Precisely the closing of that period is the one that fully impacted the calculation of how much should be issued in order to cancel the debt originated in the holdouts lawsuit, that is, the creditors that had not entered the 2005 swaps and 2010. There are not a few economists who point to the payment in cash to the so-called “Vulture funds” such as the fact that marked the beginning of a cycle of indebtedness that culminated in the largest loan in history by the International Monetary Fund to Argentina in 2018. The process in question was analyzed in detail by the control body. A dozen findings allow us to conclude that the criteria for good debt analysis practices to which the country adheres internationally were not met.
From the exposed documentation it appears that the issues made based on Law 27,249 were higher than what was needed to settle the claim of the holdouts. In the regulations sanctioned by Congress, US$12.5 billion were authorized, but later in the Integrated Financial Information System only payments of US$9.926 million were recorded. In other words, there is a residual amount of more than US$2,159 million that was not used for the purposes indicated in the project approved by the Legislative Power.
Therefore, the Macri government not only paid in cash 100% of a sentence questioned by different international organizations, for which there were ongoing negotiations, but also made an issue that exceeded the financing needs. The law passed by Congress had only enabled it to pay the vultures.
The AGN report maintains that the information provided and exposed by the General Accounting Office of the Nation (CGN) “was not complete and accurate with respect to the contingent public debt totals for the Holdouts”. At the same time, he points out that they observed “contradictions in the statements of the National Office of Public Credit and the Ministry of Finance, in reference to the same matter”.
For the control agency, the trial registration system was incomplete, which is why Law 25,344 is not complied with. “It was not possible to conclude that all the international jurisdictions where the State litigates were included”, it says. Along the same lines, he maintains that the CGN refers to global amounts, so that it is not possible to distinguish between national and foreign law.
With all this scenario, the AGN concludes that the practices carried out are contrary to the criteria of administration of public debts and sovereign contingent debts of the World Bank and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, international regulations to which Argentina adheres. .
Source: Ambito
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
