The prosecutor Gabriela BoquÃn denounced that the Correo Argentino, of the Macri family, committed fraud during the 20 years that the creditorsâ contest lasted and that allowed him to dodge until today the payment of his millionaire debt. For this and other reasons, she asked the Chamber of Commerce to confirm the bankruptcy declaration ordered in July of last year, which the company appealed and which, according to the prosecutorâs office, it seeks to avoid through attempts to forum shopping to get like-minded judges. The opinion, to which he agreed Page 12, lists 16 falsehoods repeated by the Post. He blames him for creating âa storyâ based on âinaccuracies and deceptionsâ that he âdisseminates to public opinionâ and âcontaminates the file, affecting the search for the real truth and putting himself in a situation of being a victim, not being such.â The one who was in charge of that diffusion last year, through tweets and a letter, was Mauricio Macri, who at the same time sought to pressure justice. BoquÃn details in his presentation the emptying operations of the firm, the use of false guarantees to obtain the approval of his offer and the irregular agreement with the Meinl Bank, accused of money laundering.
âThe right of defense has a limit, which is good faith. There is no good faith when the records of the file are distorted, what happened throughout the entire process, and political actors who have nothing to do with a process are included. commercial specifically insolvencyâ, affirms the opinion. On paper, the Post Office has SOCMA, the main firm of Grupo Macri, as its controlling company. The former president does not appear because he got rid of his actions, but his incidence is evident. He had given them to his children (Agustina, Gimena and Francisco) and then these to Gianfranco Macri, who has 40 percent; 20 percent belongs to Mariano Macri, another 20 percent to Florencia Macri and the remaining 20 percent to the children of Sandra Macri, who passed away. At the last shareholdersâ meeting, Mariano, the youngest of the brothers, questioned the sale of part of the firmâs assets, for millions of dollars, which was hidden from him. These patrimonial detachments could generate an argument to avoid answering for the debts. The Treasury Attorney, representing the State as a creditor, has already requested the extension of the bankruptcy, which would fall on SOCMA.
The last offer that the Post Office had made to its creditors was 1,000 million pesos in one payment. According to the prosecutionâs calculations, it is about a sixth of the real debt. The previous scandal had been in 2016, also with Macri at the center of the scene as president: the company arranged with the representatives of the State a formula that liquefied, according to BoquÃn, 98.87 percent of the debt. The prosecutor stopped that pact. In her new opinion, she recalls that the Directorate for Judicial Assistance in Complex Crimes and Organized Crime (DAJuDeCO) agreed with her in two expert reports, which established that at least 92 percent of the amount owed had evaporated.
Boquin presented his opinion in December but surprisingly it does not appear in the system. Chamber B of the Chamber of Commerce could already decide whether or not to ratify the bankruptcy of the Post Office, ordered by Judge Marta Cirulli. That court has a new member since last year, Guadalupe VÃ¡squez, whom the Macri have already tried to displace, so far without success. The historical conformation, of MarÃa Lilia GÃ³mez Alonso de DÃaz Cordero and Matilde Ballerini, was especially functional over time (the file was kept for 11 years). The first should retire but she presented an injunction to stay after 75 years: she won it in the first instance, the Chamber revoked it and now she has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which could generate an additional obstacle.
According to BoquÃn, the Post Office filled the bankruptcy proceedings with fraudulent situations. One of them was to present a trout majority to show that he had endorsement of his payment offer. For an agreement to be approved, the debtor company must show the âconformitiesâ of a majority of the creditors. In total there are 708. The last time before the bankruptcy declaration, the Post Office said that it had 34, plus another 375 from previous years and that the National State had to be excluded from the calculations because it was âhostileâ. The latter was rejected by the prosecution, and also by the judge to dictate the bankruptcy.
For BoquÃn, the conformity that it showed is not valid. To begin with, they predate the âsalvageâ procedure and the last offer. One group dates from 2007. The problem is not only the date: of the 375, 361 had been granted by attorneys/assignees linked to three law firms, all related to the Post Office and, at least two of them, with members in the directory. âThey cannot be considered genuine or legitimate because they show a manipulationâ of the company to achieve a majority. To this is added that, for example, one of the men who appears granting 23 consents, Miguel MartÃn Cormack, found his name in journalistic notes and denounced that he had not participated in anything and that the signature was not his. His guarantees, for worse, appeared ratified in 2021. The prosecution also detected two ratifications from creditors who had not previously provided support, six repeated, 15 in the name of the original creditors whose credit had been assigned. They look like details but they are not.
