What Was Cristina Up To In The Seychelles Islands?

[ciudadania101]

Please come forward with your evidence for your statement above. If you claim, that you know for sure, then I need to hold you to the same standard and ask you to please prove without a shadow of a doubt what "you know for sure". Please show evidence that the government has NOT temporarily changed the list at any time in the last 12 months.

Sure, I'll indulge you.

First of all the EY document that Dennisr linked to states that AFIP had not YET generated the new list of countries that would be considered "paraisos fiscales" and those that would be considered "cooperantes". The decree referred to in the document has nothing specific on what country they are going to be removing from what list. It is possible that the government was thinking of removing Seychelles from the list but thinking anything does not make it a crime nor does it prove that the government did anything whatsoever.

Secondly, the list used by both EY and Deloitte to determine whether a country is a fiscal paradise or not can be found here: http://www.uif.gov.ar:8080/eng/LISTADO%20DE%20PARAISOS%20FISCALES.pdf This document has not been changed since at least January 25th, 2008 in its current state at the current address (you can check that for yourself by loading the page in your browser and then replacing everything in the address bar with the javascript script found at http://www.computerhope.com/tips/tip30.htm Remember though, you might need to get Firefox for this to work since they still have the address bar and the search bar separated). Now this list has been around since 2008 but the only reason I said that I know the list hasn't changed in the last year is because it was only in the last year that I started coming in contact with auditors from both Deloitte and EY.

You can also go to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.uif.gov.ar/uif/index.php/es/paraisos-fiscales/117-decreto-134498/109 to see the state UIF's website was in in terms of the list on fiscal paradises and you'll notice nothing has changed.

By law these companies (and banks, you can call up your bank manager and ask them about fiscal paradises) have to have the updated list since any investment in one of these countries by any of the companies being audited raises an alarm and UIF has to be informed about it. The document from EY suggests that the decree will come into effect when AFIP makes the list available, thus far that list has not been available to either EY or Deloitte. So far, they have been using the list from UIF, pending the release of the list from AFIP (the decree in question 589/2013 can be found here: http://biblioteca.afip.gob.ar/gateway.dll/Normas/DecretosNacionales/dec_c_000589_2013_05_27.xml).

Hence all the evidence that one can see thus far suggests that the list HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

Now that I have indulged you in that. I have to say that everything I wrote up there is pointless. Because the burden of proof is not on me, its on whoever is doing the accusing. Lanata accused the government of taking Seychelles off the list and he did so without any proof. That is a lie until he can back it up. Through that, for me, he loses credibility. Its that simple. Whether you like that or not is not my problem.

You only have to knock down one of Lanata's items in order to discredit his whole investigation - at least these are the rules that you seem to be happy to play by. Lanata on the other hand has to prove all his claims presented in the investigations. If we go by your standards, if he gets it wrong ONLY once, he should be hung up and left to dry.

What's the hurry? It's not about Lanata, it's about the corruption. This is not an 'open and shut case' to be settled on within hours.
Lanata is not the Judge/Jury/Prosecutor/Law. He does not have to build the case and provide all the evidence, that's the job of the LAW..he's just the journalist. His job is to PUBLICIZE and DRAW public attention to the smoking gun.

Every time he has exposed the high level criminal activity, the Kirchner mafia has stopped and frozen all investigations. They have removed neutral /independent judges & planted their own, they have threatened and attempted to discredit neutral judges, cancelled or delayed search warrants, BLOCKED EVIDENCE from being released, you name it...so far NO ONE HAS BEEN JAILED or prosecuted.

One could ask, why should we fixate on whether Lanata is 100% right or not?

In time all the evidence will surface, most of the time he's been spot on...his credibility is intact with those of us who have bothered to follow up on the leads.

"Sensationalism"? ...with respect I say, maybe it's more a 'Cultural misunderstanding' on your part. At this point in history the Argentine public is very 'ADHD', too many urgent issues to deal with.... in between the Tinelli boobs and asses and futbol para todos etc, capturing the general public's attention is a serious challenge here, conveying the messages is the goal..sure I don't like the melodramatic music & the moving camera shots either...but this is the contemporary video language that seems to work for now...it's not BBC I know.
We would hope to raise journalistic standards at some point in the future, but for now, we just have one main objective...save the republic!.

As for the rest of your post. Sure, you can write it up to cultural misunderstanding or whatever you like, your post, your terminology and definitions. I'm not going to argue with you over your choice of words.

But you said you just want to save the republic. It was the same attitude people here had when they were shouting, one voice, "que se vayan todos" outside Casa Rosada. So, let me ask you, how did that turn out for the republic? I'm sure when people were yelling that they didn't anticipate that in two years they'd be stuck with the Kirchners who are criminals at least as bad if not worse than those they wanted out so badly.

If you want to save the republic then people need to change. What, you're going to throw your weight behind Lanata just because he speaks out against CFK and her cronies? Whether what he's saying is true or not be damned?

At the end of the day, it matters to me what happens to Argentina since it matters to my Argentine family and since I've made this country my home (no I don't claim to be "patriotic" for the republic as you can claim). However, I am not "de Lanata" or "de Cristina" and I don't hope to be. I'd much rather stick with the facts rather than raise one liar on the pedestal in place of another.

With that said though, if Lanata provides proof for his claim (or proof for what he said comes out some other way), I'd be happy to say, on this thread, that I was wrong. Until that proof comes out, he is a liar and said what he said for sensationalism.

And I reiterate, whether Lanata is a liar or not does not justify the criminal behavior of the K's. And like I said to Gringoboy, it does not mean that Seychelles wasn't used to stash the money the K's stole from the people and through other illegal activities.