Google Services
"Waiting for the indulgence of readers for the lengths of these invectives, I proceed to address the comments made by the lawyer Vinicio Castillo, whose concerns do not seem to I explained as due in my previous paper "
By Ramón Antonio Veras / Caribbean
The lawyer Vinicio Castillo, the bar defense of Mr. Ramón Báez Figueroa, has sought answers to my riposte questions he saw fit 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 the rules of etiquette and protocol that I always keep very time, when one phone call can not hang up the caller is dismissed.
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 answers is not one that prevents me from slander enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
None of what has been said or written in an accusatory tone against Baninter embezzlement can faithfully express the devastating impact of theft recorded in the bank have and will continue for several generations in the Dominican Republic. Nothing
was 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 journal 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 maybe 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. The strong ethical sense of the director of Listin, Mr. Franjul, would not have permitido incurrir en esa indelicadeza y el orgullo personal del Lic. Castillo Semán, no le habría permitido aprovechar bribonerías de tunantes apocados, ni comportarse como uno de esos niños que tienen que perpetrar un timo hasta para volar un capuchín, habilidad muy apreciada entre leguleyos matarifes, pero desechada por quienes tienen la necesaria autoestima para preferir la rectitud y el buen humor de reírse cuando a un estirado mayordomo inglés con personalidad de yuca jojota, se le sale el refajo y pone en evidencia que es un Roba la gallina.
Esperando la condescendencia de los lectores por las longitudes de estas filípicas, procedo a abordar lo expuesto por el Lic. Castillo Semán, cuyas inquietudes parece que not cleared as it should in my previous paper:
Mr. Castillo week about 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 confirmed and extended.
In fact, if anyone has any doubt about the charges against the executives of Baninter, only have to 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 a newspaper headline 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 when at the initiative of 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 evaluations and reviews of Hipólito Mejía and his government are not subject to interpretation and do not waste their time with snares stillbirths which have no future.
aware that to find speakers, nominees and presidents sultry stockings sucks, do not use binoculars who does not need to look far.
I have not proceeded with a 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 who by their criminal proceeding have caused such severe damage to the country.
My dominant feeling in addressing this issue is no animosity toward Mr. Báez 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 size.
on 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 will a child tantrum to change the nature or meaning of reports of this. When finished accept this harsh reality read.
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 particular falls into 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 of Justice hiring expert, to what is agreed, making her the contracting party. Just
50 reports or review reports submitted by the said banking consultant to 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 deny, perhaps because the bank went to the same spot where the 55 billion disintegrated. In this case demonstrates the transfer underground more than 26 million pesos, in one account in one single day.
"Santo Domingo DN 13 November 2003.
HE Dr. Eduardo Sanchez Ortiz.
City.
Distinguished :
response to your request that we do then brief account history Current No. 0-684252-00-7 entitled "Income".
was opened (started to be operated) on 21/03/2003. "It was handled by Mr. Chief Operating Officer." The first transaction I recorded was a charge (debit note) for RD $ 318,444,719.20.
On the same day he recorded the following transactions outstanding. "Four charges (debit notes) in the amount of RD $ 8,000,000.00 each, and one count of RD $ 2,176,755,084.41, transferring the account balance corporate finance.
the instructions of the Chief Operating searched him credit note for RD $ 4,956,000.00. From this date the income assumed the duties of Finance Account Management (Consultancy External).
at 30 June 2003 while the Bank under the control of the Administrative Commission accounting adjustments were made to settle the balance of the income statement.
For any comments and / or clarification of place to consider, we are you.
Sincerely, Mr. Luis
Aurich, Banking Consultant.
This explains why reports of account analysis conducted 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, the record Listin Diario case, for ASTER, 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 One Thousand Forty-Seven Million Two Hundred Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Pesos and six cents (RD $ 1,047,245,772.06), quantity 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 As 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 judges and as already I said, vans will be on file in the properties of 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 , the that about 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 judges investigating the case, concluding with attribution of responsibility to the respective defendants.
So far the first part of my explanations to Mr. Vinicio Castillo
0 comments:
Post a Comment