The decision, made by a majority in Chamber IV of the Criminal Cassation Court, annuls the 2023 ruling of TOF2 of Córdoba
Nuevo
Agregar La Derecha Diario en
Compartir:
Chamber IV of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassationrevoked the dismissal of the owners of Helacor, the company behind Grido ice cream. It ordered the holding of an oral trial for alleged tax-related illicit association between 2007 and 2012. The measure applies to Oscar Lucas Santiago, Lucas Santiago, and Sebastián Oscar Santiago.
In 2023, TOF2 of Córdoba had considered that the offense was covered by the tax amnesty law and issued the dismissal. The new resolution, by majority, annulled that decision and allowed the accusation to proceed. According to the judiciary, the businessmen allegedly formed an organization to evade taxes and increase their profits.
The executives had joined the tax amnesty regime in 2013 through Cedin for two million dollars and proposed compensation of $240 million. They also requested the retroactive application of the tax regularization regime and decree 608/24. Federal prosecutor Carlos Gonella opposed this, but TOF2 initially accepted the request.
Sebastian Santiago, dueño de las heladerías Grido
The case returns to previous instances
The judicial resolution states that the case must return to previous stages, where alternative resolutions had already been offered. Sources close to the company clarified that the new ruling "is not final" and that key procedural definitions are still pending. The accusation applies exclusively to the executives and doesn't implicate the company.
The investigated maneuvers include alleged tax irregularities in the production, distribution, and sale of ice cream and supplies. According to the case, third parties and franchisees may also have been involved in the evasion scheme. The judiciary keeps that there was a systematic plan to defraud the tax authorities for several years.
The Chamber rejected extending the benefits of the tax amnesty to the offense of tax-related illicit association, as the defendants intended. The defense tried to rely on subsequent regulations that allow the extinction of criminal action for common tax offenses. However, the Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that the judicial process must continue.
