The Court confirmed the expropriation of the property seized in the case against Pablo Escobar’s family

The Court confirmed the expropriation of the property seized in the case against Pablo Escobar’s family
The Court confirmed the expropriation of the property seized in the case against Pablo Escobar’s family

The large property next to the Panamericana, in Pilar, is the subject of discussion in court (Twitter: @MunicipioPilar)

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a request from the company Bicentennial Pillar SA., owner of a property that had been seized in a case where the widow and son of Pablo Escobar Gaviria by money laundering natives of the international drug trafficking. After this judicial measure, the property, used during the pandemic of Covid-19 As a medical diagnostic and logistics center, it was expropriated by decision of the Congress of the province of Buenos Aires and put up for discussion in the judicial sphere.

It is a large property located on the side of the Pan-American Highwayat the North Access to the Pilar Branch, Km 46, and the tracks of the General Belgrano Railway, where an imposing building stands that fell into disuse in 2017. The place had been designed by the businessman Mateo Corvo Dolcet as a transshipment center where a “VIP” train would pass along with various short and medium distance bus lines. However, this idea, whose original project had been launched in the second term of Cristina Kirchnerwas never executed.

The fate of the property then was different: it ended up seized by the Justice in a case that investigated local investments of the Colombian drug trade Jose Bayron Piedrahita Ceballosarrested in the United States and linked to the Envigado Officethe criminal organization that succeeded the Medellin poster.

José Bayron Piedrahíta Ceballos was captured on September 29, 2017 on one of his farms in Caucasia, Colombia

The property was seized by decision of the judge Nestor Barralheaded by the Federal Court of Morón No. 3, who in March 2020 decreed the intervention of the company “Bicentennial Pillar“for accusing him of alleged links to international money laundering and, consequently, entrusted him with the State Property Administration Agency (AABE) the management of its collection. The AABE, shortly after, issued a resolution where he handed over the property to the Municipality of Pilar to use it within the framework of the crisis sanitaria caused by the Covid-19 virus.

Nine months later, the province of Buenos Aires sanctioned the ley 15.239 which declared “of public utility y subject to expropriation“the property of Pilar Bicentenario SA in order to allocate it to the provincial Judicial Power for “the construction and start-up of judicial facilities”, to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to set up a “Delegation of the House of the Province of Buenos Aires” and to the Municipality of Pilar with the objective of building “decentralized municipal dependencies”.

The provincial regulations, strictly speaking, established the expropriation of the nine hectares of the land on which the 25,000 m2 garage building is being built. Faced with this, the company promoted a action of unconstitutionality directly before the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires, where it was stated that the property in dispute was partially donated to the National State and was affected by the interjurisdictional passenger service.

The property and its surroundings were expropriated by the province of Buenos Aires to build different facilities (Twitter: @MunicipioPilar)

In its presentation, the company also maintained that the legislative process had “ostensible vices” in the background that was used in the draft law and in the procedure by which its text would have been modified. When making a decision, the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires rejected the action invoked, considering it “untimely”, “without prejudice to the possibility (…) of occurring through other means”. Against this resolution, the plaintiff filed an federal extraordinary resourcewhich was also denied.

Thus, after the presentation of a direct appeal, the case reached the Supreme Court of Justicewhich, with the signature of the ministers Horacio Rosatti -for your vote-, Carlos Rosenkrantz, Juan Carlos Maqueda y Ricardo Lorenzettidecided to dismiss the appeal since “it is not directed against a final judgment or one comparable to such,” as required by Article 14 of Law 48.

For Latest Updates Follow us on Google News


PREV This is what will happen with the price of olive oil from September onwards
NEXT Committee to be presented in Chile for the freedom of Mayor Daniel Jadue (+Photos)