convictions for fraud for two groups of developers

The 10th Crime Chamber of Córdoba sentenced, in a few hours, two groups of developers for scams involving the sale of apartments and lots in the Capital.

On the one hand, in the morning, businessman Jorge Ribeiro was sentenced to 11 years in prison, accused of having been the head of a group that committed 34 repeated scams with the sale of well-developed apartments through trusts.

In the afternoon, meanwhile, there was a conviction in the case that discusses the fraudulent sale of land that was supposedly expropriated on the north bank of the Suquía River.

The file was named “Torres del Río”. In this case, the notary Lucrecio Lanza Castelli, the businessman Gustavo Trebucq and the lawyers Alejandro Damia and Ernesto Blanco, who received heavy sentences, stand out.

In the vast majority of cases, the convictions are for repeated ideological falsehood and repeated fraud.

Condemns Ribeiro

Early on Wednesday, the 10th Chamber sentenced businessman Jorge Ribeiro to 11 years in prison. In addition, he imposed a fine of 90,000 pesos, considering him the head of an illegal association and counting 34 repeated scams. This was the main result of the verdict for fraud for the sale of well-developed apartments through trusts, in the “Ribeiro Construcciones” case.

In addition, Carlos Hernán Castro was sentenced to 8 years in prison and a fine of 80,000 pesos, charged with being the head of an illegal association and five repeated frauds. Georgina María Ribeiro received a 5-year sentence and a fine of 60,000 pesos. She was deemed a member of the racketeering and repeated scams. Two other defendants received sentences of conditional execution: Ana Lucía Ribeiro, 3 years old and a fine of 60 thousand pesos, and Marcos Javier Lío, 2 years old, this one for concealment.

Judgment divided into “Torres del Río”

Already on Wednesday afternoon, the 10th Chamber handed down the conviction in the case that discusses the fraudulent sale of land that was supposedly expropriated on the north bank of Suquía, near the General Paz neighborhood.

For “the majority” of the court, the fraudulent maneuver was proven and severe sentences were imposed on the bulk of those involved, with harsh penalties for the four main defendants: 6 years and 10 months in prison for the notary Lucrecio Lanza Castelli, the businessman Gustavo Trebucq and the lawyers Alejandro Damia and Ernesto Blanco.

In the vast majority of cases, the convictions are for repeated ideological falsehood and repeated fraud.

But unlike the vote in the Ribeiro case, where there was unanimity, in “Torres del Río” there was a dissent.

In favor of the sentences, the most senior members in the chamber of white-collar crimes, Juan José Rojas Moresi and Mario Centeno, spoke out.

The last to enter the Chamber, Carlos Palacio Laje, did not share criteria and voted for the acquittals, they assured The voice two sources of the cause. Although the foundations of the judgment are still unknown, it turned out that there was no agreement on the merits of the issue: Was the expropriation completed or not?

The positive response was (only) by a majority and Palacio Laje voted for dissidence. Judicial sources confided that the deliberation of the judges lasted for hours.

The “dissident” Palacio Laje would have understood that when airing the evidence it was not proven that the provincial State had acquired the lands in question through “perfect” titles. His criteria would be more “neat”, looking for the certainty required at this stage.

According to this criterion, coinciding with a good part of the defenders, the properties would never have left the domain of private individuals, thus legitimizing the transactions.

According to these sources, very close to the actors, this member would have voted for the acquittal of the 16 defendants.

the sentences

On the other hand, in addition to those already mentioned, there were other high sentences, particularly the one that fell on the renowned academic and notary public Daniel Eduardo Ahumada, who received 4 years and eight months in prison. His colleague, the notary Roberto Francisco Luis Brussa, always with the same charges, received a sentence of four and a half years in prison.

Instead, the notary public Esteban Ferrer Frontera received a sentence of three years and two months in prison.

Also with a high sentence, Gustavo Miguel Roca Feigin received a sentence of five years in prison, while the Cadastre official Celia Victoria Altamirano Ahumada was sentenced to four years and eight months. Juan Manuel Rocha Fernández was sentenced to three years and eight months in prison, Roberto Esteban Crossetti three years and six months,

With suspended prison terms, Carmen Graciela Chacón received three years and Ricardo Pacífico Noé a year and a half. In addition, José Luis Nelli and the brothers Cristian Leonardo and Daniel Alejandro Salomón were acquitted.

Almost all those convicted received special professional disqualification or to contract with the state at any of its levels, personally or through third parties, for the duration of the sentences.

On the other hand, the court defined that Blanco, Chacón, Crosetti, Damia, Roca Feigin and Trebucq be acquitted of the crime of usurpation.

Civil claim

The verdict gave way to the civil suit presented by the lawyers of the View SA firm, victims of the alleged fraud of the main defendants who sold them one of the (state) properties, allegedly for some 4.1 million dollars.

For this reason, the main point of the sentence obliges the main convicts to pay View a sum of about 3,719 million pesos, which represents two payments of 500,000 dollars and 3.6 million dollars updated to the MEP value. These main convicted persons must respond jointly and severally with their assets, up to the required amount.

The sentence is not final and, according to such a controversy, it will take time to reach finality. For now, no one is in prison and the civil sentence is not executed.

The dissenting vote will give sufficient excuse to the defenses to sharpen the arguments when drafting the appeal. For many, “this” ends up in court.