolls of fabric, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Nedlloyd Van Rees, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 061470E and bill of lading No. II000SELEG591; consigned in the name of Alspac Transporte Internacional LTD, and was deposited at the BACTSSA port terminal.

On September 12, 1996, by means of TLAT 013282S, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 16, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 376/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 1429 Lisandro de la Torre Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. SELEG 591 (page 1 of folder No. 8), where the company Nedlloyd reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container KNLU 256.214-2, consigned to the order of ALSPAQ TRANSPORTE INTERNACIONAL LTDA., which contained a total of 1.233 rolls of fabric, weighing 10.032 kg, coming from the port of Pulsan, Korea.
2. Sheet on page 51 of folder No. 8, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.

3. Proof of single authorization for delivery of containers and/or merchandise, No. 11293 from the Maritime Agency Dodero SA, issued in the name of ALSPAC TRANSPORTE INTERNACIONAL LTD, which certifies the presentation of the relevant original documentation by the latter company in order to remove the container in question (see page 10 of folder No. 8).
4. Original of invoice No. 58109 issued by the firm BACTSSA, which confirms payment for the transport service, cargo storage and door passage of said container, from the ship to the port terminal (see page 6 of folder No. 8).
5. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, attached to pages 28 and 13 respectively, of folder No. 8, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse.
6. Customs document called TLAT, No. 013282S, which appears attached to pages 2/3 of folder No. 8, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006507, dated 16/9/96 (page 9 of folder No. 8), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company ALSPAC TRANSPORTE INTERNACIONAL LTD as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.

8. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 376/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 14/15 of file No. 8.
9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated September 16, 1996 (see page 16 of folder No. 8).
10. Receipt for exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 17231, from which it is clear that the container in question left the Fiscal warehouse on 16/9/96 (see pages 24/25 of folder No. 8)
11. Receipt of delivery of the container, No. 14.463, which appears on page 33 of folder No. 8, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the company ALSPAC TRANSPORT., in which telephone No. 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.
12. Copy of the Fax sent by the firm Textil Once from telephone number 394-0604, to Murchison SA, where, dated 10/9/96, the transfer of the container to the Lingas warehouse headquarters is requested (see page 12 of folder No. 8).
13. Original of the note that gave rise to the fax mentioned above and which appears attached to page 11 of folder no. 8.

14. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse 12/9/96-, without mentioning any exit (see page 38 of folder No. 8).
15. Container delivery document (Gate Out), which appears on page 39 of folder No. 8, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued in the name of the consignee ALSPAC TRANSPORTES, which records the withdrawal of the aforementioned container through the transfer request No. 376/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
16. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
17. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse, he was able to observe a truck with semi-truck C835227 leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 1429 Lisandro de la Torre Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 125/131, he recognized them as those he had extracted at the appropriate time; the circumstances described above being recorded in them.

18. Testimonial statement by Rubén Sergio Pireda, given during the debate, in which he stated that he had worked for Transportes Carfi; that he drove a Ford 700 truck, currently identified by license plate BNT 556; that on September 16, 1996, he made a trip transporting a container from the headquarters of the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse located in the Mataderos neighborhood, where a textile factory operated.
19. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.
20. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 8, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 14 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.

Q. Entry into the country of the TEXU container 469.815-7 (Fact No. 26)

It has been reliably proven that on September 5, 1996, the container TEXU 469.815-7, containing 1.342 boxes of cosmetics, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the ship Plata Feeder, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 061173E and bill of lading No. UYMVD96MOBU038; consigned in the name of Tarsell SA and deposited at the Exolgan port terminal.

On September 16, 1996, by means of TLAT 013171P, the aforementioned container was transferred to the fiscal warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO), from which it was never removed.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original and copies of the bill of lading No. 96MOBU038 (page 1/3 of folder No. 26), where the company Líneas Feeder reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of the container TEXU 469.815-7 consigned in the name of Tersell SA, which contained a total of 1.342 boxes of cosmetics, weighing 9.195 kg, from the city of Montevideo.
2. Originals of invoice No. 0007 00000650 dated 6/9/96 -see pages 27/28 of folder No. 26- and receipt No. 0003-00047444 of the same date, corresponding to that invoice, pages 29 of the aforementioned folder-; both documents issued by the maritime agency Robinson SACF, in the name of Tarsell SA, which confirms the debit made by the aforementioned maritime agency on behalf of and at the order of Lineas Feeder SA for the river freight of the container in question.
3. Photocopy of invoices Nos. 79168, 79169 and 79172 issued by the firm Exolgan SA, which certifies payment for the unloading, loading and administrative expenses of the container in question (see pages 22, 23 and 21 respectively, of folder No. 26).

4. Customs document called TLAT, No. 013171P, which appears added to pages 19/20 of folder No. 26, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
5. List of containers existing in the firm Murchison SA consigned in the name of Tarsell SA, from which the container in question and the data relating to it can be seen (see page 26 of file No. 26).
6. Original and fax of the note sent by the company Tarsell SA to the firm Murchinson SA, added to pages 31 and 24 of file no. 26, in which the transfer of container TEXU 469.815-7 is requested.

R. Entry into container SCZU 555.416-2 (Fact No. 9)

It is conclusively proven that on September 12, 1996, container SCZU 555.416-2, containing 2.400 sets of sheets, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Paraná Feeder, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 062739N and bill of lading No. UYMVD96MOBU036; consigned in the name of Furtex SRL and deposited at the Exolgan SA port terminal.
On September 12, 1996, through TLAT 013440Y, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (exT.CO).

On September 18, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 381/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 1247 Aguirre Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. 96MOBU036 (page 1 of file No. 9), where the company Líneas Feeder reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container SCZU 555.416-2, consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, which contained a total of 98 rolls of fabric and 97 boxes of textile remnants, weighing 16.359 kg, from the city of Montevideo.
2. Photocopy of the form on pages 6/7 and summary declaration on pages 21 of folder No. 9, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.

3. Invoice No. 651 from the Robinson Maritime Agency, issued in the name of Furtex SRL, which certifies payment for the transfer of the container from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 57/58 of folder No. 1, and certified photocopy on pages 45/46 of folder No. 9).
4. Original of invoice No. 79165 appearing on page 16 of folder No. 1, whose certified photocopy appears on page 15 - issued by the firm Exolgan SA, where payment for the unloading of said container from the ship to the port terminal is accredited.
5. Original of the customs document called TLAT, which appears attached to pages 12/14 of folder No. 1 and certified photocopy found on pages 11/14 of folder No. 9, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
6. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (pages 33 and 23, respectively, of folder No. 9).
7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006580, dated 18/9/96 (page 35 of folder No. 9), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Furtex SRL as payment for the storage of the container in question.
8. Original of the apocryphal transshipment request No. 381/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added on pages 24/25 of file No. 9.

9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site on 18/9/96 (see pages 26 of folder No. 9).
10. Equipment exchange receipt No. 17.807, which shows that the container in question left the Lingas Fiscal warehouse on 18/9/96, in a truck identified with license plate RGO 796-SBS 515 (see pages 30 and 31 of file No. 9).
11. Original of the container delivery receipt, No. 14572, dated 18/9/96, which appears on page 36 of folder No. 9, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the company Furtex SRL, in which the telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.
12. Photocopy of the Fax sent by the firm Furtex SRL and from telephone number 394-0604, to Murchison SA, where, on 12/9/96, the transfer of the container from Exolgán to Lingas is requested (see pages 37 and 38 of folder No. 9).
13. Original of the note that gave rise to the fax mentioned above and which appears attached to page 53 of folder no. 1.
14. Summary statements on container consultation in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see pages 21 and 48 of file No. 9).

15. Container delivery document (Gate Out), which appears on page 39 of folder No. 9, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Furtex SRL, which states the removal of the aforementioned container through transfer request No. 381/96 (see box for dispatch No.).
16. Original of the consignment note No. 4265 of the company OSPAQ in which the loading of the container SCZU 18/9 in the TCO warehouse and its transport to the recipient, Juan Carlos Gómes with address at Aguirre 96 in Capital Federal, is documented on 555.416/2/1247 (see page 47 of folder No. 9).
17. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
18. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse, he was able to observe a white Ford truck, belonging to the OSPAQ transport company, leaving the premises, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 1247 Aguirre Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 138/140, he recognized them as those he had duly removed; they record the circumstances described above.

19. Testimonial statement by Julio Alejandro Zambianchi, given during the debate, in which he stated that he was a driver for Transportes OSPAQ; that he drove a white Ford truck; that on September 18, 1996, he made a trip transporting a container from the headquarters of the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse located on a street that crossed Juan B. Justo Avenue; that this could be Aguirre Street and that he then returned to the company to return the empty container. It should be noted with respect to such testimony that the consignment note cited in point 16 of this document specifies that container SCZU 555.416-2 was transported from TCO to Aguirre Street 1247 by a driver named Alejandro with DNI No. 16.831.437, data that coincide exactly with those of the aforementioned witness.
20. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 9, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 24 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
21. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

S. Entry into the country of container TRIU 401.246-6 (Fact No. 6)

It is fully proven that on September 12, 1996, the container TRIU 401.246-6, containing clothing such as pilots and shirts, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Paraná Feeder, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 062739N and bill of lading No. UYMVD96MOBU038; consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, and was deposited at the Exolgan SA port terminal.
On September 11, 1996, through TLAT 013440Y, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (exT.CO).
On September 19, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 392/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 4271 Sarmiento Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. 96MOBU038 (page 1 of folder No. 6), where the company Líneas Feeder reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container TRIU 401.246-6, consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, which contained 125 boxes of pilots with 3.000 units and 273 boxes of shirts with 8.184 units, with a total weight of 7993 kg, coming from the city of Montevideo.
2. Form on page 11 and summary declaration on page 19 of folder No. 6, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Invoice No. 651 from the Robinson Maritime Agency, issued in the name of Furtex SRL, which certifies payment for the transfer of the container from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 57/58 of folder No. 1, and certified photocopy on pages 53/54 of folder No. 6).
4. Original of invoice No. 79165 appearing on page 16, a photocopy of which appears on page 25, issued by the firm Exolgan SA, which certifies payment for the unloading of said container from the ship to the port terminal.
5. Original of the customs document called TLAT, which appears attached to pages 12/14 of folder No. 1 and certified photocopy found on pages 21/24 of folder No. 6, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas warehouse.

6. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (pages 42 and 33, respectively, of folder No. 6).
7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006612, dated 19/9/96 (page 26 of folder No. 6), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Furtex SRL as payment for the storage of the container in question.
8. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 392/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 34/35 of file No. 6.
9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site on 19/9/96 (see pages 36 of folder No. 6).
10. Equipment exchange receipt No. 18.114, which shows that the container in question left the Lingas Fiscal warehouse on 19/9/96, in a truck from the OSPAQ company, identified with license plate SGU 181-SBS 518 (see pages 8, 40 and 41 of file No. 6).
11. Receipt of delivery of the container, No. 2759, dated 19/9/96, which appears on page 45 of folder No. 6, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the company Furtex SRL, in which telephone No. 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.

12. Photocopy of the Fax sent by the firm Furtex SRL and from telephone number 394-0604, to Murchison SA, where, dated 12/9/96, the transfer of the container from Exolgán to Lingas is requested (see pages 47 and 48 of folder No. 6).
13. Original of the note that gave rise to the fax mentioned above and which appears attached to page 53 of folder no. 1.
14. Summary statements on container consultation in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see pages 31 and 56 of file No. 6).
15. Container delivery document (Gate Out), which appears on page 46 of folder No. 6, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Furtex SRL, which states the removal of the aforementioned container through transfer request No. 392/96 (see box for dispatch No.).
16. Original of the consignment note No. 4093 of the company OSPAQ in which the loading of the container TRIU 19-9 in the TCO warehouse and its transport to the recipient is documented on 96/401.246/6, with the client Arce appearing as such with address in Rawson and Corrientes in Capital Federal and having to be returned empty to Exolgán that same day (see page 55 of folder No. 6).
17. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.

19. Testimonial statement by Leonardo Pablo Moreno, given during the debate, in which he stated that he was a driver for Transportes OSPAQ; that he made a trip transporting a container from the headquarters of the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse located on Rawson Street. It should be noted with respect to such testimony that the consignment note cited in point 16 of this document specifies that the container TRIU 401.246-6 was transported from TCO to Rawson Street by a driver whose signature exactly matches that of the witness in question, a circumstance that is clearly evident from the examination of the signatures that he himself stamped in his statements on pages 2689; 3042/43 and 3479 during the investigative period. Consequently, on the basis that the streets Sarmiento 4271 and Rawson 631 correspond to the same warehouse with exits to two streets; that the witness Moreno carried out a transfer to said place, the date of which he obviously cannot remember at this point; that it was the transport of a container - the details of which cannot be requested either - and, above all, based on the information from the signature already indicated, there is no doubt that Leonardo Pablo Moreno carried out the transfer in question.
20. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 6, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 34 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
21. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

T. Entry into the country of container TRIU 500.108-6 (Fact No. 10)

It has been reliably proven that on September 18, 1996, the container TRIU 500.108-6, containing cosmetics, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Paraguay Feeder, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 064826M and bill of lading No. UYMVD025; consigned in the name of Tarsell SA, and was deposited at the port terminal Exolgan SA.

On September 18, 1996, through TLAT 013881A, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (exT.CO).
On September 23, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 406/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 1077 Conesa Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. 96MOBU025 (page 1 of file No. 10), where the company Líneas Feeder reports the receipt of some packages to be transported to the port of Buenos Aires in container TRIU 500.108-6, consigned in the name of Tersell SA, which contained a total of 633 boxes of cosmetics, weighing 9.402 kg, from the city of Montevideo.
2. Sheet on pages 15/17 of folder No. 10, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.

3. Original of invoice No. 658 dated 18/9/96 -see page 55 of folder No. 10- and receipt No. 0003-00048014 of the same date, corresponding to that invoice - page 56 of the aforementioned folder-; both documents issued by the maritime agency Robinson SACF, in the name of Tarsell SA, which confirms the debit made by the aforementioned maritime agency on behalf of and at the order of Lineas Feeder SA for river freight of the container in question.
4. Original and triplicate of invoice No. 79941 issued by the firm Exolgan SA, which certifies payment for the unloading, loading and administrative expenses of the container in question (see pages 53 and 54 of file No. 10).
5. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, attached to pages 30 and 31 respectively, of folder No. 10, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse.
6. Customs document called TLAT, No. 013881A, which appears added to pages 18/19 of folder No. 10, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006670, dated 23/9/96 (page 25 of folder No. 10), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Tarsell SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.

8. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 406/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 33/34 of file No. 10.
9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated September 23, 1996 (see page 35 of folder No. 10).
10. Receipt for exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 19451, from which it can be seen that the container in question left the tax warehouse on 23/9/96, in a truck with license plate AQY 207 and semi AFS 922 (see pages 38/39 of file No. 10).
11. Duplicate of the container delivery receipt, No. 14.597, appearing on page 44 of folder No. 10, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued to the company Tarsell SA, in which the telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the dispatcher. Also appearing from said document is the date of entry 20/9/96 - and exit 23/9 - of the container in question to and from the bonded warehouse referred to.
12. List of containers existing in the firm Murchison SA consigned in the name of Tarsell SA, from which the container in question and the data relating to it can be seen (see page 49 of file No. 10).
13. Original and photocopy of the note sent by the company Tarsell SA to the firm Murchison SA, added to pages 47 and 48 of file no. 10, in which the transfer of container TRIU 500.108-6 is requested.

14. Two documents on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse on 20/9/96 -, without mentioning any exit (see pages 26 and 63 of folder No. 10).
15. Photocopy of the fax dated 23/9/96, sent by the company Tarsell SA to the Exolgan port terminal, by virtue of which that company informs that it will proceed to return the empty container TRIU 500.108-6, indicating the license plate number of the truck that will transport it, as well as the name of the driver (see page 7 of folder No. 10).
16. Original of the consignment note No. 3794 of the company OSPAQ in which the loading of the container TRIU 23-9 in the TCO warehouse and its transport to the recipient is documented on 96/500.108/6, with the client Arce appearing as such and the recipient with address at Zabala 2844 in Capital Federal, to be returned empty to Exolgán the following day (see page 57 of folder No. 10).
17. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.

18. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse, he was able to observe a white Mercedes Benz truck, identified with license plate AQY 207, belonging to the transport company OSPAQ SRL, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 2840 Zabala Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, after being shown the photographs on pages 149 and back, he recognized them as those he had extracted at the time; they record the circumstances described above.
19. Testimonial statement by Néstor Gabriel Serrano, given during the debate, in which he stated that he was a driver for Transportes OSPAQ; that he drove a white Mercedes Benz 215 truck; that he made trips to various destinations transporting a container from the headquarters of the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse located on Conesa Street. It should be noted with respect to such testimony that the consignment note cited in point 16 of this document specifies that the container TRIU 500.108-6 was transported from TCO to Zabala Street 2844 by a driver named Néstor with DNI No. 18.253.260, data that coincide exactly with those of the aforementioned witness. Likewise, it should be noted that Conesa 1077 and Zabala 2840 streets belong to the same warehouse with exits to two streets.
20. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 10, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 33 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.

21. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

U. Entry into the country of container NDLU 401.290-9 (Fact No. 7)

It is fully proven that on August 22, 1996, container NDLU 401.290-9, containing 2.400 sets of sheets, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions aboard the vessel Nedlloyd Amazonas, identified by cargo manifest No. 013847C and bill of lading No. II00VKHIA0297; consigned in the name of Bercat SA, and deposited at the BACTSSA port terminal.
On August 22, 1996, by means of TLAT 013847C, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 24, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 410/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.

However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 1247 Aguirre Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Fax copy of the bill of lading No. KHIA0297 (page 1 of folder No. 7), where the company Nedlloyd communicates the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container NDLU 401.290-9, consigned to order, which contained textile merchandise (2.456 sets of sheets), weighing 15.631 kg, from the port of Karachi (Japan).
2. Summary declaration on page 48 of folder No. 7, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Three invoices Nos. 131943 and 131944 from the Dodero Maritime Agency, issued in the name of Mois Chami SACI, all dated 18/9/96, which certify payment for the transfer of the container from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 51/56 of folder No. 7).
4. Originals of invoices Nos. 131946 and 132650 of the Dodero Maritime Agency, dated September 18 and 25, 1996, issued to the firm Mois Chami for late fees in the removal of container NDLU-401290/9 (see pages 70/71 of file No. 7).

5. Original invoice No. 59630 issued by the firm BACTSSA, which confirms payment for the transport service, cargo storage and door passage of the container in question, from the ship to the port terminal.
6. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (pages 34 and 35 of folder No. 7).
7. Customs document called TLAT, which appears added on pages 20/21 of folder No. 7, where the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas warehouse.
8. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006694, dated 24/9/96 (page 9 of folder No. 7), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Mois Chami SACI as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
9. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 410/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 14/15 of file No. 7.
10. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site on 24/9/96 (see pages 17 of folder No. 7).

11. Receipt for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 20129, which shows that the container left the Fiscal warehouse in a truck from the company OSPAQ, identified with patent AQY 207 (see pages 31/32 of file No. 7).
12. Receipt of delivery of the container, No. 2813, which appears on page 39 of folder No. 7, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the company Mois Chami SACI, in which telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.
13. Original of the note sent by the firm Bercat SA to Murchison SA, where, dated 18/9/96, the transfer of the container in question to Lingas is requested (see page 45 of folder No. 7).
14. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 18, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (see page 73 of folder No. 7).
15. Container delivery document (Gate Out), which appears on page 16 of folder No. 7, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to Furtex SRL, which states the removal of the aforementioned container through transfer request No. 410/96, in a truck with license plate AQY 207 and semi AFS 922 (see box for dispatch No.).

16. Original of the duplicate of the consignment note No. 3795 of the company OSPAQ in which the loading in the TCO warehouse of the container NDLU 24-9 and its transport to the recipient is documented on 96/401.290/9, appearing as such the firm Mois Chami with address on Aguirre Street in Capital Federal and to be returned empty the next day to terminal No. 5 (see page 68 of folder No. 7).
17. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
18. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse, he was able to observe a white Mercedes Benz truck, identified with the license plate AQY 207, belonging to the transport company OSPAQ SRL, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 1247 Aguirre Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, the photographs on pages 102 back and 103 of the main files were shown to him; he recognized them as those he had extracted at the appropriate time; they record the circumstances described above.

