The lawyer Vinicio Castillo, the bar defense of Mr. Ramón Báez Figueroa, has attempted riposte my answers to questions he was good enough to me about the case publicly Baninter.
Although the second statement of Mr. Castillo week is a repeat of the first, I do not want to incur the discourtesy to leave the word in the mouth.
According to etiquette and protocol that I always keep very time, when one phone call can not fire you hang up until he called.
In keeping with these principles of good manners, which could prolong this discussion to end right now just tell Mr. Castillo Semán, already answered both questions was, like many others which he raised with the absolute conviction that my responses there is not one that prevents me from slander to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Nothing has been said or written in an accusatory tone against Baninter embezzlement can faithfully express the devastating impact of theft registered at the bank have and will continue for several generations in the Dominican Republic.
Nothing has been said in court or out of them, promptly explained that the revelry of two or three white-collar thieves have taken the country in health, food, education, housing and quality of life .
No report, complaint or allegation which has been made, fully reveals the cost in pain, misery and lives to be paid by the Dominican people by 55 billion squandered on a spree Saturnalia, whose bills have passed the country with the greatest audacity.
I do not want to continue without pause to acknowledge the generous hospitality and impartial arbitration Listin Diario the first response I sent to Mr. Castillo week and to congratulate this day for his excellent commitment to freedom of expression, commendable democratic value that we as openly.
I hope your warm welcome to my standards to extend to this issue and any other to come, if Mr. Castillo week I wish to extend the discussion group.
extend
recognition to Mr. Miguel Franjul, who directs the prestigious worthily means and whose fortitude of character and high moral fiber, you can navigate the swamps bravely trickier.
My answers to the questions of the distinguished lawyer Castillo Semán were sent to the newspaper Listin Diario on Tuesday 2 October and were published on Sunday 7th October. The Bachelor Castillo countered on Monday 8 October.
Since both texts lack the virtues of brevity, the diligence with which Mr. Castillo said could only be explained with one of two variables. Or Mr. Castillo Semán interrupted his Sunday rest and perhaps even writing me I could sleep. Mr. Miguel Franjul O gave my writing before publishing.
If it happened the first, appreciate the interest, but I worry that Mr. Castillo week, go to choke hurry.
The second possibility I hasten to dismiss it without investigation.
's strong ethical sense of the director of Listin, Mr. Franjul, there would have been permitted to incur in that indelicate and personal pride of Mr. Castillo week, would not have allowed crooks to take rascality of timid, and behave like one of those children who have to perpetrate a fraud to to fly a cappuccino, skill highly prized among shysters killers, but rejected by those who have the necessary self-esteem to prefer righteousness and good humor to laugh when an English butler stretched cassava Jojot personality, he comes out and puts in her slip Roba evidence is a chicken. Waiting
condescension of readers by the lengths of these invectives, proceed to the above address by Mr. Castillo Week, whose concerns seem to not cleared as it should in my previous paper:
Mr. Castillo week on the scope of what I know of Baninter case, I already made the necessary explanations, which in my opinion are quite satisfactory.
who is repeating lies Maybe you and he is doing wrong because it is very weak.
The central argument of his defense, which says that one can not be convicted of stealing a herd of 55 billion heads have recreated if one stole a chicken farm in Moca, far from refuting the facts are confirmed and extended.
In fact, if anyone has any doubt about the charges against the executives of Baninter, simply read the defense that you do, that these doubts were dispelled.
regret to inform you, but the accusations against the defendants in the case of Baninter need more than one holder newspaper to be demolished.
If I were you and was so sure I made these demolitions, the represented it would not run right now gotten into frantic last-minute negotiations secret, illegal lobbying under the table.
If anyone has benefited any media campaign is Baninter case the defendants, who have been in favor of shyness, if not the complicity of an irresponsible press, too committed to the worst cases and that when the initiative some good individuals in it, it overlooks the urge to perform their functions, often neutralized by agreements in the domes, or blackmail.
Indeed, I applaud any investment made by the Central Bank or other state agencies to prevent attacks and recover lost loot, from hiring security guards and installing surveillance cameras to educational campaigns to explain to people that should be penalizing theft, to reduce recidivism.
My assessments and opinions on Hipolito Mejia and his government are not subject to their own interpretations and not waste time on snares stillbirths have no future.
aware that to find speakers, nominees and presidents sultry stockings sucks, do not use binoculars who does not need to look very far.
I have not acted with vengeance against Mr. Ramon Báez Figueroa. In my heart there is no room for that attitude you should identify without confusion because it might have been in contact with it regularly.
Those who have acted with cruelty, greed and abuse are the assailants of Baninter and those who accompany them in this shabby company to defend the plundering of the treasury.
In answering your questions I have done so with regret to those with criminal procedure have caused such severe damage to the country.
In answering your questions I have done so with regret to those with criminal procedure have caused such severe damage to the country.
My dominant feeling in addressing this issue is no animosity toward Mr. Baez Figueroa, but outrage over the pattern of impunity that has assaulted the Dominican people and concern for the consequences of an unjust outcome, to push further into the social precipice.
