rodríguez larreta, along with members of his new cabinet/telam
While the national government formalized yesterday the decision to transfer bonds to the city of Buenos Aires within the framework of the precautionary measure issued by the Supreme Court of Justice in favor of the Buenos Aires district for co-participating funds, the Buenos Aires management filed a criminal complaint in the federal courts of Comodoro Py against officials of the National Executive Power whom he accused of not complying with the Court’s ruling.
In a ruling handed down last Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered an increase in the co-participating mass in favor of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA), raising it to 2.95%, within the framework of the dispute between both administrations over the cost of the transfer of the police in 2016.
However, the payment of the provisions of the Court through bonds, was rejected by the Government of Buenos Aires.
In this context, he filed a criminal complaint yesterday in the federal courts of Comodoro Py against officials of the National Executive Branch whom he accused of not complying with the Court’s ruling.
The letter denounces “those who are part of the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of the Interior, who have been notified of the judicial decision, and the members of the Board of Directors of Banco Nación Argentina and other officials of the line of said bank.”
The complaint adds that “the facts could constitute a violation of articles 239 and 248 of the National Penal Code”, which typify the crimes of disobedience.
When announcing the presentation of this complaint, Rodríguez Larreta affirmed that the national government “crossed all limits” and promised that his management will go “in depth with this until the law is complied with, until public officials fulfill their duty.” .
Meanwhile, the Buenos Aires Minister of Finance, Martín Mura, rejected the national government’s proposal to pay the co-participation percentage set by the Supreme Court of Justice with bonds and pointed out that the issue “does not withstand the slightest analysis.”
In this sense, he pointed out that “the bond is not quoted, does not pay interest and capitalizes everything at the end”, with which – he indicated – its use “does not resist even the slightest analysis”.
