A criminal complaint revealed official payments for a property that was never used and sparked a heated debate about administrative responsibility
Compartir:
Councilman Sergio Piguillem filed a criminal complaint with the District III Prosecutor's Office, Turn 7, regarding a lease he considers irregular and excessively costly. The filing states that the contract pertains to the property at Sucre 400, corner of La Rioja, intended as the headquarters of the Municipal Oversight Entity. The case file records an initial payment of $52,000,000 for four months and a total projected expenditure of $624,000,000 for the agreed period.
Administrative file 994-011931/2025 sets an initial rental fee of $13,000,000 per month and a contractual term of 48 months starting from 5/1/2025. The contract was approved through Resolution 566 dated 9/4/2025, which formalized the basic terms of the agreement. VESINM SA was the lessor, and the file also records a payment to the real estate intermediary of $31,200,000 as commission for the transaction.
Piguillem reported that, despite the payments made, the building was never occupied and remains closed, as confirmed by local residents and workers. According to the councilman, the Entity is still listed as operating at Avenida Colón 3551, which contradicts the supposed move to the new property. The councilman stated that the accumulation of payments without use of the space could represent significant harm to municipal assets.
El concejal Sergio Piguillem fue quien presentó la denuncia
Advance payments and deficiencies in contractual documentation
The file indicates that $52,000,000 was paid for May, June, July, and August 2025, and that these payments are now under scrutiny. The contract provides for quarterly adjustments according to the Córdoba Consumer Price Index, which would increase the actual cost over time. The total authorized amount of $624,000,000 appears in the file despite the lack of effective occupation of the property.
A report from the Directorate of Architecture, dated 8/11/2025, identified dampness, puddles, and paint defects that prevent immediate use. The report adds that the building has been uninhabited for five years and that it was not possible to verify installations without specialized studies. For the complainant, this report contradicts the official version regarding the suitability of the property at the time the lease was signed.
The file records the absence of Annex I, which should have included an inventory and photographs of the property, a deficiency that complicates verification. The lack of this annex prevents verification of furniture, equipment, and other items that would have justified disbursements and immediate contracting. Among the officials mentioned in the complaint are Director Ezequiel Hormaeche Actis and Administrative Manager Diego Javier Beresovsky.
Municipalidad de Córdoba
Request for additional funds and complaint over accumulated expenditures
File 994-028150/2025 documents a request for a transfer of $200,000,000 for works, maintenance, and purchase of furniture. Piguillem stated that requesting this $200,000,000 contradicts the Entity's version regarding the supposed optimal conditions of the property. The complaint keeps that, nearly 7 months after the start of the contract,the Municipality may have paid close to $100,000,000 for an empty building.
The filing requests an investigation of Entity officials, the legal department, the lessor, and the involved municipal areas. The councilman called for evidentiary measures to reconstruct the administrative and accounting chain, including a review of transfers and payment orders. Piguillem warned that if the lack of justification for the payments is confirmed, crimes against public administration could be established.
The set of resolutions, files, and reports requires seeking administrative and judicial clarity regarding the destination and justification of public funds. The investigation is being led by the Prosecutor's Office headed by Raúl Garzón, which must determine irregularities and any potential criminal liability. Meanwhile, the controversy over advance payments, the $13,000,000 monthly fee, and the $200,000,000 request keeps public interest high.