19. Testimonial statement by Néstor Gabriel Serrrano, given during the debate, in which he stated that he was a driver for Transportes OSPAQ; that he drove a white Mercedes Benz 215 truck; that he made trips to various destinations, including to Aguirre Street, transporting a container from the headquarters of the TCO bonded warehouse to a private warehouse located on the aforementioned street. It should be noted with respect to such testimony that the consignment note cited in point 16 of this document specifies that container NDLU 401.290-9 was transported from TCO to Aguirre Street by a driver named Néstor with DNI No. 18.253.260, data that coincide exactly with those of the aforementioned witness.
20. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 7, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 14 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
21. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

V. Entry into the country of container CBHU 061.581-4 (Fact No. 11)

It is conclusively proven that on September 9, 1996, container CBHU 061.581-4, containing 467 rolls of fabric, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel KWANGTUNG, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 061698Z and bill of lading No. UNIX9607-6B1096; consigned in the name of Trade Mark SA and deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.

On September 20, 1996, by means of TLAT 013816V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 24, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 411/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. UNIX9607-6B1096 (pages 1 and 3 of folder No. 11), dated July 13, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hongkong communicates the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container CBHU 061.581-4, consigned to the order, which contained a total of 467 rolls of fabric, weighing 9,402 kg, from the port of Busan, Korea.

2. Sheet on page 56 of folder No. 11, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Original of invoice No. 178316 dated 12/9/96 -see pages 32 of folder No. 11- and photocopies of invoices Nos. 178313/14/15/16 -all of the same date- and No. 179615“dated 23/9/96-, and photocopies of payment receipts corresponding to the aforementioned invoices (see pages 60/68 of the aforementioned folder). Said documents have been granted by the maritime agency Navicon, in the name of Trade Mark SA, which certifies the relevant collections made by the aforementioned maritime agency in the concept of maritime freight -and other charges- of the container in question.
4. Original of receipt No. 14944, dated 20/9/96, added to page 49 of folder No. 11, by virtue of which the receipt by the company Gemez SA of the sum of $655,82 paid by the firm Trade Mark SA is confirmed, according to invoice No. 12.044, a photocopy of which is found on page 38 of the same folder.
5. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 12/9/96, added to page 16 of folder No. 11, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Bactssa SA port terminal to the Gemez SA warehouse.

6. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 20/9/96, added to page 30 of folder No. 11, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Gemez SA warehouse to the Lingas SA bonded warehouse.
7. Two customs documents called TLAT, Nos. 013338U and 013816V, dated September 11 and 19, 1996, respectively, which appear attached to pages 4/7 and 8/9 of file No. 11, where the identification of the container in question with its two knowledge numbers is noted, the last of the aforementioned documents documenting the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
8. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006685, dated 24/9/96 -page 14 of folder No. 11-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Casa Lapidus SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.
9. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 411/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, linked to the individualized knowledge in point 1 of this document, which was used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas fiscal warehouse destined for the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet (see pages 21/22 of folder No. 11).
10. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated September 24, 1996 (see page 25 of folder No. 11).
11. Receipt for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 19882, which shows that the container in question left the tax warehouse on 24/9/96, in a truck identified with patent V007814-SFV411 (see pages 27/28 of file No. 11)

12. Original receipt No. 14609 for delivery of the container, which appears on page 41 of folder No. 11, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued to the company Casa Lapidus SA, in which the telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper. Also appearing from said document is the date of entry 20/9/96 - and exit 24/9/96 - of the container in question to and from the bonded warehouse referred to.
13. Photocopy of the note sent by the company Trade Mark SA to the firm Murchison SA, added to page 42 of file no. 11, in which the transfer of container CBHU 061.581-4 to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
14. Documents on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry to the fiscal warehouse - 20/9/96 -, without mentioning any exit (see pages 17/20 and 50 respectively - of folder No. 11).
15. Fax dated 25/4/96, sent by the company El Mundo del Video Juego, which states that the managing partner of the company Casa Lapidus SRL transfers the rights of a document also accepted by the president of the firm Trade Mark SA.

16. Delivery document for container CBHU 061.581-4 (Gate Out), which appears on page 44 of folder No. 11, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to order, which states the withdrawal of the aforementioned container on September 24, 1996, through transfer request No. 411/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
17. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.
18. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse, he was able to observe a Fiat 619 truck, identified with license plate V 008814, with a SFV 410 semi-trailer, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 631 Rawson Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, the photographs on page 102 of the main proceedings were shown to him; he recognized them as those he had taken at the appropriate time; they record the circumstances described above.
19. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 11, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 21 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
20. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

W. Entry into the country of container CBHU 061.581-4 (Fact No. 11)

It is conclusively proven that on September 9, 1996, container CBHU 061.581-4, containing 513 rolls of fabric, entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel KWANGTUNG, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 061698Z and bill of lading No. UNIX9607-6B1105; consigned to order and deposited at the Bactssa port terminal.
On September 20, 1996, by means of TLAT 013816V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 24, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 412/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street in this city, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.

The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. UNIX9607-6B1105 (page 2 of folder No. 11), dated July 13, 1996, in which the company CHL Container Line Limited Hongkong reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container CBHU 061.581-4, consigned to order, which contained a total of 513 rolls of fabric, weighing 5,789t, from the port of Pusan, Korea.
2. Sheet on page 56 of folder No. 11, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Original of invoice No. 178316 dated 12/9/96 -see pages 32 of folder No. 11- and photocopies of invoices Nos. 178313/14/15/16 -all of the same date- and No. 179615 dated 23/9/96-, and photocopies of payment receipts corresponding to the aforementioned invoices (see pages 60/68 of the aforementioned folder). These documents have been granted by the maritime agency Navicon, in the name of Trade Mark SA, which certifies the relevant collections made by the aforementioned maritime agency in the concept of maritime freight -and other charges- of the container in question.

4. Original of receipt No. 14944, dated 20/9/96, added to page 49 of folder No. 11, by virtue of which the receipt by the company Gemez SA of the sum of $655,82 paid by the firm Trade Mark SA is confirmed, according to invoice No. 12.044, a photocopy of which is found on page 38 of the same folder.
5. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 12/9/96, added to page 16 of folder No. 11, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Bactssa SA port terminal to the Gemez SA warehouse.
6. Triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, dated 20/9/96, added to page 30 of folder No. 11, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it from the Gemez SA warehouse to the Lingas SA bonded warehouse.
7. Two customs documents called TLAT, Nos. 013338U and 013816V, dated September 11 and 19, 1996, respectively, which appear attached to pages 4/7 and 8/9 of file No. 11, where the identification of the container in question with its two knowledge numbers is noted, the last of the aforementioned documents documenting the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse.
8. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006685, dated 24/9/96 -page 14 of folder No. 11-, issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Casa Lapidus SA as payment for the transfer and delivery of the container in question.

9. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 412/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, linked to the individual knowledge in point 1 of this document, which was used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse destined for the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet (see pages 23/24 of folder No. 11).
10. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site dated September 24, 1996 (see page 25 of folder No. 11).
11. Receipt for the exchange of equipment from the firm Murchison SA No. 19882, which shows that the container in question left the Fiscal warehouse on 24/9/96 in a truck identified with patent V007814-SFV411 (see pages 27/28 of file No. 11)
12. Original receipt No. 14609 for delivery of the container, which appears on page 41 of folder No. 11, corresponding to the Lingas bonded warehouse and issued to the company Casa Lapidus SA, in which the telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper. Also appearing from said document is the date of entry 20/9/96 - and exit â€“24/9/96 - of the container in question to and from the bonded warehouse referred to.
13. Photocopy of the note sent by the company Trade Mark SA to the firm Murchinson SA, added to page 42 of file no. 11, in which the transfer of container CBHU 061.581-4 to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.

14. Documents on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which show that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15 and 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry to the fiscal warehouse on 20/9/96 -, without mentioning any exit (see pages 17/20 and 50 respectively - of folder No. 11).
15. Fax dated 25/4/96, sent by the company El Mundo del Video Juego, which states that the managing partner of the company Casa Lapidus SRL transfers the rights of a document also accepted by the president of the firm Trade Mark SA.
16. Delivery document for container CBHU 061.581-4 (Gate Out), which appears on page 44 of folder No. 11, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to order, which states the withdrawal of the aforementioned container on September 24, 1996, through transfer request No. 411/96 (see box for the dispatch number).
17. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.

18. Testimonial statement by Marcelo Lionel Ferreyra, given during the course of the debate, who, as a member of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, stated that once he was at the TCO bonded warehouse, he was able to observe a Fiat 619 truck, identified with license plate V 008814, with a SFV 410 semi-trailer, leaving the place, carrying the container in question, entering the private warehouse at 631 Rawson Street in this city, where it was unloaded. In turn, the photographs on page 102 of the main proceedings were shown to him; he recognized them as those he had taken at the appropriate time; they record the circumstances described above.
19. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 11, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 23 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
20. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

X. Entry into the country of the container GSTU 610.179-7 (Fact No. 1)

It is fully proven that on September 12, 1996, container GSTU 610.179-7, containing 473 boxes of shirts, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions, aboard the vessel Paraná Feeder, identified by cargo manifest No. 062739N and bill of lading No. 96MOBU037; consigned in the name of Furtex SA, and deposited at the Exolgan port terminal.
On September 18, 1996, by means of TLAT 013440Y, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).

On September 25, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 0416/96 with the apparent destination of the Córdoba customs office, a site where the final customs controls were supposedly to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street (formerly Rawson), boxes No. 38 and 39, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. 96MOBU037 (page 1 of file No. 1), where the company Líneas Feeder reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container GSTU 610.179-7, consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, which contained a total of 473 boxes of shirts (18.936 units), weighing 6291 kg, coming from the city of Montevideo.
2. Sheet on page 6 of folder No. 1, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Invoice No. 651 from the Robinson Maritime Agency, issued in the name of Furtex SRL, which certifies payment for the transfer of the container from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 57/58 of folder No. 1).

4. Original of invoice No. 79165 issued by the firm Exolgan SA, added to page 16 of folder No. 1, where payment for the unloading of said container from the ship to the port terminal is accredited.
5. Document called Departure from the Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (pages 27 and 41 of folder No. 1).
6. Original of the customs document called TLAT, which appears attached to pages 12/14 of folder No. 1, where on page 12 in fine the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas warehouse.
7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006734, dated 25/9/96 (page 17 of folder No. 1), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Furtex SRL as payment for the storage of the container in question.
8. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 416/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 28/29 of file No. 1.
9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site (see page 30 of folder No. 1).

10. Document from the firm Murchison SA, used for the return of the container once the transported merchandise was unloaded, which shows that it was removed by truck AQY 207, chassis No. AFF 922 (see pages 38/40 of folder No. 1).
11. Receipt of delivery of the container, No. 14.626, which appears on page 50 of folder No. 1, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the company Furtex SRL, in which telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.
12. Copy of the Fax sent by the firm Furtex SRL and from telephone number 394-0604, to Murchison SA, where, on 12/9/96, the transfer of the container from Exolgán to Lingas is requested (see pages 51 of folder No. 1).
13. Original of the note that gave rise to the fax mentioned above and which appears attached to page 53 of folder no. 1.
14. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 17, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit.
15. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.

16. Testimonial statements of the preventers Domingo Orlando Segura, Guillermo Pellegrini, Carlos Cabana, Oscar Javier Villalba and Jorge Luis Gómez, given during the debate hearings, who stated that under the orders of the first of those named, on September 25, 1996, they intercepted two trucks on Bulrich and Cerviño streets, one of them a Mercedes Benz, license plate RUG 373, semi SRK 742, driven by Soriano Duarte, belonging to the Cavallino Hnos. firm, and another a Mercedes Benz, license plate AQY 207, semi AFS 922, driven by Néstor Gabriel Serrano, property of the Transportes OSPAQ firm, transporting the containers MMMU 351.549-5 and GSTU 610.179-7, sealed and guarded by a green Ford Falcon vehicle. They added that the guards showed the transshipment requests Nos. 414 and 416, both dated September 24, 1996, as documentation of the goods transported by the trucks; that later, in the presence of the main inspectors of the former National Customs Administration, Hugo Omar Valle and Hugo Humarán, it was decided that, since the cargo was destined for the Córdoba customs office, the trucks should continue on their way to their destination; that for this reason, and in light of the information provided by the truck drivers that they had to transport the cargo to the warehouse at 631 Rawson Street, they accompanied the vehicles to the aforementioned place and, once there, they noticed the presence of some people waiting for the arrival of the trucks in question, and after moving the barriers, they signaled them that they could proceed to enter and that all of this was done in the presence of witnesses Pomar and López. They also stated that there was no customs point at the aforementioned warehouse where any procedure could be carried out prior to the trucks setting off on their journey to the city of Córdoba. It was later confirmed that a person identified as Julio César Arce Cajes was in charge of boxes 38 and 39 awaiting the arrival of the aforementioned vehicles.
17. Testimonial statements by Hugo Omar Valle, Hugo Humarán and Juan Ricardo López, given during the course of the debate, who expressed themselves in the same terms as the witnesses cited above.
18. Testimonial statements provided by Soriano Duarte and Néstor Gabriel Serrano, presented during the debate, who, as drivers of the trucks identified in point 16, spoke in a manner consistent with that of the witnesses mentioned above.
19. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 1, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 28 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
20. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

Y. Entry into the country of container MMMU 351.549-5 (Fact No. 2)

It is fully proven that on September 12, 1996, container MMMU 351.549-5, containing 320 boxes of shirts, entered national territory under house-to-house conditions, aboard the vessel Paraná Feeder, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 062739N and bill of lading No. 96MOBU039; consigned in the name of Furtex SA and deposited at the Exolgan port terminal.
On September 18, 1996, by means of TLAT 013440Y, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
On September 25, 1996, the container left the aforementioned customs warehouse through the apocryphal transfer request No. 0414/96 bound for the Córdoba customs office, where the final customs controls were to be carried out for the purposes of nationalization of the transported merchandise and subsequent deconsolidation.
However, the actual destination of the container turned out to be the warehouse at 631 Palestina Street (formerly Rawson), boxes No. 38 and 39, thus avoiding the control activity that is the responsibility of the customs service regarding the entry of merchandise into the country.
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Bill of lading No. 96MOBU039 (page 1 of folder No. 2), where the company Líneas Feeder reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container MMMU 351.549-5, consigned in the name of Furtex SRL, which contained a total of 320 boxes of men's shirts (9.600 units), weighing 2880 kg, coming from the city of Montevideo.
2. Sheet on page 4 of folder No. 2, which shows the registration of said container in the María system (SIM), through the bill of lading number.
3. Invoice No. 651 dated 12/9/96 issued by the Robinson Maritime Agency in the name of Furtex SRL, which certifies payment for the transfer of the container from the place of origin to the port of Buenos Aires (see pages 57/58 of folder No. 1 and certified photocopies added to pages 17/18 of folder No. 2).
4. Original of invoice No. 79165 issued by the firm Exolgan SA, which certifies payment for the unloading of said container from the ship to the port terminal (see page 16 of folder No. 1 and certified photocopy added to page 15 of folder No. 2).
5. Original and triplicate of the document called Departure from Primary Customs Zone, which contains the details of the container, the vehicle used to transport it and the driver who transported it to the Lingas warehouse (pages 35 and 23, respectively, of folder No. 2).
6. Photocopy of the customs document called TLAT, which appears attached to pages 11/14 of folder No. 2, where on page 13 in fine the identification of the container in question is noted for the purposes of documenting its transfer to the Lingas warehouse.

7. Original of invoice No. 0009-00006734, dated 25/9/96 (page 17 of folder No. 1, a certified photocopy of which is on page 16 of folder No. 2-), issued by the firm Murchison SA in the name of the company Furtex SRL as payment for the storage of the container in question.
8. Apocryphal transshipment request No. 414/96, valid as land transit according to resolution No. 959/93, used for the removal of the container in question from the Lingas bonded warehouse to the Córdoba customs office, with the corresponding route sheet; which appears added to pages 24/25 of file No. 2.
9. Internal document of the Lingas bonded warehouse, called Departure to the Merchandise Plaza, which shows the departure of the container from said site (see page 26 of folder No. 2).
10. Document from the Murchison SA firm, used to return the container once the transported merchandise was unloaded, which shows that it was removed by truck RUG 373 – SRR 742 (see photocopy on page 33 of folder No. 2).
11. Receipt of delivery of the container, No. 14.626, which appears on page 50 of folder No. 1, a certified copy of which appears on page 41 of folder No. 2, corresponding to the Lingas warehouse and issued to the company Furtex SRL, in which telephone number 394-0604 appears as belonging to the shipper.
12. Copy of the Fax sent by the firm Furtex SRL and from telephone number 394-0604, to Murchison SA, where, on 12/9/96, the transfer of the container from Exolgán to Lingas is requested (see page 46 of folder No. 2).

13. Original of the note that gave rise to the fax mentioned above and which appears attached to page 53 of folder no. 1.
14. Document on the consultation of containers in the María System (SIM), which states that for the then National Customs Administration (currently DGA), on October 15, 1996, the container in question registered as its last movement the entry of the container in question to the fiscal warehouse, without mentioning any exit (as it appears on fs. 21).
15. Record of the search of the TCO bonded warehouse, recorded on pages 231/233, which records the seizure of a grey folder containing all the transfer requests submitted to said warehouse during 1996.

16. Testimonial statements of the preventers Domingo Orlando Segura, Guillermo Pellegrini, Carlos Cabana, Oscar Javier Villalba and Jorge Luis Gómez, given during the debate hearings, who stated that under the orders of the first of those named, on September 25, 1996, they intercepted two trucks on Bulrich and Cerviño streets, one of them a Mercedes Benz, license plate RUG 373, semi SRK 742, driven by Soriano Duarte, belonging to the Cavallino Hnos. firm, and another a Mercedes Benz, license plate AQY 207, semi AFS 922, driven by Néstor Gabriel Serrano, property of the Transportes OSPAQ firm, transporting the containers MMMU 351.549-5 and GSTU 610.179-7, sealed and guarded by a green Ford Falcon vehicle. They added that the guards showed the transshipment requests Nos. 414 and 416, both dated September 24, 1996, as documentation of the goods transported by the trucks; that later, in the presence of the main inspectors of the former National Customs Administration, Hugo Omar Valle and Hugo Humarán, it was decided that, since the cargo was destined for the Córdoba customs office, the trucks would be allowed to continue to their destination; that for this reason, and in light of the information provided by the truck drivers that they had to transport the cargo to the warehouse at 631 Rawson Street, they accompanied the vehicles to the aforementioned place and, once there, they noticed the presence of some people waiting for the arrival of the trucks in question, and after moving the barriers they signaled them that they could proceed to enter and that all of this was done in the presence of witnesses Pomar and López. They also stated that there was no customs point at the aforementioned warehouse where any procedure could be carried out prior to the trucks setting off on their journey to the city of Córdoba. It was later confirmed that a person identified as Julio César Arce Cajes was in charge of boxes 38 and 39 awaiting the arrival of the aforementioned vehicles.
17. Testimonial statements by Hugo Omar Valle, Hugo Humarán and Juan Ricardo López, given during the course of the debate, who expressed themselves in the same terms as the witnesses cited above.
18. Testimonial statements provided by Soriano Duarte and Néstor Gabriel Serrano, presented during the debate, who, as drivers of the trucks identified in point 16, spoke in a manner consistent with that of the witnesses mentioned above.

