The bill is known to be promoted by the bloc of Front for All senators, which proposes to create a fund “set to repay the debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF)” from their collection. undeclared overseas assets.

It is disputed whether this is law of laundering or if someone makes a new taxand this is only the first of many discussions raised by his text.

It is taught as one of its main points -and of course the most debated and novel- the figure of a collaboratordefined as one who “provides information related to a violation of tax laws and money laundering”.

In exchange you will be rewarded with a percentage of the amount actually collected of the State (it is not known when that reward will be effective), the protection and confidentiality of your identity is ensured and release from criminal liability, in some cases and in connection with special crimes.

In the last respect, often it is possible that the subject in a position to report may be involved in criminal activity -a participant in crime-, and fear of criminal penalties in case of reporting may be determinant of not doing so. Therefore, the offer of penal benefit is a common practice which included, along with economic incentives, the figure of working together.

On the face of it, well-known tax experts, criminal lawyers and professionals from the Economic Sciences quickly raised their voices on the assumption of opposition positions, and more on the fact that this figure caused chaos, the truth is that it’s not “new” and for many years it has been used in countries such as the United States and Spain to encourage the reporting of certain crimes of complex investigation.

Moreover, in the internal regulations themselves we can see that the figure is present in the law of repentance, the money laundering law and the recent criminal liability law of the legal entity. then, why do so many resist? Is that objection valid or established?

We understand that yes, despite moral remorse which may fit according to each other’s personal opinion, the figure itself is also not desirable from the point of view of criminal lawunderstanding that this type of complaint does not arise spontaneously as a result of self-reflection.

certainly, motivation is benefit or rewardbesides the fact that -logically- the possibility of even imposing prison sentences for providing false information was established as a result.

Who will be the collaborators?

On the other hand, the text itself is highly criticized in more than one sense and as a starting point we ask ourselves,Who are these potential collaborators?

The first thing to say is that the regulations are explicitly included within the possible collaborators Bank entitiesfinance companies, savings societies and stock and exchange agents.

This integration brings serious contradiction, concerning, for example, the duty of professional secrecy through the agent-client relationship, while raises doubts about the case of other professionals such as an accountant, lawyer, or employee of a bank or company, and in other words, anyone, because of their duty, has access to sensitive information within the framework of trust with their client.

It may be thought that one way to avoid being the goal of collaboration is to subscribe to a secret agreement for service providers requiring access to desirable information, by the way legally force them to remain silentor even the application of fines in the case of stockbrokers and financial entities.

however, the picture is cloudy as an advancement in reading the article. This is, to protect the cooperator or collaborators from the consequences of information disclosure, you are relieved of “any confidential agreement signed between the parties due to the supremacy of the public interest in the agreement between the private sector ”.

Of course it is one of the worst predictions and, as if the above were not enough, the collaborator was also removed from the financial, fiscal and secrecy of the stock and the Financial Entities and Stockbrokers were freed from penalties and fines, all of which were heading in the same direction as another law project presented by the same partisan bloc, which aims to cross-reference data on the financial system to identify evaders.

Thus, it seems that the incentive to collaborate is directly directed at:

1. Banks, financial entities and companies and even competitors, both in their capacity as legal entities like this and to the workers working there;

two. brokers and possibly other professionals who, because of their role, have access to information and documents such as accounting books and documentation, relevant emails, bank or financial records, among other things considered in the article 32 of the said project.

3. Participants in money laundering crimes property and tax crimes, even if there are complaints or proceedings underway.

More than inconsistency with the law, In other words, it is worth asking whether this figure of “cooperator or collaborator” designed at the expense of tax duty, stock market, secret finance and -why non- professional, can be considered respectful of the National Constitution.

The concept of public order is distorted, giving primacy to one of its aspects — the power to report and the associated duty to prosecute and investigate crimes— in the security of legal orderwith the sole purpose of violating the duties of confidentiality and ignore agreements between privatewhich seriously destroys the trust intended to be established in our rule of law.

* Julieta Martín and Sofía Belén Calviño are lawyers from the Economic Criminal Law team of Lisicki, Litvin y Asociados Law Firm