Case Study: Theft aggravated by trust?
You can help us put a stop to online scams before they grow too big and end-up ruining thousands of lives. A scam is a scam, doesn’t matter if it’s big or small. Now that this is out of the way, let’s get started with the review.
The case study talks about the trust broken among the firms Superview SA and Acocivies SA. Mr. Manuel Arturo Rincón Guevara, legal representative of Acocivies, claimed the violation of Guardianship action, and hence based on his consideration, imposed it against 22nd Prosecutor’s Office of the Delegate Unit before the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá DC.
The point of concern is based on the fact that the fundamental rights of equality and administration of justice have been violated in accordance to the decision issued on September 26, 2007, which was a pioneer point to cease the investigation against Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego, for the theft exasperated by trust. Although, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere, has another story.
Judgment : Infringement of law?
We look at 34 different data points when analyzing and releasing such reports. Once the research on these data points is submitted, expert contributors reach out to the company’s customers and associates to get more insight into their operation. Finally, all the collected information is presented in the form of this expert review.
All the data is extracted from publicly available information and the sources are given in the transparency section at the bottom of every report.
These reports are made possible by the collective efforts of contributors like you. If you would like to become a contributor then contact us here.
Under consideration; In cogitation of ruling passed by Criminal and Civil Cassation Chambers of Supreme Court of Justice, dated on November 20, 2007 & January 31, 2008, respectively. The case was filed against Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego.
Contract: Committed?
In 1999, Superview SA along with Manuel Arturo Rincón Guevara & Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere signed an agreement and distributed its sole share holding in the percentage of 25 each, to the latter. This decision was taken by the firm’s board of directors due to its financial inadequacy, but the former refused to implement the agreement after the arrival of favorable circumstances. The false claim led to legal requisites followed by Mr Rincón, which eventually made the former deliver shares equivalent to 45000.
Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere’s Contradiction: Circumstantial?
Once Mr Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere found out about the recovery of shares, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere requested Manuel Arturo Rincón Guevara to deliver the shares in the title, BFS S en C.
He makes sure that he acquires 8% of shares in his name & 17% in the name of Bernier Internacional Corporation, to assure that a meeting was organized. In the same meet capitalization of Superview SA gets confirmed and hence, new shares were approved of the sum of Seven Hundred Twenty Million Pesos, habituating neo framework approved by the commercial firm under, Act No. JD 29, 2001, January 12.
However, once the firm capitalization was accomplished Mr Rincón requested for financial aid in terms of loan from Mr Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere in order to capitalize Acociviles SA, which led to a payment of US 100000, in accordance to the norms perplexed in Act No. JD-29.
However, at this point contradiction arises as the money paid by Superview SA to pay the National Television commission is apprehensive as the expiry date of documentations is marked on January 15, 2001.
Whereas, another decision took place on the day, when Mr Rincón decided to capitalize Acociviles SA in the percentage share decided by him in previous terms. Thus during first capitalization payment the share was equivalent to 60%, which anyways, was lost due to change in legal representation of shares of Superview SA, till date, January 26, 2001.
What is Money Laundering?
Money laundering is an illegal process that involves concealing the origin of illegally obtained funds and transforming them into legitimate sources of income.
Claim: Contravention?
The fundamental claims made by the prosecutor are covered under the violation of guardianship action. The first claim states that, fundamental rights to due process, equality and access to the administration of justice, is hampered due to ordination of instances in the direction of criminal investigation by the defendants, Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego. Hence, the prosecutor finds the hearing No. 639449, made on September 26,2007, unfair. However, in another trial Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego are again in the witness box.
Another, statement made by plaintiff is based on the contemplation that the collection of graphological evidence, on the originals of Minutes No. 33 & 34, along with Superview sharebook SA, shall be ruled in during the first instance shall be considered by the Attorney General of the nation, at the time of qualification without any further violation.
Challenge letter: Repudiation?
November 26, 2007, a document was filed in front of the Secretariat of the Criminal Cassation Chamber, testing the decision made. The challenge letter stamps the quote of court, notifying, no tutela action against the judicial law. Along with concluding that judgment not merely confined with disparity of law but also, subsumes factual defects and intentional infringements.
Approach: Substantive?