19. Testimonial statement by Gloria Arias, given at the time of the debate, who, after being shown file No. 2, maintained that the signature appearing on the transfer request on fs. 24 does not belong to her, nor does the explanatory stamp inserted there.
20. Testimonial statement by Oscar Manuel Iglesias, given during the debate, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that in 1996 the transit was documented with a transshipment form on which a stamp was recorded stating: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

Z. Entry into the country of container PRSU 403.445-6 (Fact No. 25)

It has been reliably proven that on September 11, 1996, the container PRSU 403.445-6, containing 581 rolls of fabric (Nylon Slinky), entered national territory under house to house conditions, aboard the vessel Santos, and was identified by cargo manifest No. 064168L and bill of lading No. USHOUCACL0612; consigned in the name of Textil Mario, and deposited at the Exolgan port terminal.
On September 24, 1996, by means of TLAT 002377V, the aforementioned container was transferred to the bonded warehouse called Lingas (formerly TCO).
The factual situation described above is supported by the following elements of conviction produced during the course of the debate:

1. Original of the bill of lading No. CACL 0612 (page 1 of file No. 25), dated August 18, 1996, in which the company SY Shipping Corp. reports the arrival at the port of Buenos Aires of container PRSU 403.445-6, consigned in the name of Textil Mario, which contained a total of 581 rolls of fabric with a gross weight of 22.500 kg. from the port of Houston, United States.
2. Three copies of the customs document called TLAT, No. 014211L, dated September 27, 1996, which appears attached to pages 2/7 of folder No. 25, where the identification of the container in question is noted, and through it the transfer of said container to the Lingas bonded warehouse was carried out.
3. Photocopy of the note sent by Chae Soo Hong to the firm Murchison SA, dated September 24, 1996, added to page 9 of file no. 25, in which the transfer of the container in question to the headquarters of said bonded warehouse is requested.
4. Original of the document called Single Authorization for the Delivery of Containers and/or Merchandise, receipt No. 5063, issued by the company Transplata SA, dated 20/9/96, consigned to Intra Intermodal Transports SA, to which the container in question was delivered.

III. Up to this point, a description has been made of the various facts under discussion, reconstructed from objective data supported by the evidence produced during the trial. However, it remains to make some considerations about the significance that, in the first instance, should be attributed to the twenty-nine factual assumptions, without this, of course, implying an advance of the judgment of typical adequacy proper to the analysis carried out at the time of the legal qualification.
Prior to this, it must be indicated that all the evidence produced during the debate has been assessed in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, that is, in accordance with reasoning that respects the rules of logic, psychology and experience and by virtue of which conclusions are reached that are rationally obtained and free of any pre-evaluation by law (see Clariá Olmedo, Jorge A., Derecho Procesal Penal, Tomo II, updated by Carlos Alberto Chiara Díaz, Rubinzal – Culzoni, Buenos Aires, p. 308). Such and no other has been the system of assessment of evidence adopted by our procedural system in its art. 398 when it provides that The Court shall render a judgment by majority vote, assessing the evidence received and the acts of the debate in accordance with the rules of sound criticism... By virtue of this, evidence of certainty may be distinguished from evidence of probability, the former alone being sufficient to establish a conviction.

Having established this, it should be noted that the examination of the evidence indicated that all the facts, with the exception of the assumptions identified as B, D, F, J and Q - which will be the subject of separate study - have consisted of import operations of merchandise from different sectors (textiles, perfumery, electronics, etc.), which were transported from the port terminal where they arrived to a bonded warehouse which, without fail, was that of the company Murchison (formerly TCO, currently Lingas).
We say that the containers or packages, as in the case of the fact alleged as M-, were invariably transferred to the aforementioned bonded warehouse, for the simple reason that they were either sent directly to said site or, in the case of being in some other bonded warehouse as can be seen in facts D, E, V and W-, they were transported to the Lingas warehouse and once there they were given a destination. This circumstance can be affirmed with certainty since it has been a common denominator in all the mentioned facts, even with respect to the excepted facts.
Now, if one looks at the copious documentation included in the folders prepared for each event, one can see that all the containers entered the country under the house-to-house condition, which means, according to what was stated by the various customs officials who testified in the debate hearings, that the merchandise housed there entered national territory in order to be cleared for consumption.
It follows from this that, unless there is a change in the destination of the goods - for which the corresponding formalities must be observed - the way through which, in principle, the containers should leave the bonded warehouse was none other than the presentation of an import clearance for the purposes of releasing and nationalizing the objects susceptible to import.

However, this has not been the way in which containers were removed from the Lingas warehouse, since in all cases - except those already mentioned - they were removed from the site by presenting various false customs documents at the local customs point, a circumstance that allowed them to circumvent the control activity assigned to the customs service.
However, the maneuver described has not been the same in all the cases analyzed because, although many of them share the same characteristics, they cannot be generalized, and two different forms of evasion can be seen based on the analysis method chosen for the study of the different factual cases.
Certainly, the correct location in time of the different events allows us to clearly see that the first containers were removed from the aforementioned bonded warehouse by means of the presentation or simulation of a customs document that established a certain destination in order to obtain from the hands of the customs officer stationed there, the document called "can be loaded" or "exit to merchandise plaza" -, with which they were then directed to the authorities of the permit holder in order to pay the expenses corresponding to the transfer and storage of the containers, in order to release them, after a minimum and routine customs control - on the container numbers, seals, etc. - and direct them to private warehouses whose details are unknown to date.

Such extremes arise clearly from the documents that can be uploaded to the different folders or from the monthly balance sheets corresponding to the Lingas warehouse, in which the numbers of the customs documents that enabled the departure of the goods from that warehouse are recorded - these elements of proof that have already been individualized with respect to each particular fact (see Point II of this document).
Such operation is repeated in the cases identified as A, C, CH, E, G, H, I and K, that is, it was used from March 7, 1996, the date of the first of the events, until August 16 of the same year, when container K was removed from the bonded warehouse, in order to introduce various types of merchandise into the market; however, following the numerous raids carried out on the headquarters of the bonded warehouse of the company Murchison Estibajes y Cargas, none of the documents indicated in the instruments mentioned in the preceding paragraph have been obtained.
What has happened since then?
The mechanism underwent a certain development which resulted in a refinement of the maneuver devised to circumvent the exercise of customs control.
Indeed, from that date and after a period of 20 days - on September 5, 1996, the container identified as fact L left the Lingas bonded warehouse, through the presentation of a specific customs document, called a transshipment request in this case No. 349 - which, by virtue of customs resolution No. 869/93, was valid as land transit.

Thus, despite the merchandise having been brought into national territory under the house-to-house condition, the exit of the containers from TCO was carried out through a transshipment request enabled only for the purposes of suspensive destinations and therefore not definitive, deferring all types of customs controls until the arrival of the merchandise at the customs office designated as destination, diverting the containers from said route to certain private warehouses located entirely within the capital area.
At this point it is worth pointing out that in these cases all the transfer requests were false and that they could have been found as a result of the searches carried out during the investigation phase at the Murchison customs warehouse. Therefore, what happened in the previous case, in which the false documents could never be found, no longer occurs, but rather the change that occurred in the implementation of the operation was based on specific documentation, presented to the customs authorities of the customs warehouse, with sufficient suitability to allow the deception and the evasion of control.
For this reason, an improvement was opportunely mentioned, since there is no doubt that, in the event of a possible inspection carried out by any area of customs, there are greater possibilities of keeping the operation hidden if there is a copy of the document specifically presented to obtain the release of the container, given that this, in turn, has been suitably configured to generate the appearance of legality of the operation, than if there is no document at all that supports the release of the merchandise.

IV. Analysis of the facts identified as B, D, F, J and Q.
With regard to each of the factual assumptions mentioned in the title of this document, it should be noted that none of them meets the various objective elements from which any criminal law framework can be established. In order to clarify the issue, the structure of each of these facts will be analyzed individually.

a) Fact B:
The only thing that has been proven about this event is that it involved the entry into the country of container TEXU 378.107-7, coming from Hong Kong, consigned in the name of Inversora Kilmy, which was transferred to the TCO bonded warehouse.
That situation is the only thing that has been able to be proven based on the scarce - almost non-existent - documentary evidence added to file No. 21 referring to the case at hand.
Although the complaint made accusations against Roberto Leiva in this regard, it has said nothing to prove the different objective aspects to affirm the existence of a case of smuggling.

However, it cannot be overlooked that in order to prove the materiality of such fact, the party referred to a SIM report (summary declaration of containers), which was separated from the case and added to the aforementioned file (see minutes of the debate dated July 22 of this year). However, a simple consultation of the corresponding file shows that the aforementioned report is not included there. In turn, the complaint did not refer to the customs report regarding the document - which is actually unknown since there is no evidence of its existence - which would have enabled the illegal exit of the container in question, after strongly stating that it was brought into the market illegally.
Thus, we are faced with an event whose smuggling the complaint claims but without specifically indicating any evidence for it, beyond a report that does not exist and a generic allegation in which it included all the facts without discriminating the situation of each of the assumptions based on the evidence produced.
These circumstances speak for themselves regarding the opaque work of the private prosecutor, as well as his lack of moderation in requesting a conviction for unproven facts.
Consequently, there is no doubt as to the non-existence of a crime with respect to the fact in question.

b) Fact D:
The case in question has been the subject of accusation both by the plaintiff and by the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

However, this circumstance has caused surprise to the Court when assessing the different elements of evidence related to it. In effect, the accusatory activity constructed the materiality of this assumption, applying the same procedure that it used to prove all the assumptions in which there were no requests for transshipment. This procedure consisted of the survey of the different customs reports that ruled out the possibility that the containers left TCO under the protection of the document recorded in the different cargo cans.
Such a system is effective, as we will have the opportunity to see, if the reports in question were actually part of the voluminous file. Let us see what was cited in this regard.
Curiously, while the complaint based the accusation regarding this assumption on the report included on pages 5846/50, the prosecution relied on the one included on pages 18.328.
However, if we refer to the aforementioned pages and analyze the content, we will notice that they are in no way related to the document that would have allowed the container to be taken to the square.

Thus, while the first of the reports referred to answers a request for information made by federal prosecutor Pollicita in which the number of the document in question is not included (see pages 5856/57), the one cited by the prosecution directly does not seem to have been read, since on pages 18.328 the Safekeeping Division of the former ANA, made it known that it lacked the documentation belonging to that customs service corresponding to the dates on which the events occurred. For this reason, said division requested the requested information from the permit holder - that is, Murchison - and, based exclusively on it, reported that the containers whose destination was requested would have left the plaza through the destinations that arise from the records on pages 17 and 32 of the respective report. You may wonder, what is it that appears on said pages? The photocopies of the documents that remained in TCO and that precisely motivated the request for information to confirm or discard their veracity were simply uploaded. Nothing had been done at that time.
However, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office used the same to establish the materiality of the typical fact.
Consequently, given the gross error committed by both accusers and the lack of other evidence, it is appropriate to affirm the non-existence of a crime in relation to the fact in question, since its materiality has not even been proven.

b) Fact F:
In relation to this assumption, it is worth referring to what was previously expressed regarding fact D, since it is an identical error in which both accusing parties repeated their error.
It should only be said about this that both parties cited the same reports mentioned in the previous item, which, of course, are not related to document 40/96 that would have supported the departure of the container in question (TRIU 453.705-3), in addition to reproducing what was expressed regarding the report cited by the Public Prosecutor.
For the reasons set forth above, the absence of a crime must be affirmed because the materiality of the fact has not been proven.

d) Fact J:

As regards this case, it should be noted that the individualisation of the report made by the prosecution has not been effective either. This is so because at the time of its argument it stated that the report which rules out the regular entry of the five containers related to the case in question is included in an Annex V supposedly reserved in the secretariat (see minutes of 23 July 1999).
It should be noted in this regard that such annex is not only not kept confidential in the secretariat, but was also not identified by the prosecution during the extensive period granted for this purpose in the orderly hearing held on March 26.
Regarding the report cited by the complaint, although it is accompanied by copies of various customs documents with the number in question - all of which do not match the containers referred to in the fact under examination -, it is observed that in the last paragraph of fs. 4224 it was noted that in the jurisdiction of this Buenos Aires customs office, 96001 ICO6 000553 R was also registered, which to date has not been received in the Registration and Crossing section; adding that its referral to the Safekeeping Division would be requested.
Therefore, there is a possibility that the containers have left TCO under the aforementioned document, and there is room for doubt as to their irregular departure; a circumstance that will be resolved in accordance with the provisions of art. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code and art. 18 of the CN.

c) Fact Q:
In relation to the above-mentioned case, it should be noted that the prosecution has only been the subject of an attempted charge; the prosecution is requesting the acquittal of the accused for this act.

However, it should be noted that container TEXU 469.815-7 arrived at the Exolgán port terminal on September 5, 1996, being detained that same day by customs police sub-inspector Haroldo Gómez, remaining at that location and in that capacity until the 16th of the same month and year, when it was transferred to TCO -also in the aforementioned capacity-, a place from which it never left.
How to prove that the act has begun if the aforementioned container had only just entered the port terminal at the time when the customs police officers proceeded to act.
Beyond the difficult problem of delimiting preparatory acts and executive acts, there is no doubt that such anticipation of preventive action prevents considering that the act had begun to be executed; such an assumption remains, at most, within the scope of non-punishable preparatory acts.
Therefore, it is also appropriate to establish that the materiality of the attributed offense has not been established with respect to the fact in question.

Third: Intervention of the accused in the smuggling events and subjective aspect of their respective actions.

I. This consideration will deal with the degree of involvement of the various accused subjects in the events, as well as the cognitive and volitional components of each of them in relation to all the cases; although, of course, the facts identified as B, D, F, J, Q and Z will be excluded from this analysis, since, based on the arguments already set forth in point IV of the previous consideration, they have not been able to pass the filter of objective typicality within the systematic order of the theory of crime.
Now, as already stated, the customs control evasion maneuver - objectively proven up to now - has not been identical in all the factual assumptions that have managed to overcome that filter and that were individualized as A, C, CH, E, G, H, I, K, L, LL, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y.

Indeed, the historical order of the facts has allowed us to observe a break in the procedure, since while the containers related to the first eight supposedly discharged from the Lingas bonded warehouse in a period of time that goes from 17/3/96 to 16/8/96 - entered the square without any customs documentation prepared for the purpose of supporting such introduction, but only a number recorded in internal records of the Murchison company; the containers linked to the remaining fourteen events indicated last were removed from the bonded warehouse starting on 5 September 1996 and under the protection of apocryphal transfer requests, which allowed simulating suspensive customs destinations in order to circumvent all kinds of controls to place the merchandise on the national market.
These conclusions have been reached exclusively on the basis of the various elements of evidence whose production was witnessed by the Court during the trial. However, at this stage of the analysis, the specific circumstance of not having been able to obtain the documents that would have allowed the removal from the customs warehouse of the containers involved in the first eight of the twenty-three cases mentioned above cannot be ignored; which translates into a serious evidentiary deficit that merits a separate study.
Consequently, the examination in question will be carried out by distinguishing the two groups of cases in order to achieve greater clarity in the analysis which, based on what has been said, will have to focus on the evidence available in each case.

II With regard to facts L, LL, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y:

For purely methodological reasons, linked to the need to carry out an orderly and logical examination of each particular situation, we will proceed with an analysis of the involvement of each of the accused in the events in question, as they were accused, establishing the scope of the same in the most precise way possible. To this end, the treatment will be structured by defendant based on the number and seriousness of the accusations that have been directed at him.

a) Roberto Leiva
Before entering into the specific study of the intervention of the named Leiva, it is appropriate to make some explanatory remarks closely related to the characteristics of the maneuver planned and carried out for the illegal introduction into the country of the merchandise linked to the factual assumptions that concern us.
First of all, it should be noted that when merchandise of foreign origin and provenance is imported, it is nationalized by means of the implementation of an import clearance, which must be presented to the customs agency in charge of carrying out all controls in the primary zone, once which have been completed and after payment of the relevant amounts for duties, statistics and value added tax (VAT), the agency is in a position to dispatch the incoming merchandise to the market.
However, it may happen that the merchandise introduced into national territory is not nationalized at the time - through the import clearance instrumented before the customs office of arrival - but rather a suspensive destination may be assigned to it so that the merchandise is transported to a customs office in the interior or abroad, a place where a definitive destination may be conferred, consequently customs controls being carried out and the corresponding sums being received for the payment of the aforementioned concepts.

In this case, the operation consisted of presenting to the customs warehouse where the imported merchandise was housed, valid transshipment request forms as land transit according to customs resolution No. 869/93 - apocryphally prepared, by virtue of which the arrival customs office authorized the departure of the containers destined for the customs office of the province of Córdoba, when in reality, the merchandise was transferred to different private warehouses located within the scope of this city.
It should be added that at the time of the events, the transfers were implemented manually, so that for customs the operation remained open until the cargo arrived at the destination customs, a circumstance of which was learned through the receipt of the return waybill (fifth copy of said document) in the Registration and Crossing section of the Buenos Aires customs, sent by the latter.

Obviously, in the cases under study, the return guides never arrived at the customs section in question, since the suspensive destinations were completely simulated and, therefore, the containers never set out on any journey towards the city of Córdoba. This situation could hardly have been noticed by the former National Customs Administration, since, even when the transits were regularly carried out, the fact that they were recorded manually - a step not observed in these cases - added to the difficulties existing in the mail to return the return guide in order to cancel the suspensive destination, hindered the customs service from becoming aware of this reality.
Now, entering into the analysis of the transfer requests linked to the events in question - all of which were seized from the headquarters of the Lingas bonded warehouse - it is clearly noted that they were prepared using apocryphal official stamps similar to those printed on the requests regularly completed before the customs service.
This circumstance acquires significant importance in relation to the results obtained from the search conducted in the office located at 540 Tucumán Street, 8th floor, apartment J of this city, belonging to the accused Roberto Leiva.
Indeed, when the procedure was carried out, the bodies in charge of prevention (personnel from the Quilmes Investigation Brigade and Customs Police) were able to notice the existence of two nylon bags containing thirty-one rubber stamps with different legends, all of which referred to stamps belonging to the former National Customs Administration, whose impressions were stamped on pages 223/225 added as Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to the aforementioned search warrant.

Although, strictly speaking, there has not been any expert report that would determine the identity of the stamps seized from Roberto Leiva's office with those stamped on the transfer requests added to the different documentation folders identified as Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22 and 27 - since only one scopometric report has been carried out on pages 16.078/122 for that purpose but on the wrong object, which will be referred to in due course - it should be noted that a simple comparison of the two allows us to conclude with certainty that the stamps in the possession of the aforementioned person were those used to prepare the 15 transfer requests in question.
In this regard, it should be noted first of all that the following official customs stamps are stamped on the aforementioned documents: LAND TRANSIT RES. 959/93; GRANTED with the intervention of the receipt (date) PESA; HAVING COMPLETED THE SAME, NOTIFY BY THIS SECTION:; SIGNATURE; ANIBAL H. RODRIGUEZ, 2nd Head of Sec. Liquidations; GLORIA I. ARIAS, 2nd Head of REGISTRY AND CROSSING; MERCEDES A. ROBLES, Leg. 24030-3, REG. AND CROSSING, all of which can be seen on the front of the different instruments. Likewise, on the back one can see the imprint of the stamps ENTERED IN MANIFESTO (date), Signature and JORGE C. CORVALAN, CUSTOMS TRANSPORT AGENT, REG. 00582/5-2. On the other hand, some waybills bear the stamps corresponding to MTI-MAX SA A. TTE. AD. RE. 01026/2-6 and Jorge C. Corvalán, Customs Transport Agent, Reg. 00582/5-2.
It should also be noted that the stamps corresponding to the dates and numbers of the transfer requests and their respective route sheets are also stamped, and it should also be clarified that while some of them bear the imprints relating to the stamps of Aníbal H. Rodríguez, others bear those referring to Gloria I. Arias.

Now, the mere observation of the imprints obtained from the stamps seized in the offices of Roberto Leiva - which, as stated, appear attached as annexes 1, 2 and 3 of the search report in question - allows us to establish, without fear of any mistake, the absolute identity of the same with those previously described. This means that there is no stamp stamped on the aforementioned customs documents that was not seized at the work address of the said accused; having even been able to establish the total correspondence through practices such as the measurement of the stamps, the comparison of the graphics and texts, the verification of the total identity of the existing defects, etc.
The evidentiary evidence regarding the apocryphal nature of the transfer requests with regard to the stamps used is completed by the particular circumstance that a resolution authorizing land transit was recorded in the aforementioned documents, mentioned as number 959/93, when, in fact, the resolution authorizing said transit is number 869/93, as can be seen in the true copies of the originals of transfer requests Nos. 347 and 349 found on pages 9/10 of folder No. 27 and 17 of folder No. 22, respectively.
For the sake of completeness, it is worth reproducing what was stated by Oscar Manuel Iglesias during his testimony, who, in his capacity as Administrator of the Buenos Aires Customs, stated that the transit was documented with a transfer form on which a stamp was recorded that read: Authorized Transit, Resolution 869/93.

