跳到内容
现在

司法 · Camioneros酒店调查

Camioneros酒店调查：130亿比索欺诈指控未获证实

Camioneros酒店调查已持续一年多，三名会计师表示，现有记录无法证明具体损失。如今，缺失的银行和供应商证据比标题中的金额更为关键。

文字 阅读需 7 分钟 · 18 个来源

HeyDex

原语言视频

译自英文原文。

阿根廷卡车司机工会将一起涉嫌酒店欺诈案提交检察官调查一年多后，案件来到了令投诉方尴尬的阶段：会计审查未能证实其所指称的约130亿比索损失。五名会计师中有三人表示，Camioneros提供的记录不足以确定具体损失，也无法确认责任人。调查仍在进行，但其核心指控仍缺乏已确立的财务金额。⁠1

据《民族报》11月14日报道，这份75页的审查报告于2026年10月30日为人所知。其结论既不能算是为被指控方洗清嫌疑，也不能算是证明其无罪：证据不足并不证明欺诈没有发生。HeyDay尚未独立取得完整审查报告或本文提及的法院文件；相关内容均引自已发表的报道。⁠1

根据投诉方提供的信息，无法确定具体经济损失，更无法确认责任人。

三名会计师的说法，译自《民族报》的报道 1

共有五名专业人士参与：一名由检方提名，三名分别由受调查人员提名，另有一名代表投诉方。报道指出，三名会计师得出了证据不足的结论，但没有说明每位专家在每个问题上的立场。仅凭提名方信息不足以还原逐人表决结果。⁠1

争议核心物业是15 de Diciembre酒店，位于马德普拉塔市中心的一栋12层建筑，由Camioneros所有。旅游事务秘书埃克托尔·“约约”·马尔多纳多于2025年9月12日对酒店员工和供应商提出投诉。检察官卡洛斯·大卫·布鲁纳在听取员工和管理人员陈述后，于次月下令进行会计审查。对工会成员而言，这处正在接受调查的资产也是一个住宿场所，而不只是工会账目中的一项记录。⁠7⁠1⁠9

支票的资金源头指向布宜诺斯艾利斯

一项重要发现涉及资金来源。据《民族报》对审查报告的报道，支付酒店延期付款支票的资金来自工会位于布宜诺斯艾利斯的总部。这意味着，要理解这些交易，总部的授权程序和财务控制至关重要。但这本身并不能证明工会领导人乌戈·莫亚诺或其他官员负有刑事责任。⁠1

据报道，第43页揭示了一个基本缺口。由辩方指定的专家称，工会没有说明是谁签署了受到质疑的支票，也没有提供所要求的信息，以确认获准操作酒店Banco Provincia账户的人员。代表投诉方的专家吉列尔莫·路易斯·德略·鲁索指出，前行政秘书克劳迪奥·奥马尔·巴拉齐奇和前财务主管保罗·埃克托尔·比列加斯是签字人，并称最终由马尔多纳多签字。这些说法不能替代缺失的银行授权记录。⁠1

案件于2025年公开后，莫亚诺将巴拉齐奇和比列加斯从工会领导层中撤换，促使工会调整会计和法律团队。《民族报》11月14日的报道称，两人目前均非本案被告，取代了该报4月将两人都描述为被告的说法。从工会职务上被撤换并不等同于刑事定罪；据最新报道，两人离职后一直没有公开评论。⁠1⁠12

审查也未证实存在重复付款或向与酒店运营无关的受益人付款。它无法确定是否有人提取了现金，也无法核实酒店的实际入住情况。《布宜诺斯艾利斯省邮报》还报道，未发现普遍存在的价格虚高。这些局限意味着具体交易仍可继续审查，并不代表所有采购都已被证明合法。⁠1⁠2

受到质疑的支出包括：账目中记作“杂项”的7000万比索、据称并未被住客消费的数百公斤肉类及其他商品，以及用于一场据称从未举行的品酒会的1615瓶高档葡萄酒。代理两名被告的辩护律师马克西米利亚诺·奥尔西尼主张，最多可能存在个别供应商抬高价格的情况，远远不到130亿比索。这是辩方立场，并非已经证实的另一损失金额。⁠1