Baninter case is not just a problem of economic loss, which in itself is serious, but the call to abandon that involve a consecration of impunity at that level and that tamaño.Sobre the points you raised again, ratify and add:
1.-You know, Mr. Castillo week, that unless you have the powers of the wizard Merlin, will not clear to Mr. Luis Emilio Aurich Baninter record of snapping your fingers, nor serve a tantrum child to change the nature or meaning of the reports submitted by it.
accept
When you finish read this harsh reality.
The work of Mr. Luis Emilio Aurich, it was not just marginal or surreptitious as you say because the average share for a public contract with legal validity and attached to the relevant protocols.
responsibility in this regard, it is up to the Supreme Court, which was paid services. Any discussion of the matter falls within the category of mere folly, because the contract is self-explanatory. Do not insert here in extenso, because I will not abuse the indulgence of the newspaper, or the readers, but read where it says that Mr. Aurich is hired "to perform advisory services, technical consultant."
Consequently, this professional was not hired to perform any accounting or information technology audit.
His task was, as specified by the contract, to interpret and process some of the supporting documentation, which was mainly held by the Trial Judge of the First Degree, which required the Supreme Court the hiring of the expert, to which this agreed, making her the contracting party.
Just consider the 50 reports or reports from the banking consultant, said the judge indicated, at different times to check the absolute accuracy of the statements.
For your edification, I would literally play the first of the reports prepared by that consultant to the judge in question, showing the coolly objective, one of the mysterious parallel bank transactions, whose existence you denied, perhaps because the bank went to the same spot where the 55 billion disintegrated. In this case demonstrates the clandestine racking more than 26 million pesos in a single account in one single day. "Santo Domingo DN 13 November 2003. HE Dr. Eduardo Sanchez Ortiz.
Ciudad.Distinguidos Gentlemen: Pursuant to request that you make us then brief history of the current account No. 0-684252 - 00-7 entitled "Income." It was open (it began to be operated) on 21/03/2003. "It was handled by Mr. Chief Operating Officer." The first transaction that was recorded a charge (note debit) for RD $ 318,444,719.20.
On the same day he recorded the following transactions outstanding. "Four cargos (notas de débito) por la suma de RD $8,000,000.00 cada una y un cargo por RD$2,176,755,084.41, transfiriéndole el balance de la cuenta Finanza Empresarial.
Por instrucciones del Vicepresidente Ejecutivo de Operaciones le registraron nota de crédito por RD$4,956,000.00. A partir de esta fecha la cuenta de Resultados asumió las funciones de la cuenta Finanza Empresarial (Consultoría Externa).
Al 30 de Junio del año 2003 estando el Banco bajo el control de la Comisión Administrativa se efectuaron ajustes contables para liquidar el balance de dicha cuenta de resultados.
Para cualquier observación y/o aclaración que considere de lugar, usted.Muy we remain sincerely, Mr. Luis Aurich, Banking Consultant. This explains why the account analysis reports made by the specialist Aurich have generated such hysteria in the bar defense of Mr. Báez Figueroa.
technical criteria of Mr. Aurich, detailed in the files, make considerable contributions to clarify matters relating to the tricks from the bank's resources and account for personal expenses of Mr. Ramón Báez Figueroa, identified as "Gaper, SA ". And
clarify items that the defense would have preferred to stay in the shadows, in the case file Listin Diario, the ASTER case, in the Telecentre and Channel 27, the Garcia family and many others described as fraudulent transactions, involving the accused Ramon Baez Figueroa.
For example, examine the relationship of personal expenses of Mr. Ramón Báez Figueroa (Gaper, SA) amounting to the sum of Forty Thousand Seven Million Five Hundred Forty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Pesos and six cents (RD $ 1,047,245,772.06), an amount that the Dominican people are paying now, as part of the debts he inherited from Mr. Baez. In Section 3 dwell on details of the particular.
In conclusion, I repeat what I said earlier. The reports of Mr. Aurich, are not the basis of the case against the accused in the case of Baninter, but are an auxiliary tool, highly efficient and exceptionally revealing, indeed, to understand the movement in the accounts examined.
The basis of the case are over 374 exhibits submitted by the prosecution. 2 .- If you insist, Mr. Castillo week, there is no problem calling you a "stationary" to these 374 tests in original or photocopies were placed for consideration by the judge and as I said, must vans filed within properties Mr. Báez Figueroa, where perhaps there is room to park the fleet.
What we fear is that managers have also Baninter lightly and cheerfully called "stationery" to their operational records and confused with the derogatory term, mix the "paperwork" with the toilet paper and gave him the same use, wiping 55 billion dollars between the pipes and garbage cans of health facilities.
Otherwise it is laughable that you claim as a suspected cause of illegality of those tests, the fact that between them have photocopies, since most of the 65 "tests" incorporated by Báez Figueroa's defense, are photocopies, of which around 40% are newspaper clippings!.
The prosecution evidence, were the product of not only the initiative of public and private prosecutors of this case, but the efforts for more than a year made the magistrates investigating the dossier , concluding with the attribution of responsibility to the relevant defendants.
So far the first part of my explanations to Mr. Vinicio Castillo
0 comments:
Post a Comment