It is therefore highly eloquent that this error in the mention of the resolution is only found in the false transfer requests and that they coincide with the imprints of the respective seal seized in the offices of Roberto Leiva.
These extremes show the involvement of Roberto Leiva in the preparation of false customs documents used to remove the containers containing the same persons from the customs warehouse in order to circumvent customs control, as well as his knowledge of the apocryphal nature of said instruments and his willingness to act in the manner indicated.
In another order of ideas, the fact that an Olympia typewriter, model Splendid, was also seized at the Leiva offices during the aforementioned procedure is of radical importance. This is so, since the expert opinion No. 36.811/97 added to pages 26.768/769, prepared by inspector Liliana Leonor Gavilán and assistant Susana Eugenia Toscano, both Document Experts, which was ratified by those named during the hearing, concluded that transfer requests No. 0347 and 0349 with their respective route sheets were prepared using the submitted Olympia typewriter, model Splendid, serial No. 694008354.
This expert evidence merely confirms what has been stated regarding the intervention of the accused in question, with the knowledge and will already mentioned, for the purposes of configuring false documentation with the aim of evading the exercise of control granted to the customs service over the entry and exit of merchandise.

On the other hand, with respect to the rest of the transfer requests, the originals of which were not appraised due to an error by the investigating court, similar to that mentioned with respect to the stamps, it should be noted that photocopies of them were sent, a circumstance that prevented the production of a substantive opinion as shown in expert report 34.561/97, found on pages 16.078/122; however, the experts involved report a situation that is observable at first glance and suggestively coincident in the sense that the single element incorporated into the machine provided is of a similar design to that used in filling out the transfer requests, photocopies of which were sent to them in numbers 410, 372, 368, 369, 355, 376, 406, 381, 392 and 411.
At this point it is possible to state that the evidentiary complex evaluated in the considerations above, fully corresponds with the circumstances alluded to in different telephone conversations obtained from subscriber No. 444-2046, belonging to a cell phone owned by the accused Roberto Leiva who has so acknowledged in his inquiry on pages 5460/5464-; all of which are linked to the manufacture of stamps and pads in order to falsely prepare customs documents to achieve the illegal extraction of containers from the bonded warehouse of the permit holder 'Murchison SA'.

Indeed, on cassette No. 21, dated August 25, 1996, side A, back page No. 069, even though on page 50 of the annex of the transcripts corresponding to said subscriber during the period from August 1996, the date 26/8/96 appears, there is a recorded conversation between Ariel and Beto in which the latter tells him that they may have to make some padding to put together some dispatch, the former replying that he would do his best. Likewise, on this same cassette, a conversation between two people was recorded in which one tells the other that he has a number to give him and that he also got the payment certificate, but that they still have to get the sheet that says ANA, the other replying that he had sent Sandro to look for them (see side A, back page 431).
Likewise, on cassette No. 22, also corresponding to subscriber 444-2046 (owned by Leiva), a conversation recorded on August 27, 1996 appears on side A, lap 037, in which the recipient of the call is told that at the last minute they would prepare rubber bands for him, responding that Andrés and he prepared everything, that they had some rubber bands and that he was only missing one. Finally, it is worth highlighting the call recorded on this same cassette, located on side A, lap 323, in which a person named Juan asks Beto what he thought of the work of art, and he responds that it was missing the signers; then Juan hands the phone to Andrés, who says that he does not have the signers' stamps but that he does have the names and that one is called Gloria.

It is obvious that the statements made above - which are supported by other evidence - corroborate the fraudulent intervention of Roberto Leiva, nicknamed Beto, since in all the aforementioned recordings a person identified as Beto appears, speaking on the cell phone of the named Leiva, in which the different movements made in order to acquire the necessary means to falsely devise the customs instruments necessary to achieve the irregular exit of the containers to the national market are recounted.
Note that in the last of the recordings mentioned, Gloria's name is even mentioned as one of the people who signed such instruments, a circumstance that surprisingly coincides with that pointed out when analyzing the apocryphal transfer requests, in which it could be clearly observed that one of the seals stamped there looked similar to that of one of the customs officials who signed them, who was Gloria Arias (see transfer requests Nos. 368, 369, 372, 376, 381, 392, 406, 410, 411, 412, 414 and 416, all of which bear the seal of Gloria Arias - 2nd Head of Registry and Cruc). It should be noted in this regard that when giving testimony during the debate, the aforementioned official completely ignored both the signature and the seal that appear printed on the aforementioned documents, which were shown to her in their entirety.
Now, having proven the intervention of Roberto Leiva with the purpose of falsely preparing the customs documentation mentioned, it should be noted that the participation of the named person has not been limited to said task - which constitutes the axis of the maneuver in question - but has extended to acts prior to the configuration and presentation of the apocryphal instruments to the customs service.

Indeed, it should be reiterated that once the containers arrived at one of the port terminals in the national territory, notes were sent to the Murchison Transport agent in order to proceed with their transfer to the headquarters of the fiscal warehouse of said company, so that, once there, they could be illegally removed.
In this regard, the copious evidence produced during the trial allows us to affirm with certainty that Roberto Leiva has not been alien to the task of preparing - or having prepared - the notes in question and sending them by fax to the aforementioned transport agent. This is so, since the notes sent in facts N and I fs. 35 of folder No. 4-, O fs. 25 of folder No. 3-, P fs. 12 of folder No. 8-, U fs. 12 of folder No. 7-, R, S, X and Y fs. 51 of folder No. 1- were sent to the Lingas bonded warehouse by fax identified with No. 394-0604.
Beyond the fact that such notes were acknowledged by the witness Ana M. Canovas Rubio during the trial hearing, who at the time of the events was working as an administrative employee at the company Murchison, stating that they had been sent by Leiva, it is necessary to indicate that the notes requesting the referred transfers were sent from a call center located on the ground floor of the building where the accused had his offices. In this regard, it should be noted that when giving testimony on June 16 of this year, the owner of the premises, Carlos Antonio Abizanda, named Leiva as one of his clients, who used the telephone number 394-0604 to both send and receive faxes, personally collecting them from his office, although he does not rule out that on some occasions the deponent brought them to his work address.

Likewise, the aforementioned witness recognized the header of the faxes mentioned - all of which were shown to him at the time of his statement - as those configured on the fax machine related to the aforementioned subscriber number belonging to his call center.
On this topic, it is also worth mentioning expert report No. 34.561/97, prepared by the Scopometry Division of the Argentine Federal Police, added on pages 16.078/122, since in point I of the conclusions it is stated that the notes whose letterheads read Tarsell SA - dated 18/9/96-, Bercat SA dated 18/9/96- and Saint Honoré SA dated 2/9/96-, corresponding to events T, U and LL, respectively, were prepared with the machine seized from Roberto Leiva's offices. It should be clarified in this regard that only said notes have been appraised by the corresponding technical office because the rest of those sent were not originals but electrostatic and heat-printed reproductions, as stated in the aforementioned report.
Also relevant to this situation is the fact that, together with the notes referred to, the bills of lading relating to the containers involved in the events in question were also sent by fax, as can be clearly seen in the events distinguished by the letters N and I, O, P, R, S, U, X and Y (see, respectively, pages 16/17 of folder No. 4; pages 14 of folder No. 3; pages 20 of folder No. 8; pages 28 of folder No. 9; pages 37 of folder No. 6; pages 24 of folder No. 7; pages 33 of folder No. 1 and pages 29 of folder No. 2).

In addition, the documents called Single Authorization for the Delivery of Containers (debt-free) granted by the Maritime Agency involved in each case were also sent together with the corresponding notes requesting the transfers to the Murchison bonded warehouse, using the aforementioned fax machine No. 394-0604 belonging to the firm Stellium, of which, as has been seen, the accused Leiva was a client. Thus, the existence of said instruments can be seen with complete clarity, added to pages 31 and 33 of folder No. 4 (facts N and I, respectively); pages 31 of folder No. 3 (fact No. O); pages 35 of folder No. 8 (fact P) and pages 42 of folder No. 7 (fact U).
Consequently, an examination of each of these documents shows that the number of the sending fax is recorded at the top of the same, which, in all cases, is the one already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

However, it should be added in this regard that at the time of removing the containers or packages, as in the case of fact M-, the company Murchison SA provided receipts containing, among other data, the date of entry and exit of the same, with the repeatedly mentioned telephone number of the Stellium call center being recorded in the section relating to the telephone number corresponding to the client (see pages 30 of folder No. 4 facts N and i-; pages 24 of folder No. 3 -fact O-; pages 33 of folder No. 8 -fact P-; pages 36 of folder No. 9 fact R-; pages 45 of folder No. 6 -fact S-; pages 39 of folder No. 7 fact U-; pages 41 of folder No. 11 facts Nos. V and W; pages 50 of folder No. 1 fact X- and fs. 41 and 50 of folders Nos. 2 and 1, respectively -fact Y-).
All of these details fully confirm the degree of involvement that Roberto Leiva had in the various events under study, whether by preparing or having prepared the notes and transfer requests, arranging the sending of faxes and the presentation of false documents to the customs service in order to remove the containers from the Lin bonded warehouse so that they could be transferred, after passing the appropriate controls, to the various private warehouses located within the federal capital.
In another order of ideas, the peculiarity that arises with respect to the named Leiva in relation to facts V, W, X and Y cannot be ignored. Indeed, when the search was carried out at his office located at 540 Tucumán Street, 8th floor, apartment J of this city, the defendant was personally searched and asked to take his belongings out of his pockets. Two type A invoices were seized, Nos. 000-00006685 and 000-0000-6734, dated September 24 and 25, 1996, issued by the company Murchison SA for the concept of TRANSFER/DELIVERY of containers CBHU061581-4, facts V and W, GSTU610179-7 and MMMU351549-5, facts X and Y, respectively.

This situation becomes notoriously relevant with regard to the conscious and voluntary intervention of Roberto Leiva in the perpetration of such acts, since the fact that the aforementioned invoices were in his possession fully proves that the aforementioned person made - by himself or through another - the payments for the services provided by the permit holder, removing the aforementioned containers from the headquarters of the same in order to transfer them to the private warehouses provided for them.
Likewise, it is of interest to emphasize with respect to assumptions V and W, the aforementioned circumstance that they correspond to a single container, identified as CBHU 061.581-4, whose analysis the Court has divided into two by virtue of the fact that its entry into national territory was instrumented by the preparation of two bills of lading Nos. 6B1096 and 6B1105 - related to two consignments of various merchandise (see pages 1 and 2 of file No. 11). Such situation becomes significant in this regard, for the simple reason that it has motivated the preparation and presentation of the already adduced apocryphal transshipment requests Nos. 411 and 412 before the customs point of the TCO fiscal warehouse, in order to illegally remove the merchandise from said fiscal warehouse.

Now, beyond the reasons given throughout this document in order to prove the knowledge and will with which Roberto Leiva has intervened in these events, it is still worth adding that from the telephone conversation corresponding to subscriber No. 444-2046, dated September 24, 1996, the indicated situation arises with absolute clarity, since it deals with a conversation between Ariel and Beto, in which the former expresses that the container he took out during the morning of said day had another knowledge, whose No. is 1105 and that therefore two papers must be made and not just one as they had done; that this is because one paper must be made per knowledge. However, Beto answers that it is a single container and that one paper was enough, but Ariel answers that two should be made because it was merchandise that came to be deconsolidated (see cassette No. 51, corresponding to subscription 444-2046, dated 24/09/96, side A, return No. 308).
Therefore, in relation to the circumstance linked to the splitting of the assumptions in question discussed during the trial as fact 11 - there is no need to make further considerations due to the clarity and forcefulness of the aforementioned conversation. Now, regarding the conscious and voluntary intervention of the accused in such events, it should be noted that Roberto Leiva was the owner of the aforementioned subscriber number, corresponding to a Movicom device, which, it should be reiterated, has been expressly acknowledged by the accused in his statement on pages 5960/5964-; that he was also nicknamed Beto and that the invoice for payment to Murchison for storage and delivery of the container in question was seized from his possession. In this regard, there is no doubt that the accused conceived the maneuver voluntarily in order to evade customs control regarding the exit to the square of the batches of merchandise housed in the aforementioned container.

In turn, both the circumstances described as well as the conclusions drawn are supported by the statements made by Gustavo Ariel García, when giving his statement during the investigation at pages 8685/93, which was incorporated into the debate by reading, in that he stated that Leiva provided him with all the documentation with which he went to the TCO bonded warehouse; that, prior to that, Leiva called the terminal to find out the cost of the service, later giving him the exact sum of money for that purpose; that in July or August of 1996, Leiva gave him transfer requests to remove the containers; that these were made with the signatures and stamps except for the box corresponding to Fulfilled or Pass to the Guard. García also stated that Leiva gave him the license plate number of the trucks hired to transport the containers and told him that he should wait for them at the Shell service station located in front of the aforementioned bonded warehouse - a circumstance that is supported by the photograph glossed on page 109 -; that Leiva provided the customs contacts in order to carry out the operation in question; that he also told him that he should not worry since as long as they were operating in TCO there would be no problems since everything was arranged with the Procedures and General Inspection sections of the Customs Police. Finally, it should be added with respect to the statements of the co-defendant García in the statement in question, that, after making a detailed description of the operation in an identical manner to that constructed in this statement -, he maintained that he carried out between twelve or fifteen operations of this kind (see, specifically, page 8689, middle of page); clarifying finally and definitively that...he wishes to clarify that everything said up to here in relation to the container removal procedure is applicable to all containers investigated in the proceedings, processed by him... (see pages 8691 last part).

For his part, it is appropriate to add to these statements what was expressed by Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, when he gave his statement during the trial hearing dated May 31 of this year (see pages 1645/49 of the trial minutes), since through it he admitted his relationship with Roberto Leiva, to whom he went when his client Victor Moszel, president of the firm Angelo Paolo, needed not only to introduce merchandise into the country for his business chain, but also sufficient financing to face the import operations; which was how the containers identified in facts 1, 2, 6 and 9 (currently identified as X, Y, R and S, respectively) entered, realizing that the maneuver was not regular with the first shipment, since while the merchandise entered under the house to house condition it was extracted from the fiscal warehouses through transfer requests. In another order of ideas, he also stated that he had introduced Leiva to various people in order for them to carry out operations such as those mentioned, recalling in said act a person with the surname Mitcovitzer linked to the company Textil Pagoda San Luis, who in turn appears as the consignee in the event identified with the letter O-; another person with the surname Roig who was president of the company Saint Honor, who appears as the consignee of the merchandise related to event LL- and he also introduced him to Montero linked to the firm Tarsell SA, who appears as the consignee in event T-.

Finally, it is worth highlighting Roberto Leiva's own statements in his inquiry on pages 5960/64, in reference to his relationship with Juan Ventura Arce Cajes and Gustavo Ariel García, also clarifying that he must have observed the transfer requests that were shown to him on some occasion; that he received them already prepared from Juan Arce and passed them on to Gustavo Ariel García, who knew how to handle the procedures at the port. That although he does not remember exactly, the transfer requests that passed through his hands turned out to be around 10, which came complete, even with the stamps affixed; that he understands that they were prepared by Andrés, an employee of Juan Arce Cajes.
In summary, there is full certainty that Roberto Leiva, nicknamed Beto, has intervened in the different stages of the maneuver already described, acting with the knowledge and will to carry out the different objective elements of the facts, in order to be able to evade customs control in the extraction to the square of the merchandise of foreign origin linked to the facts L, LL, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y.

b) Juan Ventura Arce Cajes.
First of all, it should be mentioned that the prosecution has attributed to the named person his malicious intervention in the events identified as J, LL, O, Q, R, S, T, U, X and Y.
Now, with regard to the interference of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in events J and Q, no consideration can be made, since such assumptions have not even constituted the materiality of any illicit act for the reasons that were opportunely stated in the previous recital, to which reference is made.

As regards the remaining facts mentioned, there is full certainty about the knowing and deliberate intervention in the circumstances constituting the smuggling operation carried out to remove the containers related to those cases from the primary customs area.
Indeed, as has been seen, the containers of foreign origin entered into the fiscal warehouse of the permit holder Murchison SA, were removed from the place using trucks with semi-trailers, previously contracted for this purpose.
It is in this segment that the involvement of the accused Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in the smuggling operation can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is so because all of the containers related to the events LL, O, R, S, T, U, X and Y have been transported by trucks contracted by the named Arce Cajes to the transport company OSPAQ SRL.
On this point, it is appropriate to refer first to what was stated in this regard by witnesses Francisco Javier Mallo and Osvaldo Angel Rigenerato, both owners of the aforementioned firm. The first of those named stated during the hearing held on June 28 (see pages 2041/2043) that Juan Ventura Arce was among the clients of his firm; that although he could not specify the number of jobs that the named had contracted, which indicates a certain number of operations, he recalled that a container had been removed from the TCO bonded warehouse. He also stated forcefully that the work was charged for at Arce's office, which was located on Paraná Street in this city, at which time he was assisted by an employee named Andrés.

On the other hand, such statements have been confirmed by the witness Rigenerato, who during the hearing of that same day, stated that he had contact with Juan Arce Cajes through a person named Adrián Picardi; that Arce requested trucks from OSPAQ by telephone and also paid for the contracted services; that his daughter went to the office of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in order to obtain the respective payments. Finally, it should be noted that the aforementioned witness stated that all transports were carried out within the scope of the federal capital, specifically recalling the destination of Rawson Street 631 in this city.
In turn, the involvement of the accused in the hiring of trucks to extract the TCO containers and as paying agent for said services, results from the statements of the witness Cecilia Rigenerato when she maintained that she knew the accused since on one or two occasions he went representing the firm OSPAQ to the address on Paraná and Corrientes streets, a place where Juan Ventura paid him in cash for the container transport services, carried out within the scope of this city.
In this order of ideas, the actions of the accused in the operation in question are obvious, since all the evidence identifies Juan Ventura Arce Cajes as the one in charge of contracting the transports to direct the merchandise of foreign origin to the different private warehouses in the federal capital.

However, it should be added that in the various Bills of Lading issued by the Transport Company OSPAQ SRL, related to events LL, R, S, T and U, the name of ARCE appears as the client of all the contracts for the corresponding trucks (see pages 36 of folder No. 5; pages 47 of folder No. 9; pages 55 of folder No. 6; pages 57 of folder No. 10 and pages 68 of folder No. 7, respectively). Such documents only support what is stated in the preceding paragraph regarding the voluntary intervention of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in the aforementioned events.
On the other hand, it is also appropriate to bring up the testimonies produced during the debate by the different truck drivers who carried out the aforementioned transfers.
In this regard, the witness Leonardo Pablo Moreno stated that he is a driver for the company OSPAQ SRL; that he made two trips for Arce Cajes transporting containers that had been removed from the Murchison bonded warehouse and that he remembers having taken some to Rawson Street in this city. It is also worth highlighting what was stated by the witnesses Veloso, Zambianchi, Quinteros and Serrano, all of whom, as drivers for the aforementioned transport company, stated that they had taken containers from the TCO warehouse to places located within the area of this city for the client Juan Arce.
In this sense, the statements of the last two witnesses mentioned are conclusive, who reported having made transfers for ARCE from TCO to private warehouses located in different places in the capital (for example, those on Aguirre, Sarmiento, Zañartú and Conesa streets).

