FIU: Argentine Supreme Court Ruled on Reporting Obligation on Client’s Bank Operations

On May 23, 2017, the Argentine Supreme Court on the matter of “Banco Macro S.A. and others vs. UIF re. Criminal Code – Law 25,246 – decree 290/07 – art. 25” overturned the ruling issued by Room II of the National Court of Appeals on Federal Administrative Matters (“NCAFAM”) which confirmed the validity of a fine of ARS 822,312 imposed by the Financial Information Unit (“UIF”) through UIF Resolution 124/2014 (the “Resolution”) on Banco Macro S.A. and its board of directors (“Banco Macro”).

The UIF imposed the fine on Banco Macro and  its board of directors due to their failure to report certain operations made by a customer, under the scope of article 21, subsection b) of Law No. 25,246 and the corresponding UIF Resolutions Nos. 2/2002 and 2/2007.

Upon being served with notice of the Resolution, Banco Macro filed an appeal before the NCAFAM, which was dismissed by Room II, confirming the fine imposed by the UIF. To rule in such way, the Room considered that, although the procedure was subject to a two-year statute of limitations imposed by article 62, subsection 5 of the Criminal Code, the UIF had carried out certain actions during its investigation which interrupted the statute of limitations. Moreover, the Room considered that the application of the fine jointly and severally upon the board of directors of Banco Macro was correct under article 24 of Law No. 25,246.

Banco Macro filed an appeal with the Room to access the Argentine Supreme Court, which was denied and, thus, took the complaint to the Argentine Supreme Court.

The Argentine Supreme Court dismissed the appealed ruling, and ordered the docket to be returned to Room II of the NCAFAM, to the effect that it could issue a new ruling. In this sense, the Argentine Supreme Court established that Room II of the NCAFAM made an incorrect assessment of the actions with sufficient entity to interrupt the statute of limitations. Moreover, the Argentine Supreme Court, even in the event that the actions mentioned interrupted the statute of limitations to which the administrative sanction is subject, on the date of the Resolution, the UIF’s punitive powers were granted beyond the term of the applicable statute of limitations. In this sense, between UIF Resolution 95/2009, dated April 3, 2009, which ordered all files to be scanned and photocopied and its fulfillment on September 30, 2011 (action which the Room considered had sufficient entity to interrupt the statute of limitations) more than two years had passed, which means that the action was beyond the statute of limitations.