The Post also clung to its largest private creditor: the Meinl Bank has 38 percent of the liabilities. But he was investigated for money laundering and declared bankrupt in March 2020. His compliance from thirteen years earlier is no longer valid.
Without activity or income, the Post Office carried out a series of surprising operations that have as a common denominator their own âemptyingâ âto the detriment of the creditors and for the benefit of their controllersâ (within the Macri Group) and ârelated companies.â They are frauds that, according to Boquin, do not admit any other way out than bankruptcy.
*El Correo bought in 2007 from SOCMA, its controlling company, shares of the Uruguayan company Neficor (linked to the automotive business) for 2.1 million dollars, without judicial permission.
*He made a contribution to Dynamic Communication, of which he is a shareholder, for 521,000 pesos in 2004. He did not request authorization. The unions said nothing.
*In 2012, Correo entered into an agreement with Sideco, another company in the group that was its partner until 2016, for assistance services, advice and the location of goods and services, for which it paid $18,000 per month (between July 2012 and April 2012). 2014). He did not ask for permission. It generated a âpost-bankruptcyâ debt of 60 million pesos.
*Until 2012 the company paid 8 million pesos in advances to the directors, despite the fact that it was not entitled to any remuneration because the exercises yielded losses. He violated, says the prosecution, the company law.
*The Post Office paid fees for legal advice to law firms made up of members of its own board of directors and to consultants or advertising companies. Payments were estimated at almost 27 million pesos.
*A report from the co-administrator detected that there were debts, in September 2019, for loans with Sideco and SOCMA: the first for 3 million pesos and the second for almost 22 million. Sideco, however, had not been a partner since 2016. With it was another larger debt: 58 million pesos.
*The Meinl Bank (today Anglo Austrian Bank AF) bought the credits of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in 2005, which were for 62,726,607.44 dollars and those of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in 2006, for 57,956. $527.72. They made a strikingly inconvenient agreement for the entity. The debt was recorded in pesos at the 2013 exchange rate (6.5 pesos per dollar). Boquin reveals that the Post made an agreement parallel to the competition with the entity, which was hidden. It was to give advantage to creditors who gave him their consent to avoid bankruptcy. El Meinl was accused of money laundering and is going through an insolvency process.
Boquinâs opinion states that the Post is lying, in a long list of falsehoods, which includes these observations:
*He said that he offered the payment of 100 percent of the debt, with a passive interest rate. Former President Macri publicly flaunted this. That, Boquin points out, is not the total debt. It has nothing to do with the passage of time or with inflationary periods. For this to be the case, the active rate should be applied and contemplate not only âpenaltyâ but also âdefaultâ interest. The date of cancellation is also not specified. âNeither the payment is complete nor would it be without delay,â he says.
*The Post Office says that it has no labor creditors, but the prosecution refutes it. He further states that none of his creditors objected to his latest offer. But not even the challenge period was opened in the facts.
*âIt is false -he addsâ that there is no damage to creditors (â¦) It is false that the passage of time, the duration of the process and the abuse thereof are not attributableâ to the Post Office.
*It is false, he also says, that the judge who ordered and the Chamber prosecutorâs office are incompetent. What the Post has sought, also through SOCMA, is to take the case to the Superior Court of Justice of Buenos Aires, where there are judges related to Macri. That discussion is now in the Supreme Court of the Nation.
âWhat is true -summarizes the opinion- is that there was fraud in the administration of the insolvent company, carrying out acts that required judicial authorization behind the back of the court, fraud in the indebtedness of the debtor with its controllers, outflows of assets without real justification, payment of fees to directors in contravention of the law, spurious agreements with the Meinl Bank, fraud in obtaining the conformityâ. Those affected, he adds, are the creditors, including the State, the AFIP and the Banco NaciÃ³n and warns about âmoney laundering and transfer maneuvers, which must be investigated in the first instance and before the corresponding criminal courts. â.