Attorney General's Office raised objections to former mayor and 10 former councilmen from Bucaramanga (Santander)

The Attorney General's Office statement of charges made against Mr. Fernando Vargas Mendoza, in his capacity as Mayor of Bucaramanga to the material time, and then councilors Agredo Carmen Lucia Acevedo, Jose Alfredo Ariza Florez Bello Cleomedes Villabona Dionisio Correa Carrero, Henry Gamboa Meza, Elida Mantilla Rodriguez, Carolina Moreno Rangel, Uriel Ruiz Ortiz, Alfonso Garcia and Jaime Rodriguez Prieto Ballesteros.

Research the facts related to the alleged irregular procedure agree 100, 2009, through which passed a partial tax exemption that reduced the rate of stamp duty - being of the elderly, from 2% to 1%.

To further the investigation, the Attorney General's Office, Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado, formed a Special Committee composed of the Attorney Discipline Office for the Surveillance Preventive Civil Service, Assistant Attorney Disciplinary and Regional Solicitor Santander.

The Special Disciplinary Committee considered that in his capacity as mayor, Mr. Vargas Mendoza passed the said agreement, which approved partial relief from tax, in order, apparently, to benefit a future contractor.

This action may have violated the principle of horizontal equity or universality tax made which could incur disciplinary offense as very serious provisionally qualified by way of fraud committed.

Also, because in the preamble and in the presentation of the Draft Agreement 139 of December 2, 2009, apparently did not include income replacement, through which the city of Bucaramanga was to replenish you would enter not, by charging a rate of 1% in stamp duty being of the elderly to the contract that was to prepare the studies and designs of the Phase III construction of the viaduct of the race ninth and complementary works.

On the other hand, the Public Ministry investigation found that the council, that their vote approved the said Municipal Agreement, could incur disciplinary offense to create a partial exemption of taxation, with which it could benefit a future contractor, in violation of the principle horizontal equity or universality does not provide tax and income replacement, through which resources could recover foregone by the municipality.