Criminal cassation acquitted the former Salta councilor accused of wanting to collect the IFE

The Federal Chamber of Cassation acquitted to José Osvaldo Reynagaformer councilor of the Salta town of San Lorenzo, accused of having tried to collect the Emergency Family Income (IFE)the economic aid provided by the government of Alberto Fernández for informal workers and monotributistas during the pandemic.

The Federal Chamber of Cassation acquitted to José Osvaldo Reynagaformer councilor of the Salta town of San Lorenzo, accused of having tried to collect the Emergency Family Income (IFE)the economic aid provided by the government of Alberto Fernández for informal workers and monotributistas during the pandemic.

The highest criminal court in the country, in a single ruling by Judge Mariano Borinsky, adopted that decision after a ruling by the Supreme Court annulled a sentence against Reynaga to one year in prison and two years of disqualification.

Reynaga was accused of having attempted to collect the IFE by recording his DNI in the pre-registration stage for the benefit. He did not succeed because the system rejected him, so the accusation remained at the level of “attempt.”

The sentence of the Oral Court 1

In May 2022, the Oral Court 1 of Salta had condemned Reynaga “for having determined his criminal responsibility, as author of the crime of Fraud against the Public Administrationin an attempted degree, in ideal competition with the crime of Failure to Comply with the Duties of a Public Official.” Cassation ratified the conviction, but the Court revoked it and ordered the issuance of a new ruling.

In the judicial process, the figure of failure to comply with the duties of a public official had already been removed from the sentence.

Now, Judge Borinsky – in line with what was indicated by the Court – considered that it was not observed what the deception carried out by Reynaga was in the specific case.

“It was not a maneuver suitable to violate the first filter of the system,” he said.

“There was no maneuver on the part of the accused that put the legal asset in question in concrete danger ex ante,” the ruling stressed.