不能混为一谈的三笔金额

标题中的金额从何而来，有助于解释其中的难题。马尔多纳多在2025年10月29日作证时，先表示自己从未提过金额，随后承认，按已签发支票金额汇总，可能接近130亿比索。他还说，税务机构在7月下旬要求提供供应商信息，但会计师没有通知工会领导；并称莫亚诺在一次8月会议后派他前往马德普拉塔。⁠1

已签发支票的票面金额、据称虚假的发票金额，以及实际经济损失，是不同的数值。证明其中一项，并不能证明其余各项。

5月，当地媒体0223报道，法官卢克雷西亚·布斯托斯驳回了辩方对审查问题设置和方法的质疑。这使会计审查得以继续进行，但并未确立最终损失金额。工会律师哈维尔·莫拉尔预计案件将朝口头审判推进。他的预期不应被误认为案件已正式移交审判。⁠7

莫拉尔称，阿根廷税务与海关机构ARCA认定一名被指控供应商47%的发票为虚假发票，所有接受调查的供应商都已被列入该机构的不可靠纳税人数据库。他还提到，支票的付款日期在180天之后，并有一项禁令旨在阻止兑付已确认的130亿比索支票。这些说法并不能证明所有酒店付款都是虚构的。⁠7

同一篇报道给出的名义酒店支出为：2022年1.38亿比索，2023年超过12.2亿比索。支出激增值得审查，但在将其视为财务损害的证据之前，必须考虑通胀、酒店运营情况和佐证记录。⁠7

截至9月30日，程序进展比此前对审判的预测所暗示的更为受限。QZ Noticias报道，约120张此前已签署的支票与争议有关，部分供应商已起诉工会追讨款项。上诉法院撤销了资产保全措施中的大部分内容，驳回了超出严格保护职能范围的命令，包括要求查明并转移资金以及限制资金流通的命令。⁠4

法院在最多60天内对指定债权和资产保留了有限的保护措施，同时要求检方具体界定调查范围。在当时，嫌疑人尚未依照省级诉讼法典第308条被传唤接受正式讯问。本文无法确认他们之后是否接受了讯问，也无法确认保护措施目前的状态。若无裁决日期和送达日期，就无法负责任地精确计算措施何时到期。⁠4

关于税务记录缺失的争议

奥尔西尼最新提交的申请，试图通过另一条途径弥补证据缺口。他请求布斯托斯要求布鲁纳传唤曼努埃尔·罗德里格斯。罗德里格斯曾是ARCA在马德普拉塔的一名高级官员，他曾指称有人干预对酒店供应商的检查。这是传唤证人的请求，并不意味着传票已经发出或证词已经取得。⁠1

罗德里格斯在该机构工作超过35年，曾任区域主管和高级顾问，于2026年1月被调去从事培训工作。《民族报》4月报道的一份投诉中，他指称，负责内陆税务业务的副总局长卡洛斯·加西亚·帕斯特拉纳曾致电区域负责人路易斯·季姆基夫和检查负责人古斯塔沃·卡普德维尔，下令停止调查。罗德里格斯说，两人认为该指示违法，因而拒绝执行，随后失去了职位。⁠12

他还指称，新任区域主管巴勃罗·卡特拉基亚曾威胁检查负责人迭戈·冈萨雷斯，称若他推进检查，就将其免职。据报道，人事变动从2025年10月延续至2026年4月，涉及法律和检查部门的官员以及罗德里格斯。指控称官员遭调离是为了阻挠工作——但司法机关尚未认定此事确已发生。⁠12

这一回应并未充分回应罗德里格斯的指控：他的投诉涉及对酒店供应商进行的地方检查，而非仅涉及工会的大都会区审计。他另行估算的可能逃税金额约为45.5亿比索，是按超过130亿比索的涉嫌虚假发票金额套用35%的所得税税率得出的条件性估算，并非经核定的欠税，也不是已证实的酒店损失。⁠12

《民族报》最新报道称，自被指称的干预发生后，ARCA未向审查提供更多文件。报道还援引司法界消息人士称，布鲁纳目前无意传唤罗德里格斯。目前尚无已确认日期的听证会，也没有关于奥尔西尼申请的最终决定。⁠1

因此，案件的关键在于仍然缺失的证据：银行授权文件、支票签名以及能够将付款与真实交易和责任决策者联系起来的供应商记录。会计审查并未为所有交易澄清事实。但它也没有将一项130亿比索的指控转化为已证实的损失。评判接下来可能发生的一切，必须将这两个命题区分开来。