On the other hand, although they have not been included in the corresponding folders, the Bills of Lading related to events O, X and Y, in the receipts for exchanges of equipment leaving the containers from the Murchison SA warehouse, the firm OSPAQ SRL is listed as the one contracted for the purposes of carrying out the relevant transfers, even identifying the license plates of the trucks used for this purpose (this can be confirmed by observing the indicated documents, referring to the respective points of the previous consideration).
In this regard, it is also worth noting that various telephone recordings heard during the debate corroborate the aforementioned actions of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in the context of this maneuver. In this regard, it is worth referring to the recordings of subscriber 373-0403 corresponding to the telephone line of the offices that Juan Ventura Arce Cajes owned at 446 Paraná Street, 9th floor, Apt. D, in relation to the conversations on the following cassettes: No. 6, dated 24/9/96, side B, a call from Juan to OSPAQ; No. 7, also dated 24/9/96, side A, in which two calls from Juan to OSPAQ and one from said company to Juan are recorded; and cassette No. 10, dated 25/9/96, side A, in which a conversation between Juan and OSPA is recorded.

On the other hand, in relation to facts X and Y, it is worth highlighting that from the wiretaps of the telephone line of subscriber 475-2462, corresponding to a Miniphone cell phone belonging to Juan Ventura Arce Cajes -according to the report of said company on page 9559, dated 26/11/96-, it emerges with absolute clarity the task of monitoring the route taken by the various containers to the private warehouses carried out by the aforementioned; highlighting those corresponding to cassette No. 15, dated 25/9/96, side A, in which the contingencies experienced by the trucks that transported the containers GSTU 610.179-7 and MMMU 351.549-5 to the warehouse on Rawson Street are described, where the procedure on pages 195/198 took place.
On the other hand, it should be noted that when expanding his statement during the investigation fs. 8685/93-, incorporated by reading into the debate, the accused Gustavo Ariel García stated that Leiva told him that Arce was in charge of the freight of the containers and that both Leiva and Arce Cajes organized the smuggling operation, the former providing the customs contacts and the latter the client portfolio.
In turn, similar statements are contained in the statement made by Roberto Leiva during the investigative stage, pages 5960/64-, incorporated by reading into the debate, since in said piece it is stated that the named Juan Ventura Arce Cajes provided, personally or through employees, the documentation related to the customs operations in question and that Juan Ventura was also the person who had the contacts with the different importers.

Finally, and for the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning the company's own recognition of the facts linked to the firm Furtex SRL (alleged R, S, X and Y), since during the preliminary statement given during the debate dated May 31 of this year - see pages 1645/49 of case No. 181 -, it stated that it was fully aware of the customs comptroller's evasion maneuver, since it was clear that the containers entered national territory under the house to house condition, subsequently leaving the TCO bonded warehouse by submitting transshipment requests, when in reality they should have been documented at the customs office of arrival. Likewise, it clarified that the firm Furtex SRL - which was its client - was actually dedicated to the commercialization of leather and that it was unfairly involved in the facts in question; that the importer told it to prepare the bills of lading and also make the payment of the freight, which it did; that he would receive a commission of five hundred dollars for each container; that all containers linked to Furtex SRL were dispatched from the free zone of Montevideo to the port of Buenos Aires; that his job was to get clients; that he introduced clients to Leiva sometimes personally and other times by supplying him with clients; that when files Nos. 3 (fact O), 5 (fact LL), 7 (U) and 10 (T) were shown to him, he stated that he introduced him to Mitcovizer, Roig from the Saint Honor firm - and Servando Montero from the Tarsell company -, who were his clients.

Beyond indicating that everything expressed is fully supported by the various elements of evidence already indicated, it is also important to highlight the fact that all of the containers linked to the company Furtex SRL have been loaded in the port of Montevideo (Eastern Republic of Uruguay), which is evidenced by simply observing the respective bills of lading, a task for which we refer to the various files cited.
In conclusion, there is full certainty about the knowledge and will with which Juan Ventura Arce Cajes acted in order to bring into the market the different goods housed in the containers related to events LL, O, R, S, T, U, X and Y, by evading customs controls.

c) Gustavo Ariel Garcia
Entering into the study of the intervention of the named in the facts that concern us, the Court is fully certain regarding the malicious actions of each of them.
Indeed, the various records of the process that were produced during the trial hearing allow us to clearly see that Gustavo Ariel García - dependent on Roberto Leiva - was sometimes in charge of making payments at the port terminals where the containers arrived in order to obtain their transfer to the TCO bonded warehouse and, fundamentally, he was the one who subsequently went to the headquarters of said warehouse in order to withdraw the merchandise by presenting the falsified customs documents.

In this regard, it should be noted that, during their respective testimonial statements, many of the truck drivers who went to the Lingas depot to extract the containers and transfer them to the various private depots, have recognized Gustavo Ariel García as the person who generally waited for them at a Shell service station, located in front of Murchison - with the cargo documentation and, after locating them based on some signs with the inscription Tito previously placed on the windshield of the vehicles - although sometimes they were contacted by the name of the transport company (OSPAQ) - he proceeded to enter TCO to carry out the corresponding procedures and obtain the release of the cargo.
Indeed, witnesses Moreno, Zambianchi and Serrano stated during the trial that they had identified during the investigation the person who was waiting for them in Murchison after being shown a series of photographs of different subjects, indicting the one corresponding to García; a circumstance that has been confirmed during the trial by those named.
In the same vein, the witness Ana María Canovas Rubio spoke out in relation to the matter in question, since she stated that she was an employee of the permit-holding company Murchison during 1996; that she remembers the person who requested the transfers from the port terminals to the bonded warehouse, who was also in charge of making the payments for the storage and delivery of the containers and that said person was of medium height, thin, middle-aged - a circumstance that fully coincides with García's characteristics - and that he was known as Beto although she did not refer to Leiva by virtue of the circumstance that appears in the minutes of July 15 of this year, to which we refer.

It should also be noted that during the prevention a photographic sample was obtained of the subject who was waiting for the trucks at a Shell service station located in front of TCO (see fs. 109 of the main document), from which it can be seen that he has the physiognomic features of Gustavo Ariel García.
In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the wiretaps of subscriber 444-2046, belonging to Roberto Leiva, since they are supported by the records analyzed. Thus, in cassette No. 40 of 12/9/96, side A, there is a recorded call from Ariel to Beto in turn 335, in which it is mentioned that the container is going to Textil Pagoda San Luis, located at Zañartú 449 in this city (event O). In the same cassette, side B, turn 103, there is a call from García to Beto of the same tenor as the one mentioned above but in relation to the event identified as P, since the license plate of the tractor that transported the container is mentioned with that one related (see in this regard, fs. 25 of folder No. 8).
Likewise, on cassette 51 of the same subscriber, dated 24/9/96, side A, lap 043, a call from Beto to Ariel is recorded in which the former informs him that the load is leaving for Rawson 631, where it always goes, a circumstance evidently related to the X and Y who entered that place the following day.

On the other hand, it is also worth mentioning what was stated by the accused Roberto Leiva during his questioning, when he stated that he gave García the necessary documentation to carry out the corresponding procedures in the TCO bonded warehouse in order to extract the containers. He added that García was the person who knew how to handle the procedures that were carried out in the port and in the bonded warehouses; circumstances that confirm what was pointed out regarding the degree of involvement of said accused in each of the events in question.
Finally, the admission made by García himself when expanding his statement on pages 8685/93 cannot be ignored, since it is fully supported by the accumulation of evidence mentioned above.
In this regard, and without prejudice to providing a detailed analysis of the functions that corresponded to each of those involved and the modus operandi, he described in detail how the first operation in which he intervened was, corresponding to two transfer requests that he had to present at TCO. On that occasion, he realized the illegality of the maneuver because said requests were to move the containers to the city of Córdoba when he knew that the destination of the trucks was within the scope of the federal capital. Nevertheless, he carried out the aforementioned operation and, upon returning to Leiva's office, he expressed his concern about the irregularity of the procedure, obtaining in response that he should dedicate himself to doing his part since the rest was under his control. In this way, he carried out between twelve and fifteen customs operations of this kind and to top it off, he concluded by stating that... what has been said up to now in relation to the container removal procedure is applicable to all the containers investigated in the proceedings processed by him...

In this regard, there is no room for doubt that would prevent us from affirming with the degree of certainty required by this instance, the knowledge and will with which Gustavo Ariel García intervened in the commission of the acts identified as LL, O, P, R, S, T, U, X and Y.

d) Julio Cesar Arce Cajes
With regard to the aforementioned's intercession in the events that have been imputed to him, it should be noted that the accumulation of evidence produced during the course of the debate fully proves the fraudulent participation that he had.
Indeed, first of all, it is appropriate to mention the minutes on pages 195/198, which report the interception of two trucks, which ended their journey at the warehouse on Rawson Street 631 in this city, where they entered guarded by the Quilmes Brigade and customs personnel, the validity of which was questioned by the defense of Julio César Arce Cajes, a claim that was rejected by the Court for the reasons set forth in the First Recital of this ruling.
In boxes Nos. 38 and 39 of that warehouse - the final destination of the merchandise transported by the trucks in question (events X and Y) -, the named person was present, who was duly identified in said procedure.

The following day, that is, on September 26, 1996, police and customs personnel, supported by able witnesses and armed with the corresponding search warrant, entered the aforementioned boxes, where the defendant was located and from which they seized a large quantity of clothing, some with the inscription "Industria Argentina" while others without this legend. Stamps with this legend were also seized (see prints on fs. 306-), four knives, nine box cutters, three scissors, six pads and a bag with stickers; all items undoubtedly intended for changing the labels of the merchandise of the clothing category that was unloaded from the containers at that site. All of this was carried out by the inspectors Guillermo Pellegrini, Esteban Lofeudo and Esteban Cabanas with the participation of the customs inspector Osvaldo Racioppi who testified in the debate in relation to this event - and in the presence of the witnesses Jorge Palomeque who also testified during the trial - and Jerome Humphries, according to the respective minutes on fs. 302.
The presence of Julio César Arce Cajes in the place at least during the months of August and September 1996, is also confirmed by the statements of witnesses Gustavo Daniel Aranda, Javier Alejandro Silvero, Daniel Ricardo Ferrara, Cristian Andrés Ferrara, Carlos Martínez and Martín Silvio Martínez, all of whom stated -with very slight differences in their testimonies- that they worked as day laborers in the warehouse at 631 Rawson Street in this city, unloading the various merchandise that came in the containers and stacking it inside said site; a task that they performed by making a handrail between them. In turn, they performed other tasks on site, including loading the already divided merchandise into different trucks that came to pick it up.

All of these witnesses agreed that there was a person in the warehouse, whom some identified as Julio and others as Arce, who supervised the tasks within that place, although without having much influence on other matters, since they were hired by a person from the firm Angelo Paolo, and it was agreed that the salary would be paid on Fridays by different people and in a plaza located in the Boca neighborhood.
Undoubtedly, the aforementioned evidence allows us to affirm with complete certainty that Julio César Arce Cajes has intervened in the events R, S, X and Y, with the knowledge and will to make contributions to the maneuver consisting of tasks of organization of the unloading of the merchandise once it arrived at the Rawson warehouse, as well as intervening in relation to the coating of the same by printing Argentine industry stamps. It is also discounted that the defendant had full knowledge regarding the foreign origin of the merchandise that was unloaded at the aforementioned warehouse, since it arrived in containers from the TCO bonded warehouse; it is pertinent to highlight that the accused knew the operation of the entry of containers into the country.
This is corroborated by what Juan Ventura Arce Cajes said during his investigation, when he stated that his brother Julio César worked with him in import customs tasks and that he introduced him to Víctor Moszel (President of Angelo Paolo) so that he could employ him to carry out warehouse cleaning and merchandise storage tasks.

Finally, it is worth mentioning what Julio César Arce Cajes himself said during his statement during the investigative stage at pages 2418/19, where he admitted that he worked as an employee of his brother and stated that he was in charge of getting enough staff to load and unload trucks carrying merchandise that came from an import. He also stated regarding facts X and Y that he was waiting for two containers with merchandise; that upon arrival they would unload it in the boxes on Rawson Street previously rented for this purpose and that he found out about the content of the containers related to said assumptions when he went to pay the maritime freight to the Robinson agency, at which time he learned that they were shirts. He also added that the previous week he had received another container transporting pilots, which was stowed in boxes 38 and 39 of the Rawson warehouse, with all three being consigned in the name of the company Furtex SRL.
In this regard, it is worth highlighting two clearly determined circumstances: one, that the container linked to event S was carrying pilots, as shown on page 1 of file No. 6; and another concerning the fact that during the procedure on September 26, 1996, pilots were seized from boxes 38 and 39.
Finally, it can be added that the accused also stated that together with the day laborers they only engaged in loading and unloading containers and, in special cases, that is when they were paid an extra amount, they opened the packages brought into the warehouse to classify the merchandise by article.
In short, such circumstances only serve to demonstrate the voluntary intervention of Julio César Arce Cajes in the events attributed to him.

e) Aldo Julio Cesar Diaz
The person named provided a statement during the trial. In it he stated that he worked at the former National Customs Administration, specifically in the General Inspection Department of the Customs Police, under the orders of Enrique Ferrari. That by order of his superiors, he proceeded to examine the folders containing the maritime import manifests, and noticed that the Furtex firm, which was dedicated to the commercialization of leather and clothing made from said material, had imported shirts housed in five containers. Based on this circumstance, which he reiterated was noticed when examining the folders of maritime import manifests, he followed the five containers to the TCO bonded warehouse. He added that when he requested the documentation on them, he was informed that these containers had been released and that the documentation had already been sent to the Safekeeping office. That for this reason, he recorded it in the log of new items corresponding to the aforementioned bonded warehouse. He then proceeded to report this circumstance to his boss, who told him not to worry because the firm in question was under siege and was soon going to fall.
It should be noted that Díaz, within the Customs Police, provided services in a specific department, whose primary function was to process requests from federal judges in the interior and customs in the rest of the country.

On the other hand, the person who held the position at the time of the events in question, that is, Enrique Ferrari, when giving testimony during the hearings, did not remember having commissioned Díaz to carry out any management at the TCO warehouse. He did say that some commercial companies that formerly operated with the Paysandú customs were being questioned, but when he consulted the list he had in his possession, the Furtex firm did not appear. On the other hand, he also did not remember Díaz having informed him of the action carried out in Murchison.
Now, given the fact that Díaz could not justify the monitoring of the aforementioned shipment destined for Furtex - the actions of which did not fall within his specific functions -, added to the fact that his former boss did not endorse such activity, it can only be deduced that this specific control was due to great professional zeal that led him to act in this way.
But the accused, due to his rank and position, was perfectly familiar with the procedure for the exit of any container, regardless of the method adopted to do so. Therefore, he knew that a copy of the document justifying the exit from a customs warehouse - be it an import clearance, a transshipment request or an international cargo manifest - had to be on site, and yet he did not demand it because, as he admitted during his investigation, his work consisted mainly, and within his specific function, in verifying the documentation.
But he did accept the version given to him that it was in the Registration and Crossing division of customs, and despite knowing that this did not work in that way, he not only accepted that version, but he did not go to that department to verify this circumstance.

The above is corroborated by the statements of all the people linked to customs who have testified during the debate, in that they affirmed that the fiscal warehouses did not send any documentation to Registry and Crossing, but that the customs operation, in the case of transit, was closed with the reception of the corresponding tornaguia, that is, the fifth copy of the transfer request used.
On the other hand, if the merchandise was not given a suspensive destination, but a definitive one that released the containers, as he said he was informed, it is inexplicable why he did not verify, either in the fiscal warehouse or in the corresponding office, the payment of the pertinent taxes; especially when Díaz himself maintained in his investigation that the release of merchandise was understood in customs jargon as the payment of taxes and duties.

Furthermore, the defendant, by leaving the record on folio 249 of the TCO log, states that he requested the documentation for the release to the square of the containers referred to in the event indicated as J in this sentence, which indicates that he acts as if the merchandise had been dispatched by paying the corresponding concepts, but at the time of this event, and this should be highlighted, for import dispatches the so-called Maria system was fully applicable since only the suspensive destinations were done manually - and that such information could be obtained immediately by simply entering the knowledge number into the computer - which, as has been proven, worked even in the office of the customs guards of the fiscal warehouse; especially when what Díaz had in his possession was the information on the manifests, essential documentation to enter the system.
Everything previously narrated, added to other evidence from the case, incorporated into the debate, proves conclusively that it was not professional zeal that motivated Díaz to go to TCO.
Although such an act has not been attributed to the accused in question, the situation described enables the Court to draw conclusions regarding the acts that were attributed to him.
This is so because on September 16, 1996, two containers left the Exolgán port terminal and entered national territory in an absolutely identical manner to the five already mentioned. In fact, containers GSTU610.179-7 and MMMU 351.549-5 arrived in the country on September 12, 9 on a ship belonging to the Líneas Feeder company, containing boxes of shirts and consigned in the name of the firm Furtex, circumstances that are recorded in the respective documentation folders; especially the photocopy of the maritime import manifest (see pages 96 and 5 of folders X and Y, respectively).
They were then transported to the Murchison depot, from which they were removed by submitting the aforementioned false transfer requests.

Thus, we are not faced with a surprising accuracy regarding the way in which the five containers related to the alleged individual with the letter J entered; since in both groups of cases the merchandise consisted of shirts, which came from Montevideo, using the services of Líneas Feeder and consigned in the name of the same company that generated Díaz's shrewd suspicion, to undertake the already mentioned follow-up that concluded with the aforementioned note left by him at the Murchison headquarters.
At this point, a clarification is required. On the same date that the two containers referred to in events X and Y arrived, two more containers also entered the national territory, which were also completely identical to those in terms of their development (supposed S and R, which left TCO on September 18 and 19, respectively). However, the Court will not rule on them because they have not constituted grounds for accusation against the defendant Díaz; therefore, there is no jurisdiction to formulate the same considerations that will be specified in relation to events X and Y.
Now, continuing with the analysis, it should be noted that since Díaz suspected the Furtex firm based on the fact that it was not dedicated to the importation of shirts from abroad and given the occurrence of said circumstance in relation to the containers that were attributed to it, it is not even minimally explained how the named person did not exercise the same powers with respect to it that he did exercise at the time of the aforementioned antecedent.

Certainly, the presence of Aldo Díaz in the bonded warehouse of the licensee Murchison has left a very clear consequence: the extraction of merchandise from abroad consisting of shirts, had to be consigned in the name of another firm to avoid the monitoring and control of the customs police, already informed of the circumstances in the person of Díaz, or he had to be neutralized in some way if the will to import said effects was maintained without making any variation in the operation.
Regarding this segment, the telephone tappings of the subscriber Leiva (line 444-2046) become of vital relevance, incorporated into the debate. Thus, it is worth highlighting cassette No. 16, dated 20/8/96, side A, in which a conversation between Luis and Beto is recorded, in which the former asks him to go there, since the inspectors wrote the book and it seems that it is for the five and it must be for the name of the importer, expressing to him that they are going to tell him what to do with respect to it. It is worth highlighting that on that date Díaz's entry was made in the TCO log of new items for the five containers of event J-. From this same cassette, side A-, it is also worth highlighting a call from Juan to Beto in which the latter informs the former that he was in Murchison because Diaz had appeared asking for the documentation of the five.

But the issue becomes incontestable when a day later, a call is made from Luis to Beto in which the latter tells the one who was with a customs person: we were with that groncho…; he wants business… (what he wrote how is he going to leave it…); he is not going any further… since he knows there are three more, he wants a piece of the next ones that come;…these gronchos want money; … he went and checked everything that came in that little boat; then the person who met with the customs officer adds that the latter told him… I knew that some of you were one of you; he asked to be arrested in the next three and the matter with the book is void (cassette No. 17, dated August 21, 1996, side A, turn 024). In the same sense, it is worth referring to the following conversation on the same cassette and side, held between Ariel and Beto in which the same terms of the previously mentioned recording are reproduced.
Such elements only corroborate the accumulation of evidence cited, all of which align in the sense that Aldo Julio César Díaz knew the documentary situation in which the containers related to events X and Y were found and, despite his duty to act as an official of the security force assigned to the prevention of customs offenses, he failed to do so in order to allow the causal course of events to lead to the evasion of customs control in exchange for the receipt of financial compensation.
As a corollary and in order to dispel any doubt in this regard, his failure to act was alluded to by Ariel García, when expanding his inquiry on pages 8685/93, who stated that when he asked Leiva for an explanation because he was worried since it would be the declarant who would be in charge of carrying out the procedures at TCO, the latter replied that as long as he was in said warehouse nothing would happen because it was arranged with the customs police… and that the arrangement was with procedures and with a general inspection… (this sector of the customs where, it should be emphasized, the accused Díaz worked).

