As revealed by Diario Judicial, the blocking of the defendants’ account and virtual wallet was ordered for a case in which the AFIP is a complainant, seizing the cryptocurrencies that the defendant had on the Rippio and Binance platform.
A resolution of the Criminal and Correctional Court No. 6 issued a preventive seizure on a series of assets of the defendants in a criminal case derived from the last fiscal disclosure, among which the seizure of cryptocurrencies registered in two exchanges stands out for its novelty.
As revealed by Diario Judicial, the blocking of the account and virtual wallet was ordered, seizing the cryptocurrencies that the defendant had on the Rippio and Binance platform, deriving the execution of the measure to the intervening Prosecutor’s Office with the collaboration of the Specialized Cybercrime Prosecutor Unit.
However this decision in the case “K., SH s/appeal”motivated cassation appeals from the defendants that room III of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber declared inadmissible, with the vote of judges Mariano Hernán Borinsky, Juan Carlos Gemignani and Daniel Antonio Petrone
The defense questioned the erroneous application of the law, the absence of sufficient substantiation and the disproportionate and unjustified arbitrariness on the assets of the accused, for not accrediting the precautionary budgets, since the embargo arose from the request made by the General Directorate for Asset Recovery and Forfeiture of Assets of the Attorney General of the Nation regarding a list of assets that it linked as a possible relationship to other criminal cases for illicit association, violation of secrets and other crimes where the defendant’s ex-husband was accused.
What is being investigated in the case
The main case investigated a criminal organization that sold tax secrets and involved AFIP agents, where the agency itself was a complainantand in parallel an investigation was initiated for the “externalization of assets by those investigated within the framework of laws 26,860 and 27,260 (Tax Disclosure Regime)” since it was believed that it was possible “that the externalized assets do not have their originated exclusively in the tax offense for which said laws extinguish criminal action, but rather that the defendants would have used the coverage of the laws of said tax disclosure to “launder” the proceeds of other crimes for which they are being investigated in the case of mention and thus avoid its recovery”.
Cryptocurrencies AFIP.jpg
Courtesy: Cryptonoticias
and yesAlthough one of the defendants had not availed himself of the tax disclosure regime, the recorded income did not match his declared income, and the origin of the funds was unknown, so the measure was in order to guarantee a possible confiscation.
Understanding that the measure should be decreed prudently so as not to affect property rights, it was limited to the amounts “laundered” in one case and “those that do not match the economic capacity declared before the AFIP” in the other case.
Cryptocurrencies: the previous antecedent
Justice, by enabling the embargo of the accused, marked a path that began with the first similar case that happened in Tucumán in May 2022 in a case known as the “Adhemar Capital” case, where a businessman collected investments in different provinces of the country. offering its investors rewards that were not fulfilled.
Source: Ambito
I am a 24-year-old writer and journalist who has been working in the news industry for the past two years. I write primarily about market news, so if you’re looking for insights into what’s going on in the stock market or economic indicators, you’ve come to the right place. I also dabble in writing articles on lifestyle trends and pop culture news.