Plaintiff believes that the re-approach objective is lacking a reasonable foundation as the single directional reversal of share book makes it quite feasible for the shareholder to make as many changes as they wish to.
The other specifics bothering it is the ignorance blistered by the defendants(Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego) to the Article 384 of the commercial code and provision of Article 416. Moreover, there is not a single point of doubt in the will of the contract.
Hence, it took no time in concluding that capitalization reversal of Acociviles SA is a mutual agreement between Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere and legal representatives of Superview SA. Whereas, it shall be proved that the money is in no way used by him.
Factual Defects: Fact based?
Board of directors of the Superview SA, paid for subscription of the capitalization. By signing the contract, it duly left evidence, depicting superintendency of the colliding firms.
Taking Aid of accounting report to witness the changes in share holdings, corresponding to Act No.31 and considering accounting documentations from April 8, 2001 and November 9, 2001 in order to witness modifications in plenum and share ownership.
Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere with his fireballs of inquisition indicates the power assigned in Mr Rincón’s palms in the context of recovering, assigning and capitalization of shares.
The forensic account group and its expert opinion, that reversal was noticed by Accounting Note No. 4, dated on June 19, 2001. The reversal cash receipt was betwixt $108,000,000.00 and $34,500,000.00.
The handwriting evidence marked during the first judgment, where proper samples could not be collected even after twice efforts made by the court due to non-cooperation of Superview SA firm.
Dr Saúl Sotomonte Sotomonte, confirming the allegation of adulteration in closed Suprview SA’s quorum via his testimony. He also pin-pointed the vacant signature box in the record 33 and suggested taking specific actions for the shortcomings to the Acociviles SA representatives.
Affarming nod of Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez in the context of confirmation of adulteration and reversal of account records.
Inadequacy of Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego in shutting-down the raised voices and eyes, regarding inconsistency of narration of her words during interrogation.
Denial of Mr Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere of any financial transaction or money lending to Manuel Arturo Rincón Guevara or Acociviles S. A.
Judgment: First instance
The Criminal Cassation Chamber of Supreme court denies the affirmations made by Acociviles SA. The jurisdiction of 22nd Prosecutor delegate decided that the action mentioned is not appropriate for the alteration of normative jurisdiction. As, the Article 228 describes that the norms were practiced with full will and consideration.
The decisions were made independently and autonomously. Hence, in order to find any forgery in the norms, the entire documentation could be marked a invalid. It was also concluded that due to the precision of the autonomy, the facts deduced by the prosecutors were invalid, in accordance with the jurisdiction. Eventually, the case was turned down as invalid by notifying the irregularities, which according to the jury, could not be forced on the defendants, and hence, no guardian action was applicable at the time of qualification of the case.
Judgment: Second instance
On January 31, 2008, the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, took the decision to consider the statements of the commercial firms, once again.
The considerations: The decision of the first jury was emphasized and different aspects of the case were followed. It was marked that guardianship action cannot be censured unless the actions are random enough to get considered by the jury itself.
However, if the statements and documentation are susceptible to correction the action could not be forced. Also, it was considered that the action of reassurance of the legal notifications could not be canceled from roots. Hence, a conclusion was made which depicted that the challenged authority is not consistent and is led by situational and circumstantial references.
Violation: Alleged?
The plaintiff alleges of being discriminated against by the opposition by not considering the norms and not even providing enough justification for the actions. The facts and statements were in doubt by the prosecutor. At last, the plaintiff also pinpoints the discrimination being followed in between the practitioner and other people concerned with the specific norms. Hence, it describes it as the act of disruption of the fundamental rights.
Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere Case: Conclusion
The mentioned case study describes the scenario of deterrence in the criminal investigation. In the particular case, commercial codes were not imposed at the time of decision making by the jury. Later, it was unveiled that reversals were made in the accounting records and registry book without providing proper information to the contrary party.
Cancellations were made in the shareholding processes without proper justification provided. However, one judgment has been passed in the favor of defendants (Carlos Humberto Isaza Rodríguez, Luis Alfredo Baena Riviere & Martha Liliana Guevara Gallego) and now the second judgment is awaited. However, the jurisdiction of this term is ready to consider the allegations of the prosecutor. This case is a proper example of preclusion in criminal and fraud cases, and hence its reevaluation is mandatory.
