In Argentina, impunity reigns: a country where bribes go unpunished and justice is delayed.

In Argentina, the natural outcome of things is impunity. We are not the only country with such a sad ending, but here we have managed to take corruption to another level. At least twelve multinational companies admitted in the United States that they paid bribes in our country. How many of them have been convicted in our courts? Zero. An example? Siemens admitted in Munich and Washington the misdeeds it committed in Buenos Aires, but here it remains unpunished. A more recent example? Odebrecht confessed in Brazil that it paid bribes to Argentine officials, but they remain untouched. The most recent example? Ángelo Calcaterra. And no, an eventual expansion of the Supreme Court will not reverse the problem. It could worsen it. As the cousin of former President Mauricio Macri, Calcaterra was the owner of a construction company. As such, he had to deal with the vices of Argentine officials in recent decades. Those who did not ask him to contribute to an electoral campaign asked for bribes. And this is documented in official documents or admitted by Calcaterra himself, who still benefited from a judicial decision that receives all kinds of criticism, but reaffirms the initial postulate: impunity reigns in Argentina. To explain it, we must go back to 2018. August, to be exact, when journalist Diego Cabot revealed the existence of notebooks attributed to a driver of the then number two in the Ministry of Federal Planning, detailing visits to businessmen and builders to collect bags full of money. And no, it was not for donations to Mother Teresa. The scandal was immediate and grew as multiple accused individuals availed themselves of the "repentant" regime and detailed bribes and cartelization with touches that sometimes bordered on the pornographic. But not everyone confessed. Some always denied, and still do today, what appeared about them in those notebooks. But the majority chose to admit their crimes to obtain a lesser sentence. The problem, of course, is that we are in Argentina. Let's remember, then, the initial postulate. In this country, as in many others, the natural outcome of things is impunity. This explains why President Javier Milei has nominated the federal judge with the worst effectiveness rates when it comes to investigating political or economic power to the Supreme Court. And now, seeing that the Senate may not approve Lijo's appointment, the government is considering expanding the number of Supreme Court judges to enter into negotiations with opposition parties: votes in favor of Lijo in exchange for a seat on the court. More "caste," difficult. Because the natural outcome of things in Argentina is impunity, it will soon be six years since the scandal broke out, with dozens of involved individuals confessing their sins, but the Cuadernos case has no convictions. Worse still, we still do not know when the trial could begin, while the case prosecutor accuses the members of the court in charge of "delaying justice." The word "delay" barely hides one of the determining factors that every lawyer knows is crucial in legal battles. Which one? The factor of time. Because when a defense lawyer knows that his client is guilty, that he is in deep trouble and has everything to lose if a sentence is issued, what he must avoid at all costs is a sentence. How? By appealing to all available procedural tools until the case is closed due to the violation of the guarantee of being tried within a reasonable time or by prescription, as can happen these days with the Oil case, another shameful scandal. At least for now, however, Calcaterra has benefited from another variant. Although he was already among the protagonists of the Cuadernos case that he would eventually have to face in a trial, he managed to persuade another court, the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation, that he should not be tried for paying bribes, but for the unregistered contribution to the Kirchnerist electoral campaign, a crime with a much lower prescribed penalty. In making that decision, Cassation did not care that Calcaterra himself admitted to paying bribes, as stated in a statement he signed before the investigating judge of the Cuadernos case, Claudio Bonadío, on September 5, 2019. Nor did it matter that Calcaterra was listed in 2007 as one of the largest contributors, in white, to the presidential campaign of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, raising a logical question: Why would Calcaterra contribute outside the kirchnerist campaign when he had no qualms about being listed as one of the largest contributors in blank to the campaign of his cousin's biggest antagonist? Of course, there are now many criticisms of the Cassation ruling. Even the court that is criticized for delaying the start of the trial lamented the "functional interferences strange to the good administration of justice," while a prosecutor requested the nullity of the Cassation decision and the official money laundering unit, which is a plaintiff in the process, appealed and announced that it is willing to go to the Supreme Court if necessary. Beyond that, Calcaterra has at least two paths ahead, both of which bring him benefits. On the one hand, the accusation against him could continue to be just a matter of unregistered electoral contributions. Or it could be reversed to the more serious confession of paying a bribe. But in that case, Macri's cousin will have gained time and delayed the sentence, in a country where the natural outcome of things is...