In summary, there is no doubt about the fraudulent involvement of Aldo Julio César Díaz in the realization of events X and Y, by failing to act to avoid the circumvention of customs control regarding said assumptions.

f) Haroldo Gomez
The defendant has been accused by the plaintiff's representative, who attributed to him his involvement in the smuggling related to events T, U, X and Y.
With regard to the last two, the Court has put forward a decision to partially annul the order of prosecution and preventive detention and all actions taken as a result thereof; this circumstance entailed the acquittal of the same, for the reasons set out in the First Recital, to which reference is made for the sake of brevity.
As regards the remaining charges, it should be noted that the defendant also provided services within the Customs Police Procedures section of the National Customs Administration. However, this circumstance cannot be compared to that of his co-worker Díaz for the reasons set out below.

The crux of the verification of Aldo Díaz's intervention was based on the notorious circumstance that the two attributed events had absolute structural identity, in terms of the mode of arrival in the country, the same contracted maritime transport line and, fundamentally, the same consignee of the merchandise consignments, highlighting in this respect the circumstance that Furtex was not dedicated to importing the type of merchandise housed in the containers.
The same does not occur with the situation of Haroldo Jorge Gómez. In fact, the charges against him relate to containers TRIU 500.108-6 and NDLU 401.290-9 (facts T and U, respectively).
Regarding the first, it should be noted that it contained cosmetics from the port of Montevideo (Uruguay), arrived at the Exolgán port terminal via the maritime company Lineas Feeder and consigned in the name of Tarsell SA.
Regarding the second, it is observed that it housed textile merchandise, whose origin was Pakistan, coming from Japan, arrived at port terminal No. 5 (Bactssa) and consigned in the name of Mois Chami.
In this way, it can be clearly seen that there is no link that would allow both events to be related to the commission of any customs offence.
This is corroborated by the fact that both the firm Tarsell SA and the consignee Mois Chami were engaged in the import of the type of products entered for each in the aforementioned containers.
Consequently, what would be the motive that forced Gomez to intervene in some way to prevent the perpetration of some illicit act?

Certainly, if the name of the firm could configure a selection criterion for the purposes of carrying out the customs control exercise - a circumstance acknowledged by Gómez in his preliminary inquiries and also affirmed by Díaz during the trial - why would the accused in question be required to act within the scope of his powers if, based on the aforementioned criterion, there was no reason to suspect, contrary to what did occur in the case of Aldo Díaz.
On the other hand, with respect to the consignee Tarsell, the only intervention that Haroldo Gómez had was to stop the departure of one of the containers consigned in the name of said firm, see fact Q-, as can be seen from the entry he made on September 5, 1996, in the logbook of the firm Exolgán and in relation to container TEXU 469.815-7. It is clearly deduced from this that Gómez's interference with the aforementioned company was limited precisely to preventing one of the containers from being able to leave the market, in the event of some irregularity.

On the other hand, although the container corresponding to the event T was entered in the name of Tarsell and this occurred after the date on which Gómez made the arrest linked to the aforementioned case Q, this coincidence only exists in this regard as an element that may be incriminating based on the knowledge that he had of said signature as a result of the aforementioned antecedent. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that no other evidence has been produced that could confirm this indication, nor has there been any telephone conversation in which he participated or that could incriminate him, there being only certain conversations between two subjects that refer to Gómez but always of an equivocal nature, that is to say, referring to the named person, sometimes, as someone who could interrupt the illegal action and other times, the opposite, that is to say, as if this kind of obstacle that he could mean had been overcome.
Consequently, this single indication only raises a certain suspicion as to a possible omission on the part of the accused, consisting of not having stopped the container linked to the alleged T; however, it must be pointed out that in this instance and within the framework of the rule of law, no conviction can be based on suspicion but requires absolute certainty.
For all these reasons, in accordance with the principle that dictates that in case of doubt, a decision should be made in favor of the accused, a ruling of acquittal will be issued regarding Haroldo Jorge Gómez (Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Nation).

III. Regarding facts A, C, CH, E, G, H, I and K:

Although the evidence produced during the trial has allowed the materiality of the facts to be proven with the degree of certainty required in this instance, the same cannot be said with regard to the individualization of the participants and even less so, therefore, with regard to the precision of the contents of knowledge and will with which they would have acted.

Certainly, the analysis materialized in the previous point clearly reveals the absolute insufficiency of elements of conviction that could serve as support to sustain any relationship between the accused and the facts at hand.
Indeed, the objective structure presented by such cases does not turn out to be identical to that exhibited by those discussed in the previous point. Thus, while in the latter the merchandise was removed from the TCO bonded warehouse without any reliable documentation legitimizing the withdrawals, in the other cases the containers left said site under the protection of false transfer requests - which gave an appearance of legality to said operation.
This difference is not trivial, since much of the evidence used to prove the various fraudulent interventions of the accused in relation to the fifteen facts already examined loses all probative value, while others disappear completely.
Thus, the fact that the official stamps seized from Roberto Leiva's offices were used to create the false transfer requests, and the fact that the typewriter used to create them was based on the expert opinion prepared in this regard, rationally generated the certainty of the deliberate intervention of the accused. If we add to this the tone of the telephone wiretaps duly analyzed and the testimony of customs officials such as Gloria Arias and Aníbal Rodríguez, through whom the falseness of the instruments presented to extract the containers could be verified, this conclusion clears up any kind of doubt.

However, the particularity of the facts that are now important, annihilates the probative value of such elements, since there is no kind of documentation to evaluate, neither the stamps, nor the typewriter, nor the aforementioned witnesses will provide any indication that could account for Leiva's involvement in the perpetration of the same.
On the other hand, it is true that not only is the way in which the goods were removed from the Murchison licensee unknown, but it is also unknown who was hired to remove the containers, or the place to which they were going. This situation further aggravates the evidentiary deficit, since the lack of knowledge of the circumstances indicated prevents the recounting of numerous testimonies from truck drivers, transporters, day laborers, etc. - that could shed some light on the matter. It should be recalled, as an example, the importance of such evidence in proving the involvement of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes in the other cases studied.
However, it should be noted that the lack of evidence is not limited to what has already been explained, but it should also be mentioned that there were no telephone recordings that, with the support of other elements, would allow proof of any intervention. On the other hand, there is no witness who has acknowledged the participation of any of the defendants in the events, nor are there any photographic evidence that would allow their identification.

It should be noted with respect to the alleged cases A, C, CH, E, G, H, I and K, that both the Public Prosecutor's Office and the plaintiff have directed their accusations exclusively against Leiva and García and, strictly speaking, none of the elements that in other facts have demonstrated with certainty the fraudulent actions on their part, provide any indication of their involvement in the cases that are now of interest.
Furthermore, it should be noted that when expanding his statement under investigation, García stated that he acknowledged his responsibility for all the events, but also added that his involvement began in August 1996, with the assumptions in question dating back to before that time. Consequently, there being no reason to divide that statement - which, as we have seen, has been based on other evidence - it is not clear what the reasons were for accusing the accused of participating in such events.
The question to ask seems obvious: is there any other element of evidence that could support this claim?
Based on the analysis of the evidence produced during the trial, the answer to this inquiry is negative. Indeed, first of all, one should not overlook the trivial nature of the accusatory allegations on the matter, which have only been able to prove the materiality of the facts, failing to add any evidence relating to the fraudulent involvement of the accused in them; at least not any evidence that goes beyond what has been said to demonstrate the existence of the objective aspect of the accusation.

In any case, it is only worth highlighting the existence of two clues: one, which consists of the fact that some of the notes requesting the transfer of containers to TCO included the telephone number corresponding to the call centre of which Leiva was a client (394-0604 of Stelium); while the other could be based on the existence of a certain similarity in the operation.
As regards the first of the aforementioned indications, it can only be said that it is absolutely insufficient to support the fraudulent actions of Roberto Leiva in all the cases in question, since there is not even mention of a telephone number corresponding to the named person, but rather the subscriber to the same is the Stellium call centre, which provides a service to its various clients and not exclusively to Leiva. Therefore, nothing rules out the possibility that the notes were sent from the aforementioned premises but by a person other than the defendant.
As regards the similarity of the manoeuvre, it must be pointed out that this is just a certain analogy, but not a complete identity. However, if we also take into account that this type of trick is completely lacking in any novelty, but on the contrary is frequently used for the purposes of smuggling goods - it is enough to gather information from the different Courts and Tribunals of the jurisdiction -, there is no doubt about the livid nature of this indication.

For all the above and taking into account, on the one hand, that there are no accusations related to the defendants Haroldo Gómez, Aldo Díaz, Julio C. Arce Cajes and Juan Ventura Arce Cajes with respect to the events at hand and, on the other, that there is no suitable evidence that could link Leiva and García with such events, it will be appropriate to issue an acquittal ruling in relation to the accusations directed against those named.

Fourth: Illicit association

Roberto Leiva, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes and Gustavo Ariel García have been accused by the prosecution and the plaintiff of the crime of illicit association; the first two as leaders or co-organizers, and also Julio César Arce Cajes, Aldo Julio César Díaz and Haroldo Gómez, although only by the private prosecutor.
Before going into the full analysis of the elements of conviction with which the accusing parties charged the accused with such actions, it is appropriate to make some general considerations regarding this particular criminal offense.
The crime of illicit association was and is commonly used by police authorities to justify the opening of a file in any investigation involving three or more people. The daily newspaper reports tell us about it. On the other hand, at the end of this preliminary investigation, a definitive sentence is very rarely reached that can sustain such a qualification. And this, perhaps, is due to the fact that the terminology is very attractive, but the proof is very difficult.

It should also be considered that, because the figure is very complex, at the end of the road - as will be seen in this case - at the time of accusing, the parties limited themselves to only mentioning the illicit act and naming the legal norm that contemplates it, as if the simple fact that several people carry out an illicit activity in common, entails the action described in article 210 of the Penal Code.
In recent times, within the judicial sphere, there has also been a certain tendency not only to abuse this criminal figure, but also to dangerously use the aggravating circumstance of being the leader of an organization to justify preventive imprisonment, which the sum of the crimes committed by the group of people alone cannot justify in any way. It is not necessary to read the country's jurisprudence to know this, since it can be observed by simply following the police and sometimes political reports in the newspapers.
Perhaps it is just a fad, but when fashion involves people's freedom, it becomes dangerous, and the legal history of the world has shown that in times of social confusion, magical legislative solutions are sought that inevitably lead to a loss of coherence within the legal system, which ends up causing more harm than good, as occurred, for example, with the sadly remembered automobile law.

The basic and necessary principles for the configuration of the crime of illicit association, such as the verification of the criminal plan drawn up in advance, the number of associates, their criminal capacity to be members of the same, the subjective element that requires the prior agreement, the purpose, the original purpose of committing a crime, and of course, prior to the crime itself; the determination and plurality of the crimes to be committed and, finally, the specific intent to associate with that purpose, would seem not to require any kind of proof or that it would not be necessary because it would be a logical deduction from the circumstance that three or more people committed more than two crimes.
Otherwise, the brief arguments in the kilometer-long written requests for the prosecution to be brought to trial would be unexplained, where associations are mentioned and leaderships are attributed, but without showing how these constructions are supported by any concrete evidence.
The same thing happened at the trial hearing, where the private prosecutor, acting with the same methodology used throughout the case, gave a glimpse, using the blackboard, of a master class and concluded by only writing down the names of the defendants and outlining an imaginative story, although completely omitting to mention any evidence existing in the file or produced in the debate that had the slightest bearing on this conduct.
The prosecution, for its part, while maintaining the same methodology, as far as the lack of evidence is concerned, at least chose to request the acquittal of those who could not even be put on the board.
Having posed the procedural dilemma in this way and taking into account that there could not have been much defense in this regard, because it is very difficult to defend oneself out of nothing, or to raise defensive arguments taking into account what the judges may conclude at the time of deliberation, we will try to place the issue in its proper terms to give an adequate response to the evidence of the debate.
Before going into the full analysis of this cause, it is worth making some clarifications.

The crime of illicit association consists of taking part in an association or gang of three or more people, intended to commit crimes and for the sole fact of being a member of it.
The purpose of this ruling is not to recount the reasons for this configuration: the old plot (Code of 1886), guardian of the constitutional guarantee of article 14 of the Magna Carta (Project of 1891), its incorporation as an autonomous figure (art. 30, inc. 5 of law 4189), or the inclusion of the association when the crimes were committed with explosive materials (law 7029), etc., but to analyze its exact location within the penal system.
Although the titles of the Criminal Code do not include the specific type of each figure, they do oblige the judge to place the figure within the context marked by the title, because ultimately this, neither more nor less, specifies in its fair scope the protected legal asset.
Illicit association is one of the types of crimes that threaten public order (previously well-known as public tranquility).
Without entering into doctrinal disquisitions on the subject, the authors agree that despite the ambiguous nature of the term public order, it means tranquillity and social confidence. Ultimately, it is a matter of defending not social security itself, but rather the opinion that society has of that security, acting as a reinforcement of it.

This gives it the characteristic of a secondary legal asset (Soler, Argentine Criminal Law, Volume IV, page 538), since the protection is not direct for primary legal assets, but rather for mediate forms of protection of those, because what is at stake, ultimately, is that by penalizing these behaviors greater damages are avoided, since here a serious conflict arises in relation to this figure. Soler states regarding this topic, that the penal scales in this title are lower (undoubtedly, in relation to the crimes that it seeks to avoid).
The purest logic indicates that the creation of criminal types of danger, and due to a problem of fundamental coherence in criminal law, must be sanctioned with a penalty undoubtedly lower than that corresponding to the criminal type that it tries to protect as a secondary protection.
It is therefore very difficult to understand and even more difficult to digest that the secondary legal asset is punished with a greater penalty than the primary legal asset.
Therefore, the indiscriminate use of the term "unlawful association" for any criminal act involving the participation of two or more persons can lead to misleading situations regarding what the law truly intends to protect.
Regarding the case at hand, in addition to the discussions made regarding the criminal type in question, it remains to be analyzed whether, despite everything said, there is evidence that, beyond not being raised by the accusers, directly or indirectly implicates some of the accused.

As we have analyzed in the previous recitals, Roberto Leiva, through his contacts in Customs, together with Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, supplier of clients (who from all the analysis of the records were only those who confessed to him), using false documentation, took containers out of Customs, evading the corresponding control. Up to this point, it could be assumed that there was a pact or agreement of wills between both of them, to carry out an illicit activity, not being very clear that the illicit acts that comprised said activity were indeterminate. In any case, it is proven throughout this ruling that the illicit acts existed, but in no way can we prove that these illicit acts were carried out by virtue of a previous agreement, because neither of the accusing parties referred to it, and there is no record in the file, nor was any evidence produced in the debate that proves this point. On the contrary, the feeling existing in the debate regarding this topic arises as a result of a need for financing for the entry of the merchandise, and in view of this, and the possibilities of extra profits, the operation is carried out, but not that the agreement was prior, and as a consequence of this, the search for clients begins.

The number of partners that made up the group, which the law sets at a minimum of three, is also unclear. In addition to Roberto Leiva and Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, the prosecution also accuses Gustavo Ariel García of this crime, but at no time did it prove it, nor did it even mention when García signed this prior agreement to join the association, resulting in the few arguments put forward seeming to confirm the opposite. In effect, the accuser maintains that García was practically Leiva's cadet, who was used only to carry out the procedures at TCO. And this may be so, but if we observe that at no time was it suggested that García had any kind of participation in the profits, there is not sufficient reason to prove that he played any role within the group. What is clear is that García was a direct collaborator of Leiva.
On the other hand, we should not rule out that it was precisely García who, in his preliminary statement, gave a detailed account of all the activities he carried out during the two months he worked for Leiva, and, while admitting his responsibility for each of the acts he is accused of, only stated that he was paid on a per-service basis and at no time did he admit to being part of any association, even ignoring what Leiva did in his office because he was not allowed to be present when someone came to visit him.
García was therefore a simple manager who charged for each procedure carried out, and who, at no point in the debate, was proven to have intended to associate to commit crimes in an undetermined manner.
Similarly, there is a complete lack of evidence regarding some fugitives, who were mentioned only tangentially at certain points in the debate, but absolutely nothing was proven regarding this topic, which is necessary in order to establish the crime in question.
The complaint is broader in this sense, because it accuses all the defendants in relation to this crime.

But this circumstance does not change in the least what has been stated above. First of all, it is understood that Julio César Arce also committed this crime, to whom it is attributed as a secondary participant. But the fact of taking part in the association constitutes a crime per se, which does not admit degrees of participation. Either one is a part of it or one is not a part of it, and although the complaint accused Julio César Arce Cajes of some smuggling acts, attributing to him a secondary participation in them, the same cannot be extended to this crime because, as already stated, the participation is in the gang or association and not in the way of collaborating.
Apart from what has been said - which in itself rules out the participation of the aforementioned defendant - the scant evidence included in the case file totally disassociates him from this activity. And this is so because we must consider that his work depended on the firm Angelo Paolo and only consisted of the manual work of changing labels on the clothing marketed by that firm. Being the brother of one of the main suspects is not sufficient to prove the specific intent required by the figure, that is, the will to associate.
The so-called customs officers Aldo Julio César Díaz and Haroldo Gómez deserve a separate paragraph, and the private prosecutor also attributes this criminal action to them.
However, it should be noted that at the end of this process, only two of the facts analyzed could be attributed to Díaz, and none to Gómez.
In the case of Díaz, although there are two events, they occurred at the same time, and consisted of merchandise arriving on the same ship, for the same client and taken out of the TCO bonded warehouse together, which led to the police intervention on September 25, 1996, to such an extent that the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office requested that these two contrabands be treated as a single event.

In addition to the fact that it is already redundant to say that nothing has been proven regarding Díaz's willingness to associate, in the pertinent part of this ruling, where the smuggling activity is analyzed, it was made clear that the named acted on the basis of a promise undoubtedly prior to the event being analyzed and that his participation was in the criminal act itself, and this does not in any way mean forming part of the association, but rather that he does not even provide collaboration to it, because his necessary participation refers purely and exclusively to those previously determined smuggling crimes and for which he received the stipulated price. This circumstance proves by itself that Díaz participated in two smuggling operations although without any will to participate in an association to commit crimes in an undetermined manner.
The same can be said about Gómez, who was not even implicated, at least with the degree of certainty required for a conviction, in any of the smuggling cases dealt with in this trial. The total lack of evidence proving his willingness to associate previously to commit a crime is also applicable in his case.
Finally, and in another order of ideas, it could be acknowledged that a very superficial analysis of what was called the parallel customs could be misleading if one starts from the nickname by which this cause was known, going so far as to imagine a tremendous criminal organization that even threatened the economic foundations of the country.

But as Sebastian Soler rightly expressed when referring expressly to this crime (Argentine Criminal Law, volume IV, footnote on page 549), what is not in the case file is not in the world. Therefore, when this process is over, we find that the smuggling acts discussed in court do not alter the statistics in relation to this illicit act that has been committed in the past and is being committed at present.
Grouping together, because the intervening persons were needed to achieve the success of the smuggling operations that were carried out, could end up configuring, within a maximum hypothesis, a gang, in the vulgar and not legal sense of the term, and although the illicit association presupposes this previous grouping, the opposite does not happen, that is, a group of people does not constitute an illicit association, at least not the one that is repressed by article 210 of the Penal Code (CNCP, Sala II, 9-2-94, Bol. Juris. CNCP, No. 1, 1994), without prejudice to the fact that this concurrence of persons already has its specific aggravating circumstance in article 865, paragraph 1 of the Customs Code.
The hypothesis of article 210 of the Penal Code does not establish a secondary or subordinate type of illegality, even though its provision is aimed at acting as a second shield of the protection that the State provides to legal assets, and that its proof must also be carried out in a subordinate or secondary manner as if the obligation of the accusers were only to prove the responsibility of the accused only in the facts that affected primary assets, but rather the evidence must be based on elements that reliably prove the configuration that this illegal act requires, being subject, as an autonomous figure, to the same procedural requirements of the other figures of the repressive system.