来源15

在此处引用的来源中，Google News Argentina (AR:es-419)最先发布，比本报道播出早6小时。 随后还有4家媒体发布。
  1. Google News Argentina (AR:es-419)
  2. Correo Bonaerense
  3. Info Pergamino - portal digital de noticias
  4. NDM - Noticias del Momento
  5. Base Informativa
  6. HeyDay News

10篇早期文章作为背景资料参阅。3家媒体未注明日期：FM Universo 97.3Identidad Correntina » www.identidadcorrentina.com.arlu17.com

按媒体查看所有来源

来自 15 家媒体的 18 个来源· 引用最多的优先

播出原貌
  1. Three accountants found the hotel's records insufficient to identify a loss or the person responsible.
  2. The Camioneros union alleged fraud of about thirteen billion Argentine pesos. Its hotel investigation remains open, with disputed checks exposing the union to civil collection claims.
  3. Can the missing banking and supplier records settle what happened to the hotel's money?
  4. The Hotel 15 de Diciembre belongs to Camioneros, Argentina's truckers' union. The twelve-story property in central Mar del Plata gives members a place to stay. Its employees, suppliers and purchasing practices became the targets of the union's complaint.
  5. Tourism secretary Héctor “Yoyo” Maldonado filed that complaint on September twelfth, 2025. Prosecutor Carlos David Bruna ordered accounting work the following month, after hearing from hotel employees and directors.
  6. Three of five accountants said the information supplied by the complainant couldn't show a specific financial loss or who caused it. Their seventy-five-page examination became known on October thirtieth, 2026. It left the thirteen-billion-peso accusation unproved.
  7. The courts still have to decide whether fraud occurred. The examination leaves that possibility open. And the three-person conclusion can't be assigned to particular accountants simply by looking at who appointed them.
  8. The prosecution proposed one accountant, three people under investigation proposed one each, and the complainants had their own expert. Their individual positions on every question haven't been identified. The conclusion rests on the information the union supplied.
  9. The accountants tied their conclusion directly to the records they received. They couldn't determine a particular loss from those records, much less identify a responsible person. Prosecutors now face the task of filling the gaps.
  10. The money covering the hotel's deferred-payment checks came from the union's headquarters in Buenos Aires. That puts headquarters' authorization and financial controls at the center of the inquiry.
  11. Mar del Plata was where the hotel operated and its suppliers faced local tax inspections. Buenos Aires was where the funds covering its checks originated. Investigators need to connect those payments to the people authorized to approve them.
  12. On page forty-three, defense-appointed experts said the union hadn't clarified who signed the questioned checks. They also said it hadn't supplied the requested details of who could operate the hotel's Banco Provincia account.
  13. Guillermo Luis Dello Russo, the complainants' expert, named former administrative secretary Claudio Omar Balazic and former treasurer Paulo Héctor Villegas as signatories. He said Maldonado signed in the final instance. Those assertions still leave the banking-authority records to resolve.
  14. Union leader Hugo Moyano removed Balazic and Villegas from its executive leadership after the case became public in 2025. Their departures forced changes in the accounting and legal teams. Both have avoided public comment since their removal.
  15. Balazic and Villegas aren't currently accused parties in this case. Their removal from office carries no finding of criminal guilt. The funding route through headquarters likewise leaves Moyano's personal criminal responsibility unproved.
  16. Seventy million pesos appeared under miscellaneous spending. Investigators also questioned sixteen hundred and fifteen high-end wine bottles for a tasting alleged never to have happened. Hundreds of kilograms of meat and other goods allegedly weren't consumed by guests.
  17. The accountants couldn't verify duplicate payments or payments to beneficiaries outside hotel operations. Generalized overpricing wasn't detected, while particular purchases remain open to scrutiny.
  18. Defense lawyer Maximiliano Orsini argues that, at most, isolated purchases may have been overpriced. He says that would come nowhere near thirteen billion pesos. He represents two accused people, and his argument doesn't supply a final loss figure.
  19. Subscribe to this channel as we follow the missing records and the request for a new witness.
  20. Maldonado gave conflicting descriptions of the amount when he testified in October 2025. He first said he'd never named a figure. Then he acknowledged that a tally of issued checks could put it near thirteen billion pesos.
  21. Maldonado said the tax agency had requested supplier information in late July 2025, but the accountant hadn't alerted union leaders. He said Moyano sent him to Mar del Plata after an August meeting. The complaint followed in September.
