Luciano Di Cesare, head of PAMI during Cristina Kirchner’s two presidencies, returned nearly 90 million pesos to the national state. It was due to a conciliation that he reached with the PAMI to avoid the oral trial in a case in which he is accused of having irregularly collected vacations not taken. PAMI reported that it will use the money to provide social and medical benefits to retirees, pensioners and the disabled.
Di Cesare took over as head of the organization on December 10, 2007, when Cristina Kirchner began her first presidency. And he left office on the same day in 2015 when her second term ended. The money back story begins on December 9, 2015.
That day, one before Mauricio Macri take the Presidency of the Nation, Di Cesare presented a note in which he requested to collect the vacations not taken from 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. He explained that due to his work he could not take them and due to the uses and customs of the organization it was his responsibility to collect them. . Maria Arrouzetthen PAMI Human Resources Manager, authorized the settlement of vacations and Carlos Galdo, assistant manager of Human Resources Administration, sent the payment to the Asset Settlement Department for payment. And on December 10, Di Cesare charged 1,300,826.77 pesos for the vacations not taken.
But his replacement at the head of PAMI, Carlos Regazzoni, He was criminally denounced on December 17 for the crime of fraudulent administration to the detriment of the public administration. He explained that by the employment contract law, untaken vacations expire after six months and that compensation for money is prohibited.
The case was taken over by the federal judge Ariel Lijo who prosecuted Di Cesare, Arrouzet and Galdo and the federal prosecutor Paloma Ochoa He asked that they be sent to oral trial. It was not the first oral trial for the former head of PAMI. At the beginning of 2018, he was tried for alleged fraud against PAMI for having allocated funds from the organization to national treasury bills and not to retiree benefits, which were deficient. Di Cesare was acquitted.
The case reached the Federal Oral Court 7, which set the trial start date for last February 15, according to the records of the case to which it accessed. Infobae. But the accused and the PAMI, under the current management of the government of Javier Mileithey held meetings to reach an agreement.
And so they did and presented it before the Oral Court. The settlement agreement established that the defendants They paid PAMI 88,131,531.86 pesos as reparations. It was him amount of the money that Di Cesare received updated. In exchange, the criminal case was closed and the accused avoided the oral trial. These types of agreements are provided for in the law. Most of the money was paid by De Cesare and another part by Arrouzet, but the agreement reached the three defendants.
PAMI explained in the case that the solution seemed appropriate and that with that money it was going to “provide social and medical benefits to a very vulnerable population in Argentine society, which are retirees, pensioners and people with disabilities.” With the presentation of the agreement, the start of the oral trial was suspended.
But the prosecutor of the Oral Court Fabiana Leon He opposed. In her ruling on February 8, the prosecutor indicated that these types of agreements are prohibited for public officials and that this is a case that affected the national State. “The purposes of the criminal process regarding crimes such as those investigated in this case, which affect collective legal assets that exceed the damage to a specific victim, are not fully satisfied with the return of the money that is the object and result of the crime or with another type of conciliatory or reparatory agreement”, He maintained and made reference to the international commitment assumed by the Argentine State to prevent and prosecute crimes such as corruption.
The prosecutor’s proposal was rejected by a majority by the Oral Court, which accepted the agreement. The judges Fernando Canero and Enrique Méndez Signori They pointed out that this is a case “with clearly heritage content.” “Well, it was the victim himself who quantified the alleged damage caused and considered that the financial offer was sufficient to repair the alleged damages that would have been incurred.” They explained among other agreements.
For his part, Judge Germán Castelli agreed with the Prosecutor’s Office. “The opinion is based on other arguments that sufficiently support it for an adequate control of logicality; That is, the Prosecutor’s Office highlighted the quality of the defendants as public officials, referred to the seriousness of the incident and the injury to the legal assets of the crimes attributed to them,” he noted.
Thus, with the conciliation agreement approved at the end of February In the first days of March, Di Cesare deposited the 88 million pesos that entered PAMI. But the case was not closed, there is even a risk that the agreement could go backwards.
Prosecutor León appealed the court’s decision so that the Federal Court of Cassation intervenes. She asked that the agreement be revoked and that the oral trial be held. Chamber IV of the court summoned the parties to hear their opinions, which they did in writing. On the one hand, the Cassation prosecutor Mario Villar He maintained the position of his colleague from the oral court. And for his part, the defense of Di Cesare, in charge of Hernan Canessathat of Arrouzet, with the lawyer Ernesto Martinand that of Galdo, with the official defender of Cassation Daniela Villalonasked that the conciliation and payment of the money be ratified.
But to that was added one more point of discussion. Arrouzet’s defense requested the prescription of the case 10 days ago. He pointed out that the crime being investigated has a penalty of six years in prison and that that is the maximum period for it to be investigated. Only interruptions of the statute of limitations suspend the term and the last one was the summons to an oral trial that occurred on May 28. “Consequently, to date the aforementioned period (6 years) has passed, thus operating the prescription of the criminal action, and it must thus be declared,” The defense supported the statement that it made before the Oral Court and that it reported to Cassation.
Thus, now you must define Cassation with a panorama in which an unusual fact remains in doubt: for an official to return money from corruption.
