Prosecution accused executives of alleged confiscation of company

Prosecution accused executives of alleged confiscation of company

Prosecutor María del Carmen Palazón charged the two businessmen with allegations of complicity, seizure and fraud. A Public Department representative is investigating a plan to dispossess a million-dollar food factory through willful loans and defaults.

Prosecutor Palazón was charged with alleged criminal activities, fraudulent investment promotion, seizure and fraud. Alfredo Ricardo Raatz Becker Y Guillermo Alexis Cespedes Manzur.

Under the law on broadening impeachment, the Public Ministry representative states that they both use their executive positions at Banco Regional SAECA, Oleaginosa Raatz and Empresa Avícola Itapúa SA “for the development of facts or the simulation of facts.” criminal unlawful act”.

Palazón points out that the complainant in the case disclosed what he saw as “the financial draining plan of NA Foods Import Export SA.” This would be accompanied by non-payment of obligations such as the firm’s mortgage or strategic obligations.

“The purpose of the partnership between the aforementioned Citizens constitutes the allocation of a property and the industrial facility developed on it, in principle through a payment date or, where appropriate, through an auction,” the statement of facts says.

The claim that started it all

The complaint was originally filed by Dhones Marcelo Niero after the NA FOODS company’s property was put up for auction. In his statement, he assured himself that it was all part of a plan to supposedly try to influence his company.

Niero reported that Alfredo Raatz and Guillermo Céspedes have used their status as shareholders or directors of Banco Regional SAECA, Oleagonisa Raatz SA and Avícola Itapúa to achieve a “privileged banking position” in relation to NA FOODS’ status. “They partnered with the company’s executives to formalize the full default,” he said. Niero drew particular attention to Alfredo and José Manzano, two of his partners in NA, in his resignation.

“They’ve agreed to financially drain the company and deliberately not pay the mortgage,” he said. Niero pointed out that non-payment of the mortgage would support a proposal to pay for the real estate asset and industrial plant at costs below market price, to the detriment of the company’s stock.

That’s why Céspedes appeared with the man with one of the Manzano’s at the general shareholders’ meeting last January and demanded a payment date. On his account before the prosecution, Niero said, “As will be substantiated in relevant civil cases, the Bank sued, without waiting for the generally expected terms, for an entire debt capitalizing on interest and even doubling the debt.”

Niero pointed out that after NA FOODS’s discharge was approved, Avícola Itapúa SA emerged with the intention of holding the first firm’s mortgage case. “Avicola Itapúa is a briefcase company, it hasn’t been in business for years. More than 90 percent of the company in question is owned by Oleaginosa Raatz SA.”

“Mr. Alfredo Raatz is the majority shareholder of Oleaginosa Raatz SA and from this position orders the members of the Board of Directors of Avícola Itapúa SA to purchase the loan that is judicially executed by Banco Regional SAECA. First the legal action ordered by him to justify the payment date, and then an auction as it really is,” he continued.

These elements formed the basis for attributing and extending the same. The case would reach even more people.

Approved by BCP

Alfredo Ricardo Ratz now charged, Sanctions were imposed months ago by the Central Bank of Paraguay (BCP).. He is on a list of Banco Regional SAECA’s nine executives and former executives who were fined the equivalent of 275 minimum wages ($630 million, G.630 million, more than $90,000 each) undertaken and paid during this period. The bank was fined equivalent to the 2,750 minimum wage (G. 6.295 million, approximately US$910,000) provided by Law No. 22 of 20 January 2022, and was paid in February of this year.

Violations identified by the Inspectorate of Banks (SIB) are non-compliance with asset classification standards, credit risk provisions and accrual of default obligation and corresponding provisions to ensure proper classification of assets and risks.

#Prosecution #accused #executives #alleged #confiscation #company

What do you think?

Written by Adem

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

"Tatito" will support the legal action of public interest representatives to revoke approval of the extension of LUMA's supplemental agreement.

“Tatito” will support the legal action of public interest representatives to revoke approval of the extension of LUMA’s supplemental agreement.

How to take care of the garden and pets in extreme heat?

How to take care of the garden and pets in extreme heat?