Camioneros hotel inquiry leaves 13-billion-peso fraud allegation unproved

The 75-page examination became known on October 30, 2026, according to La Nación’s November 14 report. Its conclusion is narrower than either vindication or exoneration: inadequate evidence does not prove that no fraud occurred. HeyDay has not independently obtained the complete examination or the court filings discussed here; their contents are drawn from published reporting.⁠1

Five professionals participated: one proposed by the prosecution, three proposed individually by people under investigation, and one representing the complainants. The reporting identifies three accountants as reaching that insufficiency conclusion, but does not identify every expert’s position on every question. Who appointed them is not enough to reconstruct a roll-call vote.⁠1

The property at the center of the dispute is the Hotel 15 de Diciembre, a 12-story building in central Mar del Plata owned by Camioneros. Tourism secretary Héctor “Yoyo” Maldonado filed the complaint against hotel employees and suppliers on September 12, 2025. Prosecutor Carlos David Bruna ordered accounting work the following month, after hearing from employees and directors. For union members, the asset under examination is also a place to stay—not simply an entry in the union’s accounts.⁠7⁠1⁠9

One consequential finding concerns where the money came from. The funds covering the hotel’s deferred-payment checks originated at union headquarters in Buenos Aires, according to La Nación’s account of the examination. That makes headquarters’ authorization and financial controls central to understanding the transactions. It does not, by itself, establish criminal responsibility for union leader Hugo Moyano or another official.⁠1

Page 43 reportedly exposes a basic gap. Defense-appointed experts said the union had not clarified who signed the questioned checks or supplied requested information identifying those authorized to operate the hotel’s Banco Provincia account. Guillermo Luis Dello Russo, the complainants’ expert, identified former administrative secretary Claudio Omar Balazic and former treasurer Paulo Héctor Villegas as signatories, saying Maldonado signed in the final instance. Those assertions do not replace the missing banking-authority records.⁠1

Moyano removed Balazic and Villegas from the union’s executive leadership after the case became public in 2025, prompting changes in its accounting and legal teams. La Nación’s November 14 account says neither man is currently an accused party in this case, superseding its April description of both as accused. Removal from union office is not a finding of criminal guilt; both have avoided public comment since their departure, according to the latest report.⁠1⁠12

The examination also did not verify duplicate payments or payments to beneficiaries unrelated to hotel operations. It could not establish whether cash was withdrawn or verify actual hotel occupancy. Correo Bonaerense additionally reported that generalized overpricing was not detected. These limits leave particular transactions open to scrutiny; they do not certify every purchase as legitimate.⁠1⁠2

Among the questioned expenses were 70 million pesos recorded as “varios”—miscellaneous—hundreds of kilograms of meat and other goods allegedly not consumed by guests, and 1,615 bottles of high-end wine for a tasting alleged never to have happened. Defense lawyer Maximiliano Orsini, who represents two accused people, argues that at most there may have been isolated supplier overpricing, nowhere near 13 billion pesos. That is a defense position, not an established alternative loss figure.⁠1

The origin of the headline sum helps explain the difficulty. In testimony on October 29, 2025, Maldonado first said he had never named an amount, then acknowledged that a tally of issued checks could put it near 13 billion pesos. He also said the tax agency had requested supplier information in late July without the accountant alerting union leaders, and that Moyano sent him to Mar del Plata after an August meeting.⁠1

The face value of issued checks, the value of allegedly false invoices and an actual economic loss are different quantities. Establishing one does not establish the others.

In May, local outlet 0223 reported that Judge Lucrecia Bustos had rejected a defense challenge to the examination’s questions and methodology. That allowed the accounting work to proceed; it did not establish a final loss. Union lawyer Javier Moral predicted movement toward an oral trial. His expectation should not be mistaken for a completed referral to trial.⁠7

Moral alleged that ARCA, Argentina’s tax and customs agency, considered 47% of one accused supplier’s invoices false and that all investigated suppliers had entered its unreliable-taxpayer database. He also described checks payable after 180 days and an injunction intended to block collection of 13 billion pesos in identified checks. Those claims do not demonstrate that every hotel payment was fictitious.⁠7

The same report put nominal hotel spending at 138 million pesos in 2022 and more than 1.22 billion in 2023. A spending surge merits examination, but inflation, hotel operations and supporting records must be accounted for before it becomes evidence of financial damage.⁠7

By September 30, the procedural picture was more constrained than the earlier trial prediction suggested. QZ Noticias reported that approximately 120 previously signed checks were linked to the dispute and that some suppliers had sued the union to collect. An appeals court revoked substantial parts of asset-preservation measures, rejecting orders to identify and transfer funds and restrict their circulation that exceeded a strictly protective role.⁠4

The court retained limited protection over specified credits and assets for a maximum of 60 days while requiring prosecutors to define the investigation concretely. At that stage, suspects had not been summoned for formal questioning under article 308 of the provincial procedure code. Neither their later questioning status nor the protective measures’ present status is established here. Without the ruling and service dates, an exact expiry cannot responsibly be calculated.⁠4

Orsini’s latest application seeks another route into the evidentiary gaps. He has asked Bustos to require Bruna to summon Manuel Rodríguez, a former senior ARCA official in Mar del Plata who alleged interference with inspections of the hotel’s suppliers. This is a request for testimony, not an issued summons or testimony already taken.⁠1

Rodríguez, who spent more than 35 years at the agency and had served as regional director and senior adviser, was reassigned to training work in January 2026. In a complaint reported by La Nación in April, he 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 stop the inquiry. Rodríguez said both refused because they considered the instruction unlawful and subsequently lost their positions.⁠12

He also alleged that incoming regional director Pablo Catracchia threatened inspection chief Diego González with removal if he advanced an inspection. The reported personnel changes extended from October 2025 into April 2026 and included legal and inspection officials as well as Rodríguez. The allegation is that officials were displaced to obstruct the work—not an established judicial finding that this happened.⁠12

That response does not fully address Rodríguez’s allegation: his complaint concerned local inspections of hotel suppliers, not solely the union’s metropolitan audit. His separate estimate of possible tax evasion—about 4.55 billion pesos, applying a 35% income-tax rate to alleged false invoicing above 13 billion—was conditional, not an assessed tax debt or a demonstrated hotel loss.⁠12

La Nación’s latest account says ARCA has supplied no further documentation for the examination since the alleged intervention. It also cites judicial sources saying Bruna does not currently plan to summon Rodríguez. No dated hearing or final decision on Orsini’s request has been established.⁠1

The case therefore turns on evidence still missing: banking authority, check signatures and supplier records capable of connecting payments to real transactions and responsible decision-makers. The accounting work has not cleared every transaction. But neither has it converted a 13-billion-peso accusation into a proved loss. Keeping those two propositions separate is essential to judging whatever comes next.