  22. The spending figures that fueled the dispute also need care. The hotel spent a nominal hundred and thirty-eight million pesos in 2022, rising to more than one point two two billion in 2023.
  23. Those figures don't account for inflation. Hotel operations and supporting records also have to be examined before a spending increase can become evidence of financial damage. That was the job the accounting examination was meant to do.
  24. In May, Judge Lucrecia Bustos rejected a defense challenge to the examination's questions and methodology. That allowed the work to proceed. Union lawyer Javier Moral expected the case to advance toward an oral trial.
  25. Moral alleged that ARCA, Argentina's tax and customs agency, considered forty-seven percent of one accused supplier's invoices false. He also said all investigated suppliers had entered its unreliable-taxpayer database. Those claims don't demonstrate that every hotel payment was fictitious.
  26. Moral described checks payable after a hundred and eighty days. He said an injunction sought to block thirteen billion pesos in identified checks and warned that more checkbooks could exist. Check values, allegedly false invoices and actual losses measure different things.
  27. By late September, roughly a hundred and twenty previously signed checks were linked to the dispute. Some suppliers had sued the union to collect. An appeals court narrowed the protective measures and required prosecutors to define the investigation concretely.
  28. The court rejected orders to identify and transfer funds and restrict their circulation beyond a strictly protective role. It retained limited protection for a maximum of sixty days. At that stage, suspects hadn't been summoned for formal questioning.
  29. Manuel Rodríguez says tax officials were pressured to stop investigating the hotel's suppliers. A former regional director and senior adviser, he spent more than thirty-five years at the agency. He was reassigned to training work in January 2026.
  30. Rodríguez alleged that Carlos García Pastrana, deputy director general for inland tax operations, telephoned regional head Luis Tymkiw and inspection chief Gustavo Capdeville with orders to halt the inquiry. He said both refused because they considered the instruction unlawful, and both subsequently lost their positions.
  31. Rodríguez also alleged that incoming regional director Pablo Catracchia threatened inspection chief Diego González with removal if he advanced an inspection. García Pastrana reported to tax director Mariano Mengochea, within ARCA under Andrés Vázquez. Rodríguez's accusations remain contested.
  32. The personnel changes stretched across several months. Legal division head José Visca was removed in October 2025. Mariela Álvarez, head of opinions and disciplinary matters, followed in January 2026, the same month Rodríguez was reassigned.
  33. Capdeville and González were removed in April after fourteen and twelve years in their posts. Tymkiw had already departed. Rodríguez asked federal prosecutors to investigate alleged coercion and abuse of office, among other offenses, and warned of possible pay consequences for displaced officials.
  34. ARCA denied wrongdoing. It said the union had been under examination since June 2025 in its metropolitan tax jurisdiction. Rodríguez's allegation concerned the separate local inspections of hotel suppliers in Mar del Plata.
  35. ARCA called the personnel changes ordinary administrative decisions based on merit, timing and convenience. It said they hadn't interrupted investigations or their traceability. The agency also said most questioned suppliers entered its unreliable-taxpayer database under its current leadership.
  36. To defend those changes, ARCA cited eighteen hundred and eighty-three heads removed since January 2024, with a hundred and sixty-three posts left unfilled. Those agency-wide figures don't resolve why the particular Mar del Plata officials were displaced.
  37. Rodríguez also calculated possible tax evasion of about four point five five billion pesos. He applied a thirty-five percent income-tax rate to alleged false invoicing above thirteen billion. That was his conditional estimate, with no assessed tax debt attached.
  38. ARCA hasn't supplied further documentation for the accounting examination since the alleged intervention. Orsini wants Rodríguez questioned about what happened to the supplier investigations and their records.
  39. Orsini has asked Judge Bustos to require prosecutor Bruna to summon Rodríguez. Bruna doesn't currently plan to call him. Whether that testimony is sought, and whether prosecutors obtain the banking and supplier records, will shape the investigation's next steps.
  40. The completed accounting work leaves the alleged thirteen-billion-peso loss unproved. The hotel case remains open while prosecutors seek evidence capable of identifying a specific loss and whoever caused it.

译文更新于

近期播出