The Court dismissed Lázaro Báez for evasion following the application of the Fiscal Innocence Act one day before the trial

The recent application of the so-called Fiscal Innocence Act decisively reconfigured one of the most emblematic causes linked to corruption during the Kirchner governments. The Oral Economic Criminal Court No. 3 decided this Tuesday to order the partial dismissal of businessman Lázaro Báez, his children and others involved in an investigation for millions of dollars in tax debts through the firm Austral Construcciones SA. In a turn that raised strong questions, the judicial decision came at a key moment in

The decision came after the entry into force of Law 27,799, which significantly increased the minimum amounts necessary to consider tax evasion a crime. As a result of this amendment, a large part of the sums investigated fell below the legal threshold, which resulted in direct benefit for the defendants. The file analyzed the non-payment of Value Added Tax (VAT), Income Tax and the rate established in article 37 of the Income Act, corresponding to the fiscal periods 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014

In this context, the defenses requested the dismissal, arguing that the amounts originally investigated no longer reached the new legal minimums. The approach was based on a central principle of Argentine criminal law: the retroactive application of the most benign law for the accused. Attorney General Diego Velasco strongly opposed this interpretation. He argued that Law 27,799 constitutes a mere update of values in the face of monetary depreciation, and not a more favorable rule in criminal terms. Along these lines, he called for the continuity of the process through the conduct of the oral and public trial

However, the accusatory stance did not succeed. Since the complaint, lawyer Nicolás Dertinopulos, representative of the Customs Collection and Control Agency (ARCA), adopted a more flexible position and anticipated that he would not object to the dismissal in those cases where the amounts did not exceed the new limits, although he clarified that criminal action should continue for periods that did exceed that floor. Finally, judges Jorge Zabala, Fernando Machado Pelloni and Karina Perilli decided to apply the Fiscal Innocence Act and dismiss the prosecutor's argument. In his vote, Zabala argued that the amounts charged did not meet the requirements established by the new legislation, with the exception of the period corresponding to 2012. For his part, Machado Pelloni, who was drawn to the Hotesur-Los Sauces trial court on February 12, backed the decision based on the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which requires the mandatory and retroactive application of the