A day before the judicial term expired, the former president Cristina Kirchner He presented a brief before the Federal Oral Court No. 2 requesting the suspension of the execution of his assets in the framework of the road case.
The presentation of Cristina Kirchnercarried out with its lawyers Carlos Beraldi and Ary Llernovoy, seeks to stop the confiscation of their assets, which had been ordered as part of the condemnation of fraudulent administration in the award of public works in Santa Cruz.
The road cause investigates alleged irregularities in the granting of road works between 2003 and 2015, during the governments of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner. The court determined that there were maneuvers of fraud to the State, benefiting businessman Lázaro Báez, who was also convicted with other former officials such as José López and Nelson Periotti.
In December 2022, the TOF 2 issued a conviction and set an initial confiscation of $ 85 billion. However, in July 2025, experts from the Supreme Court updated that amount to $ 684,990,350,139.86, equivalent to about 537 million dollars, using the INDEC Consumer Price Index (CPI).
This amount had to be deposited by those convicted in a judicial account before 9:30 on Wednesday, August 13. In your writing, Cristina Kirchner He challenged the court’s decision and requested that the execution of his property be left without effect.
He argued that he does not have a heritage linked to the crime for which he was convicted, and that the confiscation lacks legal basis. “I did not have or have in my assets things that have served to commit the act prosecuted in cars, nor goods or profits that result in the product or benefit of the aforementioned episode, and therefore are confisable,” said the ex -president.
Patrimonial Research
In addition, he strongly questioned the actions of prosecutors Diego Luciani and Sergio Mola, who prepared a list of assets of the convicted for possible execution. According to Cristina Kirchnerthe prosecutors “omitted to carry out a patrimonial investigation that allows to prove, with the degree of certainty to impose a criminal sanction, what are the assets that are framing under the typology provided for in article 23 of the Criminal Code.”
The defense also filed a appeal before the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation, requesting the absolute nullity of the sentence that updated the amount of the confiscation. In that appeal, it is argued that the calculation made by the Court is disproportionate and that a provisional estimate was definitively without prior debate.
Followers in Google News And in our channel of Instagramto continue enjoying the latest news and our best content.
