Máximo Carlos Kirchner / Bajo Cero / Wild Horses

[RodalfoWalsh]

But they can't seize assets from a person AFAIK. They are trying to get their hands on Argentina's assets (Tango One, the ship, etc) since it was the country that defaulted. Can't go after the son of the president's personal assets.

They can try. They're trying it with Baez arguing that the origin of the money is graft.

En un documento de inusitada dureza, el juez Cam Ferenbach dio ayer los primeros indicios de compartir en parte la tesis de los fondos denunciantes en el sentido de que empresas atribuidas a los empresarios Lázaro Báez y Cristóbal López en los Estados Unidos "podrían tener activos" pertenecientes a la Argentina.
"Un ladrón no adquiere derechos de propiedad sobre lo que roba", recuerda al juez, al señalar que, de comprobarse esa tesis, los bienes serían de la Argentina y no de esos empresarios allegados a la Presidenta.

 

[citygirl]

Yes but that's a difficult thing to prove legally (although at least to me it seems pretty damn evident!). It appears that Baez et al is the test case.

Again, if I were funneling large amounts of not-my-money, the US would probably not be at the top of my list to stash it.

 

[syngirl]

Just curious maw:

As I read the article, there are two opposition lawmakers that are asking a judge to investigate allegations that were denied by the accused but thus far not proven in any way. Therefore isn't your challenge to Bajo and WH kind of like asking someone to justify why OJ killed his wife?

Since there is nothing concrete in the case, the article is bursting full of verbs in the conditional tense: because nobody knows; it just "might be":



A responsible news source [*snicker*] would have put the headline "Opposition Senators Ask Judge to Investigate Alleged FpV Embezzlement". But no, this is Clarín where accusations against the Sworn Enemy are all assumed to be true, so we get "Máximo Kirchner and Garré Might Be Co-Holders of Secret Account in US"

By no means am I saying that the accusations are not true, but this is piss-poor journalism and it's embarrassing that you are using it to make what otherwise might be (sería) a salient point.

EdRooney -- the use of the conditional is appropriate here -- use of conditional automatically means that these are allegations/accusations, the use of conditional is the correct tense when talking about anything that has allegedly, supposedly, probably happened in the past but has yet to receive a full legal investigation and decision. The direct translation, is "may" but it can also be "probably" and a more polished translation would be "allegedly" thanks to the use of conditional.. The spanish word for "alleged" would be "presunto" and it is too close to a confirmation of facts at this point (and false-friend alegado is not correct). The verb "alegar" in Spanish isn't used in quite the same way as "to allege" in English.

The headline can therefore be translated as:

"Maximo Kirchner may hold a secret joint account with Nilda Garre in the United States. Suspicions of three-way dealings between Argentina, Venezuela and Iran. 2 sources attest (confirmar = confirm, but also verify/acknowledge/affirm/attest/uphold/corroborate/sustain) that the son of the president appears on the account opened in 2005 and that held up to 41 million dollars."

OR:
"Maximo probably has a secret joint account with Nilda.."

OR

"Maximo Kirchner is alleged to hold a secret joint account with Nilda..."

OR simplify even more, Maximo allegedly holds a secret acct....


The conditional tense IS the alleged part..

 

[EdRooney]

Re-read my post Syngirl, I am not saying the conditional tense is incorrect; quite to the contrary, just as you say it is the only tense that is correct here given that they are just merely allegations and nothing has been substantiated.

My point was that these allegations are presented in a very roundabout way with the obvious intent to make people think that something is true when it is just more or less rumour. And guess what, it works and it worked in the case of the OP maw who assumed the allegations were true: "how can you defend them doing this?" Maw, as most readers do, read the headline and ignored the subtlety of the conditional that you understood correctly.

That is why the headline is completely wrong-- far beyond the conditional tense. Read my alternate headline above. The story is about opposition lawmakers lodging an accusation against their political enemies, but the headline omits that fact with the full knowledge that people rarely read much beyond the headline and that allegations presented in this way will be assumed to be true. (For example see Fox News coverage of Obama's birth cert).

Thus this case is a good example not of how Clarín miente, but rather how the press picks a certain way of presenting information with the clear intent of obfuscating readers from understanding the actual facts (with both the oppo and loyalist media being guilty).

 

[dennisr]

I thought private individuals can't have us bank accounts without proof of legal residency.(since 2001) But corporations, (especially dummy ones?) isn't that how a "front" works?.....

The firm in this piece setup shell companies in Nevada for Baez, K's go to guy.


http://www.vice.com/read/evil-llc-0000524-v21n12

 

[syngirl]

My point was that these allegations are presented in a very roundabout way with the obvious intent to make people think that something is true when it is just more or less rumour. And guess what, it works and it worked in the case of the OP maw who assumed the allegations were true: "how can you defend them doing this?" Maw, as most readers do, read the headline and ignored the subtlety of the conditional that you understood correctly.

That is why the headline is completely wrong-- far beyond the conditional tense. Read my alternate headline above. The story is about opposition lawmakers lodging an accusation against their political enemies, but the headline omits that fact with the full knowledge that people rarely read much beyond the headline and that allegations presented in this way will be assumed to be true. (For example see Fox News coverage of Obama's birth cert).

Yes but for Spanish natives, or those with grasp of conditional as conveying mood not just a could have would have should have, just reading the headline they already understand that it is an allegation (and possibly a totally unsubstantiated one). The use of conditional IS the equivalent to the use of the word alleged in English. It's also just doing what headlines do -- grabbing readers (and proving we should never just scan headlines as much as we'd like to).

 

[Pensador]

Obviously I need to have lunch with a professional money launderer to learn how to get around the system.

I don't think you will have any problems finding one in Argentina.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

But they can't seize assets from a person AFAIK. They are trying to get their hands on Argentina's assets (Tango One, the ship, etc) since it was the country that defaulted. Can't go after the son of the president's personal assets.

This is the point: they cannot go after Argentina's assets neither.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I don't think you will have any problems finding one in Argentina.

Racist comments again?

 

[Pensador]

Racist comments again?

There is a difference between being a racist and evaluating and understanding what is going on around you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Argentina