unjustified enrichment as a crime About the new referendum entered analyze one of the questions, perhaps one of the most grotesque designed in our political history:
In order to combat corruption, are you agree that private enrichment crime is not justified?
The question is raised as induces a response which is false, inadmissible in court, inadmissible in proposing a theory inadmissible as argument in proposing legislation, and should be inadmissible in any referendum.
But if this question is fallacious in the form at the bottom is perverse.
private enrichment (increase wealth, welfare, wealth, capital, etc.) Is not a crime as long as the activity that generates wealth does not violates the fundamental rights to life and property of others and also respect the agreements made between people. The enriching activities that meet this premise is the company in all its forms: primary production, trade, crafts, industry, banking, services, knowledge, culture and entertainment, etc.
personal enrichment need only be justified when the agreements to which a person has become so established. In the private sector accounting and auditing are some of the mechanisms for accountability within an organization where the executives have agreed to allow such mechanisms. But as we see accountability in a private organization is preceded by a contract signed by the parties authorizing the inspections, does not arise from an arbitrary and abusive but of the free will of the signatories.
Legally, only be requested justification for the goods purchased, or the enrichment process when there is probable cause
, ie only when there is a legal process and strong evidence of the commission of a crime. Otherwise, no person shall be obliged to justify his wealth or how to acquire, it is presumed innocent (no one is guilty until proven otherwise), this is a universal legal principle, a guarantee of due process also
recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 11) and recognized the
American Convention on Human Rights (Art. 8, no. 2..)
Although you want to argue that the criminalization of private enrichment unjustified searches pursue ill-gotten wealth of public officials have been bribed, they have cheated or have diverted funds, this argument has no basis because there is already legislation to punish such crimes.
If it be argued that a rule drawn from a hypothetical adoption of this question in the consultation, aimed at punishing the fortunes of nominees, tax evaders, drug traffickers, smugglers, loan sharks, smugglers and profiteers. This argument moral invalid because the penalty "unjust enrichment" creates a false false crime to pursue other crimes. Testaferrismo and evasion are the reaction to the Esquiline state against private property through taxation and regulations that people seek to avoid. Drug trafficking is a false crime arising from the absurd prohibition of drugs. Smuggling is the answer to the state abuse against imported private property is liable to duties and taxes. The chulco or informal credit is the result of the chaotic state regulations on banks that increase the cost of financial intermediation, making little to small farmers who rely on who it can bestow: the informal lender. The coyoterismo is the result of multiple state abuses: taxes and regulations that create unemployment and poverty by creating masses of potential migrants, and regulations of other states that make it difficult to travel and settle in other nations making it possible to "illegally." Speculation is a noble activity that actually makes it possible to placing capital resources where necessary to warn about the supply or demand for a product by raising or decreasing the price.
A hypothetical new crime of private enrichment is not justified, becomes arbitrary at all suspect, making the country and Institutional poor and a police state where further betrayal, is espionage, assault on private property. This false crime will be used as a political weapon of intimidation. Everyone is at risk not only their property but their physical integrity, as any opponent, any scheme that contradicts any honest person and clean resume could easily be accused of "private enrichment is not justified" and deprived of her freedom. Anyone can justify all of their goods and personal effects, many of which were the result of donations, barter, inheritance, and of which there are no receipts or titles? could all if convicted. With the laws of this offense used its discretion, prison saved hundreds or thousands of innocents, and will be all those not in tune with the government and its agenda, every opponent, every writer and freelance journalist, every priest and intellectual, all professional or worker to raise his voice in protest, everyone, rich and poor, we have our freedom and property at risk.