The abuse of this figure, without concrete evidence to support it, only serves, as stated above, to justify premature imprisonment or early serving of sentences, which perhaps certain fashions or needs of another nature require, but which are outside the legal world. Finding echo in the courts of these assumptions means, neither more nor less, than to bastardize the excellent work that must be developed in this area, which is that of guardian of the rule of law.
For this reason, a remission ruling is required in order to charge the offence in question and in relation to all the defendants who have been accused of the same.

Fifth: Legal qualification

I. Up to this point, a predominantly descriptive examination has been carried out of the different factual assumptions that have been submitted to trial in order to achieve a deep understanding of them.
For this task, the analysis began with the reconstruction of the factual assumptions in question, configuring them objectively based on the numerous elements of evidence produced during the debate.

The study was then oriented to the sphere of the participants with the purpose of individualizing and distinguishing the different participants and verifying the final element that has guided their respective behaviors; fully covering each of the events to proceed subsequently to the process of legal subsumption, thus avoiding falling into the common error of considering that said process should only be used to verify only the objective typicality, since the subjective aspects of the fact must also be subsumed.
Consequently, having determined the facts as well as the persons involved and the purpose that guides each action, it is now necessary to carry out the legal method of subsumption to verify whether the facts in question are substantially equal to those established in the law as a prerequisite for a penalty.
Now, given the number of facts brought to trial, they will be grouped based on the greatest number of common elements that they share, in order to then establish the degree of correspondence they present with the assumptions provided for in the criminal types whose application will be considered herein.
It is true that the maneuver devised for the purpose of evading the control exercise assigned to Customs must be repeated in the facts L, LL, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y - the only ones susceptible to being classified as any type of crime, by virtue of the considerations already made regarding the rest of the facts discussed.

However, the cases identified with letters X and Y, beyond presenting an identical maneuver, also share a circumstance linked to an objective characteristic in the head of one of those involved, which qualifies both events in relation to the rest.
For this reason, the process of subsumption will begin with a joint analysis of the two cases referred to above, and then continue with the consideration of the rest of the facts, whose treatment will also be addressed jointly. Once this task is concluded, the presentation will be organized by proceeding to differentiate according to the different subjects of the actions.
II. Having clarified this, it should be noted that with regard to the legal-criminal framework of the facts identified as X and Y, it is noted that the same must be carried out in light of the criminal types of arts. 864 paragraph e) and 865 paragraphs a), c) and f) of the Customs Code, whose provisions will be examined first, in order to establish the required elements and then verify whether they occur in the two cases specifically mentioned.

From the analysis of the first rule cited, it can be seen that the legal provision it contains requires two specific objective elements and one that belongs to the area of intent. Among the first are: a) the simulation of a customs operation or destination of import or export and b) the customs service as the recipient of said simulation. As for the subjective ingredient, it consists of the purpose or objective of obtaining an economic benefit pursued by those involved in the act (On this matter: Vidal Albarracin, Héctor G., Código Aduanero, Comentarios-Antecedentes, Concordancias, Abeledo-Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1992, Tomo VII-A, pp. 159 et seq.; Medrano, Pablo H., Delito de Contrabando y Comercio Exterior, Lerner, Buenos Aires, 1991, pp. 357 et seq.). Let us now see if the cases in question present said elements.
There is no doubt that the assumptions under study are made up of objective extremes, since in both cases a suspensive customs destination was pretended, configured by a land transit operation of goods that, in reality, were actually introduced into the market without going through any customs control. In this way, the customs registered a transit operation that, strictly speaking, did not exist but was falsely pretended. In this same sense, it is appropriate to recall the words of Pablo Medrano when, referring to the concept of simulation, he states that Simulates, that which represents a thing (customs operation or destination of import or export), pretending what it is not (Cfr. Medrano, Pablo H., op. cit., p. 359).
In this regard, the simulation maneuver carried out can be clearly seen, since in the cases in question, transfer requests were made that instrumented before the customs office of arrival of the merchandise, its transit to a customs office in the interior of the country, when, in truth, the same was transported to previously determined private warehouses, located within the Federal Capital.

Specifically, it has been seen that in the events identified as X and Y, the containers, despite leaving the TCO bonded warehouse by submitting two transfer requests with final destination Córdoba, were transported to the headquarters of the private warehouse located at 631 Rawson Street in this city; a circumstance that highlights the simulation of a customs destination, in this case, of a suspensive nature.
As regards the second objective requirement, it should be noted that there is no doubt about its occurrence in the two cases analysed. It was certainly no other body than the customs body that carried out the simulated suspensive destinations mentioned, since the documentation - falsely conceived - was presented at the customs point located at the Lingas bonded warehouse, which, meeting the set of rights, duties and functions that weigh on the General Directorate of Customs, was supposed to carry out the customs service. However, such control was not carried out due to the aforementioned simulated act, which managed to defer the exercise of control to a later moment that would never occur.
Finally, it should be noted that the purpose required by the criminal type under consideration has also been proven for each of the parties involved. Indeed, the numerous pieces of evidence analysed in the previous paragraph have made it possible to demonstrate with complete certainty that all the parties involved acted with the exclusive purpose of evading customs controls in order to obtain a financial benefit.

This is the only way to understand the maneuver in question, since it was precisely in order to achieve economic advantages that the parties involved in the events carried out the simulation of transit operations to avoid expenses related to the payment of taxes (VAT) and other concepts (such as rights and statistics); this circumstance allowed them to introduce into the local market - with unparalleled advantages - all the imported goods due to the possibility of operating at reasonable prices given the significant reduction in costs that the avoidance of the aforementioned controls meant for them.
Therefore, there is no doubt that the acts were aimed at obtaining a profit or utility that would bring the acting subjects an economically appreciable gain, thereby demonstrating the concurrence of the ultra-typical purpose - specific subjective element - required by the applied figure.
Consequently, having simulated before the customs service of the Murchison SA bonded warehouse, land transit operations of containers destined for the customs of the province of Córdoba, avoiding all customs controls in order to locate the merchandise within the capital, with the aim of reducing import costs and thereby obtaining economic advantages, the application of art. 864, paragraph e) is appropriate to the two assumptions under study.
On the other hand, entering into the analysis of the aggravating circumstance contained in section a) of art. 865 of the Customs Code, it should be noted that said figure requires, on the one hand, a typical material unity of action, that is, that it is a typical fact common to all the actors and, on the other, that there is also a final unity, in the sense that there is an intentional convergence between them (Cfr. Vidal Albarracin, Héctor G., op. cit., Volume VII-A, pp. 172 et seq.).

Regarding this aggravating circumstance, it should be noted that in both cases there is a plurality of participants in each of the events, exceeding the number of three people. Thus, it has been established in the previous recital that Roberto Leiva, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, Gustavo Ariel García, Julio Cesar Arce Cajes and Aldo Julio Cesar Díaz have taken part in the perpetration of events X and Y.
Thus, there was a multiple intervention of persons whose degree of participation was determined in due time, in each of the events mentioned, a circumstance that allows us to conclude, without a doubt, that there were more than three persons who acted in different material units related to the factual assumption provided for in art. 864, paragraph e) of the Customs Code.
It remains to be established whether there was also a unity of spirit in the actions in question. In this regard, the Court considers that there can be no doubt about the existence of an intentional convergence regarding the purpose guiding the actions of each of the accused in the operation carried out there. In this regard, it is worth referring to the arguments developed when evaluating the involvement of each accused and the subjective aspect of their respective actions, since on that occasion, the reasons and evidence were expressed that allowed us to verify that they all acted with knowledge and a willingness to collaborate to achieve specific and determined common objectives, linked to obtaining economic advantages through the implementation of the smuggling operations already described in relation to containers GSTU 610.179-7 and MMMU 351.549-5.

For all these reasons, it is also appropriate to apply the aggravating provision contained in section a) of article 865 of the Customs Code, which qualifies the acts as involving three or more persons, since this circumstance means greater difficulty for the customs service to verify the illegal act.
In another order of ideas and entering into the study of the qualifying provision contained in section c) of art. 865 of the cited legal body, it is appropriate to indicate that in the cases that concern us, it has been possible to prove the intervention in the events of Aldo Julio Cesar Díaz, then a member of the General Inspection Division of the Customs Police.
In this regard, it should be noted that this legal type aggravates the illicit event precisely when the broad sense participation of a person in charge of preventing the crime of smuggling occurs, since it is considered that they have a greater duty to abstain. Such and not another has been the situation that occurred in cases X and Y since Díaz is a member of a security force to which the Customs Code confers the function of preventing customs crimes and this circumstance is known to the rest of the participants - knowledge of the functional quality of one of the acting subjects -, it is impossible but to conclude that said aggravating factor is applicable to the indicated cases.

In this same sense, it is worth mentioning Medrano who, referring to section c) of art. 865 of the Customs Code, highlights the Exposition of said legal body, which states that... when it comes to customs agents or members of the security forces... the simple intervention of one of them in the act as author, instigator or accomplice is sufficient to qualify the crime. In turn, the aforementioned author maintains that These subjects are in a special situation of duty with respect to the legal asset protected by the rules referring to the crime of smuggling; Precisely the characteristic of this aggravating criminal circumstance lies in the violation of a specific extra-penal duty, which in this case arises from the agent's participation in the application of customs legislation as a member of the "customs service", or as a member of one of the institutions to which the prevention of customs crimes has been specifically entrusted (Cfr. Medrano, Pablo H., op. cit., p. 390/391).
Finally, we must refer to the elements required by the figure contained in section f) of article 865 of the Customs Code, in order to establish whether they are present in the cases under examination.

There are three elements that constitute the aggravated type in question: a) the presentation to Customs of an adulterated or false document; b) that the document is suitable for completing the customs operation; c) the purpose of presenting the document thus characterized to illegally complete a customs operation and that the smuggling is committed through the presentation of said documentation. In this regard, Medrano's words are again enlightening when he points out that what determines the increase in the injustice of the act is not the falsification or adulteration of the document itself, but its use or utilization by presenting it to the administrative agency in charge of application with knowledge of the defects that it suffers from and the will to circumvent, through said presentation, the control that the customs service exercises over a certain import or export operation (Cfr. Medrano, Pablo H., op. cit., p. 401/402).
As regards the first requirement mentioned, the Court understands that the arguments set out in the previous recitals allow us to amply prove the apocryphal nature of the transfer requests submitted for the purpose of obtaining the release of the aforementioned containers from the bonded warehouse. In this regard, it is worth referring to what was stated by the witness Iglesias - a person with knowledge of customs documentation - when he referred to the fact that the resolution that validated the use of transfer forms to carry out land transits was No. 869/93, while the false documents in question contain another customs resolution number - 959/93.
Also, in this regard, the testimony of Gloria Arias can be cited, who, as a customs official involved in operations such as those mentioned, did not recognize as her own either the signature or the stamp affixed to transfer requests Nos. 414 and 416.
It should also be noted that Leiva had a bag in his office containing all the official seals that appeared printed on the aforementioned documents; to this should be added the tenor of the wiretaps identified when dealing with this matter, since they are fully corroborated by the circumstances already described.

In conclusion, the documents submitted to the customs service in charge of the TCO tax warehouse were falsely prepared by using false official stamps - which in some cases were incorrectly configured, as noted above - as well as by stamping on said documents signatures that attempted to simulate the intervention of the real customs officials. Based on this, there is complete certainty as to the concurrence of such element required by the aggravating provision in question.
On the other hand, it has been said that the figure requires that the document, despite being apocryphal, be suitable to complete the customs operation -this order allows customs destinations to also be included within the protective purpose of the rule (See Medrano, Pablo H., op. cit., p. 405)-, since, if it does not maintain this relationship of effectiveness with the proposed purpose, its use must be excluded from the sphere of the type.

In this case, there is also no doubt that the means used to commit the smuggling - the aforementioned transshipment requests Nos. 414 and 416 - are of sufficient suitability to achieve the proposed goal. Thus, it should be noted that the customs witnesses Iglesias and Bombelli stated, after the aforementioned instruments were shown to them, that at first glance they seemed to meet all the formal requirements and that, if they were presented to them during a customs transit operation, they would not be able to notice their apocryphal nature, and should have allowed the containers to leave for the destination indicated in Córdoba. This circumstance fully proves their suitability as documents necessary to complete the customs operation.
Finally, with regard to the intent required by the aggravating circumstance contemplated in the legal type of art. 865, paragraph f), it is appropriate to refer for the sake of brevity to the series of considerations and grounds set forth by the Court when taking up the case, to the study of the involvement of the accused in the events and to the subjective aspect of their respective actions. It must only be reaffirmed that both Leiva and Juan Ventura Arce Cajes, García, Julio César Arce Cajes and Díaz, knew of the apocryphal nature of the documents presented to release the containers in question and on the basis of such knowledge they acted guided by the purpose of illegally completing the customs import operations.
In summary, the observations and reflections made lead to the certainty that facts X and Y constitute cases of smuggling carried out by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit, aggravated by the fact that the number of those involved not only reaches but exceeds the number of three people and because a member of the security force with the function of authority for the prevention of customs crimes has participated.

III. If we examine the structure of the facts alleged as cases L, LL, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V and W, we will easily notice that these factual assumptions are completely identical to those analyzed in the previous point, except for the presence of a person belonging to the customs service or the security forces.
Indeed, in such cases, containers from abroad were brought into the country and transported to the TCO bonded warehouse so that, once there, the corresponding falsely designed transshipment requests could be submitted, through which the different batches of merchandise could be released from said site, simulating a destination to a customs office in the interior - which in all cases has also turned out to be Córdoba - in order to transfer the loads to different private warehouses in this city.
In order to avoid repeating details that are too well known at this stage of the analysis, we will refer to point II of the Second Recital, as regards the specific numbers of transfer requests used for each particular case.
In turn, in the facts referred to at the beginning of this point, three or more people have intervened, since while in assumptions LL, O, T and U Roberto Leiva, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes and Gustavo Ariel Garcia intervene, in cases R and S Julio Cesar Arce Cajes is also involved, which clearly enables the application of the aggravating factor contained in section a) of article 865 of the Customs Code for the same reasons that have been stated when studying the typical structure of facts X and Y, to which we refer for the sake of brevity.

On the other hand, in relation to the alleged cases L, M, N, P, V and W, the intervention of three or more persons has also occurred, since, beyond the fact that not all the participants have yet been identified - except for Leiva in all cases and García with respect to the fact -, such documented smuggling manoeuvres necessarily presuppose the connivance of customs personnel and other individuals.
Certainly, although it is not appropriate to carry out a preliminary analysis of the issue, since this will be the subject of another trial in which the accusations of this nature against other subjects of the process will be examined, it is important to establish that both the structure of the illegal plot and the production of the evidence assessed during the debate in particular - many of the wiretaps based on other elements - inevitably lead to the conclusion that other people have intervened knowingly and willingly by making their contributions.
The same applies to the application of the qualifier in paragraph f) of the aforementioned article, since the apocryphal nature of the transfer requests that were used to perpetrate said acts has also been fully proven by virtue of what has been stated in this regard in the Second and Third Recitals; what has been stated about this in the previous point of this document is also valid.

In summary, the outlined state of affairs makes the provisions contained in arts. 864, paragraph d) and 865, paragraphs a) and f) of the Customs Code perfectly applicable to the cases identified as L, LL, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V and W, for the same reasons that have been argued in this regard in relation to the facts identified as X and Y, so it is appropriate to refer to them for the sake of brevity.

IV. Having affirmed the plurality of typical facts, it is now necessary to analyze the set of them in light of the bankruptcy rules.
It has been pointed out at the time that the criteria used during the investigation to establish the manner in which the various crimes involved materially concur have not been at all clear; criteria that have not been specified by those in charge of carrying out the accusation during the trial.
For purely clarification purposes, the Court has set out the criteria that it would adopt on this matter when examining the materiality of the various facts discussed in the trial (see Second Recital). This guideline was closely linked to the very structure of the customs control evasion manoeuvres carried out.
In fact, each of the maneuvers described in the previous point has consisted of presenting false documentation to customs to simulate a customs destination and evade all kinds of control. Now, the core of the guiding criterion assumed for the purposes of establishing criminal concurrence lies precisely in determining what, for customs, has been an independent customs operation.

In this regard, it is important to note that each request for merchandise sent abroad was carried out by preparing the so-called bills of lading, documents in which all the data relating to the import operation was recorded (such as the name of the consignee, origin, class, quantity and weight of the merchandise, port of origin, port of arrival, etc.).
This way of implementing the entry of goods into national territory allows the customs service to monitor them in order to properly verify that the import complies with the proper customs controls. For this same reason, the number of operations does not necessarily coincide with the number of containers, since it may occur - and has occurred - that a container houses different batches of goods according to the consignees of the same; a circumstance that will require that each one has its own bill of lading number in order to facilitate the aforementioned control task.
Within this framework, it can be said that all knowledge implies the opening of a customs operation that will be definitively closed only when the merchandise related to it is nationalized through clearance to the place. However, it may also occur that the operation, at the time of arrival of the merchandise to the country, lacks a definitive destination and that it is a suspensive destination in which the customs controls are not exercised by the customs office of arrival but by another customs office within or outside the national territory.

In this regard, it is of no importance for the purposes of import control whether the goods come in one or several containers, since what is truly important is not that circumstance but rather finding out what their destinations are.
In the present cases, this situation resulted in the circumstance that each receipt required the preparation, creation and presentation of a false transfer request in order to simulate land transits to Córdoba for the purposes already indicated.
In this order of ideas, it can be concluded that with each presentation of each of the aforementioned apocryphal documents, an independent maneuver was configured for the purpose of mocking the control exercise assigned to customs, and this, regardless of circumstances of another nature, such as the fact that the different batches of merchandise are contained in the same container.
In this regard, the arguments of Gustavo Ariel García's defense must be rejected when it argued that, in reality, the various typical repeated behaviors can end up constituting a greater content of injustice in a single behavior carried out continuously. This is so because, as Zaffaroni expresses, the doctrine of the continued crime is based on a rational interpretation of the types oriented to the solution of cases of repetition of typical actions that, if the rules of the real concurrence were applied to them, would fall into absurdity and collide with the principle of rationality of the penalty.

In this sense, the cited author points out that this doctrine can only operate from the analysis of each criminal type and, particularly, only in cases where the way in which the legal asset is affected admits degrees. When the unjust content of the act is unique, …, this interpretation cannot be made and in such cases we will necessarily find ourselves before a repetition of conduct that gives rise to real concurrence (Cfr. (Cfr. Zaffaroni, Eugenio Raúl, Manual de Derecho Penal, Parte General, sixth Edition, Ediar, Buenos Aires, 1997, pp. 622 and 623).
In this light, it is difficult to argue that the legal interest protected by the various classifications relating to smuggling can be affected in different ways. It is clear that each operation carried out before the customs service in which a non-real situation is simulated in order to evade the controls of that body implies a closed and independent unit of injustice that definitively violates the protected legal interest.
On the other hand, it should be noted that there has not been a unity of conduct for the simple reason that there was no unitary intent or unity of resolution regarding the execution of all the elements corresponding to all the smuggling operations carried out. Rather, there has been a repetition of final decisions regarding the execution of each of the acts in which the defendant participated, a circumstance that also excludes the possibility of applying the figure under analysis; because when the active subject repeats the decision daily because he feels tempted in the same circumstance, there will not be continuity in the conduct, but as many conducts as decisions are made (Cfr. Zaffaroni, Eugenio Raúl; op. cit. p. 623).

Therefore, the rules of real competition (art. 55 of the Criminal Code) must be applied to each of the simulated operations in the manner expressed.

V. It is now our turn to assess the different degrees of contributions made by each of the accused in accordance with the rules of authorship and criminal participation. To this end, each of the accused will be dealt with separately.

a) Roberto Leiva

When asked the question of the type and hierarchy of the contribution that the aforementioned Leiva made to each of the events, there is no doubt that the answer would place him in the category of author.
Now, in order to support this assertion, it is necessary to first review Roberto Leiva's contribution to the identical smuggling operations that are the subject of the trial, in order to then establish their magnitude and legal-criminal scope.

In this regard, it has been specified during the Third Recital - see point II. a) - that the accused in question was responsible for planning the maneuvers, having the notes prepared requesting the transfer of the containers to the bonded warehouse, also arranging the preparation of the false transfer requests; the sending of the faxes with the bills of lading and the presentation of the apocryphal documents to the customs service in order to remove the containers from the Lingas bonded warehouse and thus be able to transfer them, after passing the appropriate controls, to the different private warehouses located within the area of the federal capital.
If we add to this the fact that he handled the necessary documentation for the various illegal activities; that he obtained it in his office at 540 Tucumán Street, 8th floor, apartment J; that he was in charge of payments to Murchison for the storage and delivery of the containers and that he also financed the operations, his preponderant role in the course of the different events becomes evident.
In this sense, Mir Puig observes that... only those who caused the imputable act to whom the exclusive or shared ownership of the crime can be attributed are authors; among those who caused the crime, the author will be the one or those who, meeting the personal conditions required by the type (this is important in special crimes), appear as protagonists of the same, as main subjects of its realization (Cfr. Mir Puig, Santiago, Derecho Penal, Parte General, 4th Edition, PPU SA, Barcelona, 1996, p. 366).
Certainly, the activity carried out by Roberto Leiva expresses a relationship of ownership with respect to the imputed illegal acts, all of which must be attributed to him as his work. This is so, because the named person held in his hands the course, the yes and the how of each one of the acts based on the significance of his contributions to them, being able to decide predominantly in their regard; that is, he had control of the act (Cfr. Zaffaroni, Eugenio Raúl, Manual de Derecho Penal, Parte General, sixth Edition, Ediar, Buenos Aires, 1997, p. 572).

Jescheck is in the same line of thought, emphasizing the dogmatic position of the doctrine of the dominion of the fact in order to accurately delimit authorship and participation, based on the understanding of the typical action as an objective-subjective unit of meaning. Based on this, he maintains that The fact thus appears as the work of a will that directs the event. But not only is the will to direct the event decisive for authorship, but also the objective weight of the part of the fact assumed by each participant. Hence, only the person who, according to the importance of his objective contribution, shares the dominion of the course of the fact can be an author (Cf. Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, Treatise on Criminal Law, General Part, Fourth Edition completely corrected and expanded; translation by José Luis Manzanares Samaniego; Editorial Comares; Granada, 1993, pp. 593 et seq.).
Therefore, the part assumed by the defendant Leiva being predominant and by virtue of his will to direct the development of the different typical events, he has possessed control over them, assuming the quality of author.

For all the above, there is full certainty that Roberto Leiva has intervened as co-author of the crimes of smuggling consummated by simulating a customs import destination, with the purpose of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of participants and by having presented false documentation to the customs service to complete the customs operation, repeated on thirteen occasions - arts. 864 paragraph e), 865 paragraphs a) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code -, in relation to the facts identified as L, LL, M, N, i, O, P, R, S, T, U, V and W; in real concurrence with the crimes of smuggling perpetrated by simulating a customs import destination, with the purpose of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of parties involved, by the participation of a customs service official or employee and by having presented false documentation to the same to complete the customs operation, repeated on two occasions, as co-author and with respect to the facts identified as X and Y - arts. 864 inc. e), 865 incs. a), c) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code-.

b) Juan Ventura Arce Cajes
Regarding the legal classification of the involvement of the accused in question in the alleged events, there is no doubt in any way about his status as the perpetrator.
Indeed, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes has also carried out a predominant activity in the cases of which he is accused, since he participated in the preparation of the apocryphal customs documents (transfer requests) submitted for the purpose of simulating suspensive destination operations before the customs service, in order to be able to bring merchandise of foreign origin into the market, without prior control exercised by that body.
He also took charge of contracting the transport company OSPAQ SRL, which was tasked with supplying trucks as they were needed, to transport the containers through them to the previously designated private warehouses, all of which were located within the capital.
But his management was not limited to this, as he also found clients, such as Angelo Paolo, to carry out the operation in question.

Without a doubt, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes has also governed the course of the typical events that are brought against him, and it is appropriate to update the considerations made in relation to his consort in the case Leiva; and consequently, it can be affirmed with complete certainty that he participated in cases LL, O, R, S, T, U, X and Y as co-author.
It should be noted in this regard that both Leiva and Juan V. Arce Cajes shared the joint decision to carry out the aforementioned maneuvers, thus co-participating - and by virtue of the magnitude of their respective contributions - in the exercise of control over the act. It should be noted in this regard that the weight of the contributions made by both have gone beyond the preparatory acts and are highly qualified for the results obtained. Therefore, and again following Jescheck, it may occur in co-authorship that, taking into account the most appropriate division of roles for the proposed purpose, a contribution to the act that does not formally fall within the framework of the typical action is sufficient to punish for authorship; it being sufficient that it is a necessary part of the execution of the global plan within a reasonable "division of labor" (functional control over the act) (Cf. Jescheck, op. cit. p. 595).

In summary, Juan Ventura Arce Cajes has intervened as co-author in the crimes of smuggling committed by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of participants and by having presented false documentation to the customs service to complete the customs operation, repeated on six occasions - arts. 864 paragraph e), 865 paragraphs a) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code -, in relation to the facts identified as L, O, R, S, T, U, in real concurrence with the crimes of smuggling perpetrated by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of parties involved, by the participation of a customs service official or employee and by having presented false documentation to the same to complete the customs operation, repeated on two occasions, as co-author and with respect to the facts identified as X and Y - arts. 864 inc. e), 865 incs. a), c) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code-.

c) Gustavo Ariel Garcia
As regards García's involvement in the alleged events, there is no doubt about his involvement as co-author.
This is so, since it has fallen to the accused to develop precisely the core of the type of art. 864 paragraph e) of the Customs Code, since he has been in charge of presenting to the customs service the different apocryphal transshipment requests corresponding to the facts LL, O, P, R, S, T, U, X and Y, simulating before that entity, suspensive destinations to allow the illegal exit of the merchandise from the TCO fiscal warehouse. Of course, said action was developed by the accused within the framework of the maneuver already described, for which reason he has also shared with Leiva and JV Arce Cajes the joint decision to carry out almost all of the aforementioned facts - strictly speaking all except P - since Arce's intervention has not been proven.

It is precisely for this reason, that is, due to the circumstance that Gustavo Ariel García has personally executed the action described in the cited legal type, that he assumes the quality of author, since the personal and fully responsible realization of all the elements of the type always establishes authorship (Cfr. Jescheck, op. cit. Page 594).
Therefore, since such acts were carried out jointly and by mutual agreement with the other two defendants mentioned, Gustavo Ariel García is a co-author because the crimes were committed by all those named. Thus, contrary to the principle of accessory participation - the principle of reciprocal imputation of the different contributions, all of which have resulted in a unitary global plan - applies, since everything that each of the co-authors does is extensible - imputable - to all the others (thus, Mir Puig, op. cit. p. 384).

For all these reasons, Gustavo Ariel García has participated as a co-author in the crimes of smuggling committed by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of participants and by having presented false documentation to the customs service to complete the customs operation, repeated on seven occasions - arts. 864 paragraph e), 865 paragraphs a) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code -, in relation to the facts identified as LL, O, P, R, S, T, U; in real concurrence with the crimes of smuggling perpetrated by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of parties involved, by the participation of a customs service official or employee and by having presented false documentation to the same to complete the customs operation, repeated on two occasions, as co-author and with respect to the facts identified as X and Y - arts. 864 inc. e), 865 incs. a), c) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code-.

d) Julio Cesar Arce Cajes
As regards the intervention of the aforementioned, it should be noted that it was limited to the organisation of the work of the day labourers in order to unload the merchandise stored in the containers identified as R, S, X and Y at the private warehouse on Rawson Street 631, all of which were brought into national territory, falsely consigned in the name of the company Furtex since, in reality, they belonged to the client Angelo Paolo.
Apart from this, it only remains to highlight the work of the accused, who was responsible for changing the labels corresponding to the imported merchandise in order to make them appear as national products of legal possession for sale.
These circumstances only merit that the actions of Julio Cesar Arce Cajes be framed within the rules of participation sticto sensu and, among them, in secondary complicity since it has not gone beyond being a mere cooperation in the facts provided during the stage of exhaustion.

Consequently, since the contributions in question are not of sufficient importance to decide the outcome of the events, it cannot be stated that the defendant played a leading role in the realization of the four typical cases charged against him and, therefore, he will only have to respond in relation to them as a secondary accomplice.
In summary, there is full certainty that Julio César Arce Cajes has intervened as a secondary accomplice in the crimes of smuggling committed by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of participants and by having presented false documentation to the customs service to complete the customs operation, repeated on two occasions - arts. 864 paragraph e), 865 paragraphs a) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 46 and 55 of the Penal Code - in relation to the facts identified as R and S; in real concurrence with the crimes of smuggling perpetrated by simulating a customs import destination, with the aim of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of parties involved, by the participation of a customs service official or employee and by having presented false documentation to the same to complete the customs operation, repeated on two occasions, as a secondary accomplice and with respect to the facts identified as X and Y - arts. 864 inc. e), 865 incs. a), c) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 46 and 55 of the Penal Code-.

e) Aldo Julio Cesar Diaz
It has been said that the intervention of the named person in the cases identified as X and Y, is materialized by carrying out a conduct different from that which should be observed by virtue of his functions of prevention of customs crimes; that is, it constitutes a typical omission for not having prevented the perpetration of the aforementioned illegal acts that, due to his status as guarantor since he is a member of a security force assigned to the prevention of customs crimes, is comparable to the action itself of having produced them by improper omission. In this regard, Stratenwerth maintains, when referring to the position of guarantor in crimes committed by omission, that only when, exceptionally, based on a position that obliges the author to a special duty, he has to answer for not avoiding a legally disapproved result, the omission to avoid the result will have the same significance as the action of producing it (Cfr. Stratenwerth, Gunter; Criminal Law, General Part, I, The Punishable Fact; translation of the 2nd German edition, by Gladys Romero; Edersa, Madrid, 1982, p. 292).
As regards the duty to act arising from the position of guarantor, there is no doubt that Díaz was in a difficult situation in relation to the exercise of customs control (protected legal asset), since the person named belonged to a security force - the General Inspection of Customs Police - in charge of preventing customs offences.

This circumstance clearly explains the basis for which, in doctrine, crimes of improper omission are equated with special crimes, which is based on the fact that the perpetrator cannot be anyone but only someone who meets the special characteristics required by law, limiting the circle of perpetrators. In this sense, Aldo Díaz's omission is not the omission of any individual but the omission of a guarantor of the normal exercise of customs control and, therefore, his failure to do what he should have done makes the typical situation of omission equivalent to that of an active type.
Now, if one takes into account that the aforementioned Díaz knew perfectly well that the company Furtex was not dedicated to the import of shirts or clothing but that the object of said firm was the commercialization of leather, to the point of having previously requested the documentation in Murchison of containers that left in the name of said firm and that it was never delivered to him - and that his function empowered him to stop the departure of a container when it seemed suspicious to him for some reason among which was, according to his own words, the name of the importing firm -, there is no shadow of doubt that the omission in question constituted an essential contribution to the commission of the two documented contrabands of which he was charged.
Therefore, in the case of a cooperation of significant necessary importance - which has taken place in the preparatory phase of both typical factual assumptions or at most simultaneously - to allow the consummation, it must be stated that Aldo Julio Cesar Díaz has acted as a primary accomplice in the fraudulent realization of the objective elements of facts X and Y.

In short, there is no doubt about the involvement of Aldo Julio César Díaz as a primary accomplice in the crimes of smuggling committed by simulating a customs import destination, with the purpose of obtaining an economic benefit; aggravated by the number of participants, by his participation as an official or employee of the customs service and by having presented false documentation to said agency to complete the customs operation, in real competition - twice - and with respect to the facts individualized as X and Y - arts. 864 inc. e), 865 incs. a), c) and f) of the Customs Code and arts. 45 and 55 of the Penal Code-.

Sixth: Graduation of the sentence. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
It is a difficult task to determine a sentence. Possibly because it is the supreme moment in which the judge has a piece of a person's life in his hands.
Deciding on the materiality of a fact, or on the criminal responsibility of an accused, is almost an equation. - Once both premises have been proven, it is necessary to make a graduation that ranges between a minimum and a maximum, but sometimes, as in the case at hand, the difference is so great that it can mean a lifetime.
It is not beyond our discretion that there are generic forms that sometimes consist of listing articles 40 and 41 of the Penal Code, plus the judicial background if they exist, and the bad or good impression received at the hearing.

But in light of the sentences requested by both the prosecution and the private prosecutor, it is worth making some reflections on the matter.
In addition to the age, customs, profession, lack of criminal records and motives of the defendants, and the circumstances of time, manner and place in which the events occurred, contemplated in the aforementioned article 41 of the Criminal Code, the following should be clarified.
The accusers accuse both Roberto Leiva and Juan Ventura Arce Cajes of the crime of illicit association, and in their capacity as leaders or co-organizers, an offense that, according to the scale of the second part of article 210 of the Penal Code, is punishable by a minimum of five years in prison. The rest of the accused, as members of the association, would have been sentenced to a minimum of three years.
Since they were acquitted of this crime, the reduction to be carried out is too significant, especially if we take into account that the other crimes carry a significantly lower penalty.
But it should also be noted that all those involved were charged with the crime of illicit association from the outset and were imprisoned for that reason, but were released after a certain time and during the investigation, with the exception of Roberto Leiva, who was accused of being the leader of the same.
We have already seen in the Fourth Consideration of this pronouncement how lightly this measure was taken, and this meant in practice, an advance of punishment that must necessarily be taken into account in this chapter.
But it is not only this early prison sentence that must be taken into account, but also the entire environment that surrounded the first steps of this case.

The creation of this voluminous file had to have, as a corollary, spectacular preventive detentions, and of course, imprisonments.
If things had been done in their proper course, the result would have been several independent causes, as ultimately happened.
These actions having been stripped of the grandiloquence of the beginning and in the belief that this unusual display needed to be backed up with these early arrests, and the file having been returned to what it truly is, it is appropriate to grade the reproach, with the discount of what has already been irremediably done.
And it was not just about premature incarceration, but about what it meant socially. The information (which someone provided to the press) reported the illegal entry of 22.000 containers, which, placed side by side, extended over 300 kilometers and caused the State to defraud thousands of millions of pesos. And, as if this were not enough, here we have in prison six illustrious unknown people who not only did all this, but with their criminal conduct, irreversibly condemned the country's industry to death.
What did the whole situation that fell upon them while they were sitting in their cells mean to these illustrious strangers? Or to their families when they explained to their relatives and friends, or to their children at school that this was not the case?
But of course some had to be behind bars for such statements.

When it comes to repression, there is always time for more. - What has no return is excess.
But what did it all end up being? Fifteen cases (thirteen containers), all of them of ordinary clothing and one of cosmetics, and all of this to be shared among five people who were convicted.
How to graduate a fair sentence by subtracting what was anticipated.-
If the process had been carried out in its fair terms, perhaps the penalties would have been different. - If before going through the sieve of legality, we had realized that these were the facts, we would have avoided this tremendous judicial deployment, and if the preventers had acted at the appropriate time instead of taking photographs, the merchandise would not have been lost in the market and almost all of the containers involved would have paid the import duties, and even some of those involved would have been prevented from committing any crime; that is, they would have carried out prevention, which on the other hand is the first reason for the existence of the security forces. -
The sentences that the Court will impose may seem light to some, but those who first learned about this case through the press, and then through a careful reading of it and from what they saw and heard over these almost three months of debate, know and understand clearly and in strict justice, taking this term in the vulgar sense of the word, that these and not others are the ones that correspond.

In another order of ideas, it is worth highlighting that the generic personal circumstances provided for in article 41 of the Penal Code cannot be taken as aggravating factors, because it is well known that the enumeration contained in said norm refers to using them as indices of greater or lesser dangerousness (Sebastián Soler, Argentine Criminal Law, Volume II, page 262.- In the same sense, CCC, Special Chamber. November 19, 1976, case 6323).-
And taking into account these principles, there are no aggravating factors that denote greater danger, not even that of Aldo Julio César Díaz, due to his status as a member of the customs police, since such a condition is already provided for as an aggravating factor in itself (paragraph c) of article 865 of the Customs Code).

Seventh: Merit over preventive activity
The actions of the Buenos Aires Provincial Police at the beginning of this voluminous process deserve special attention. We must see.
This file begins with the note presented on June 13, 996, by Sub-Commissioner Wesenack, of the Quilmes Investigation Brigade, to the Examining Magistrate, requesting the intervention of the telephones of Jorge Rivero and a person with the surname Ferraro, whom he accused of being involved in large-scale smuggling operations, according to the information received by Sub-Inspector Officer Marcelo L. Ferreyra (conf. fs. 1 and 2).

Later, the same deputy commissioner decided to request a court order to tap the telephone of the subscriber Leiva, 444-2046 (July 8, 1996, page 61). As a result of what was heard on that telephone, Wesenack requested that the SIDE observe it directly, in order to be able to detect the immediate departure of containers from the Port and verify their destination, since the wiretaps would show that Leiva operated almost exclusively by illegally removing containers from the Port of Buenos Aires, making transits to different provinces of the country appear, without them reaching those destinations. This request was made on September 5 of the same year (page 95).
Well then. The next day, September 6, the SIDE informed Wesenack that, according to direct observation, it was established that that same day in the morning, a container was to be taken out of the TCO tax warehouse in a Mercedes Benz truck with the RAU 120 license plate, with the Ospac inscription on its doors. In view of this, the aforementioned commissioned Subinspector Ferreyra to verify what had been reported, and if necessary, to follow the truck and verify its destination.
In compliance with this commission, Ferreyra stood in front of TCO, taking photographs of the truck in question as it left the depot carrying container CRXU 295643; then he followed it, taking photos along the way, to the depot at 341 Palestina Street (formerly Rawson), where the truck entered and unloaded the container, and he simply recorded all of this using photographic plates.
Upon his return, he reported everything that had happened to his superiors, as shown in the minutes on page 97, without communicating the news to the intervening judge.

In the following days, the Side reported on six more occasions (12, 16, 18, 19, 23 and 24 September) the possible removal of containers for later unloading in local warehouses, with the peculiarity that on one day 3 containers were removed and on another 2, with Ferreyra attending on Wesenack's orders to confirm the events, taking photos and reporting what had happened to the Brigade, without SS being informed of the successive crimes that were being committed.
In total, 10 containers were illegally removed from customs warehouses before the eyes of the police, resulting in the loss of all or part of the merchandise and the evasion of payment of duties for an undetermined amount, since it is currently impossible to know exactly the quantity, nature and quality of the smuggled merchandise.
It should be noted that in the interim of such surveillance the Police were in communication with the Court, since it requested the intervention of Juan Ventura Arce Cajes's line on September 9 and on the 18th it rectified the characteristic it had previously given, and yet not a word appears in the case about a possible communication of what was happening.

Finally, on September 25, the proceedings were brought to the Court, and on that same date a new call was received from the SIDE informing about the possible departure of two more containers, to be carried out that day. This time, informed, the Magistrate immediately ordered the interception of the trucks, putting an end to this absurd act of letting things happen that led to the commission of a new crime.

Roberto Leiva and others, case No. 180, to which Nos. 181, 204, 230, 248, 270, 272 and 275 are added.

LAST NEWS

ARCA expands the use of sworn statements as collateral in transactions...

The ICC warns that regulatory volatility erodes trade openness

The WTO is examining 25 proposals in the second review of the Agreement...

UNCTAD calls for strengthened monitoring of the implementation of the UNCTAD Agreement...

FIFA World Cup 2026: US Customs seizes more than 1.500...

The IMO welcomes the agreement between the US and Iran on...

Paraguay confirmed that the MERCOSUR Summit will take place on...

Economic governance of customs information

ARCA regulated Monitored Export for plant operations

Roberto Leiva and others, case No. 180, to which Nos. 181, 204, 230, 248, 270, 272 and 275 are added.

RELATED ARTICLES

LAST NEWS