The audit conducted by the Chamber of Accounts of the Dominican Republic to the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MICM) for the period 2015-2019 reveals that the building currently housing the offices of that entity was purchased in January 2017 for RD$650 million more than what a valuation by the Banco de Reservas, conducted a month before the lease with the right to purchase, establishes.
A report by the General Directorate of Administration and Risk Control of the Banco de Reservas reflected a valuation of RD$840,838,000 pesos on December 16, 2016, after a market investigation to study the value of the land and the construction budget.
In the same report, another valuation is cited to determine the value by the method of replacement of RD$814,495,488.
However, the property was purchased by the same Banco de Reservas 33 days later for a sum of US$31 million dollars, equivalent to RD$1,464 million pesos, calculated at RD$47.25, the exchange rate at that time.
After the purchase by Banco de Reservas, the building was rented by MICM with a contract until December 31, 2036, signed between MICM represented by Juan Temístocles Montás and Banco de Reservas, represented by the former administrator Simón Lizardo.
“The difference can be quantified in RD$650,154,512, without there being a substantiation for the amount of RD$1,464,750,000 established in the contract between the bank and Diseño Integral”, establishes the audit published on Monday.
It was then verified a valuation report by the General Directorate of Administration and Risk Control, with a valuation of RD$1,468,601,033.90, made on May 15, 2017, four months after the first valuation of RD$814,595,488.88 and three months after the signing of the contract.
At these questions by the Chamber of Accounts, the former ministers Juan Temístocles Montás and Nelson Toca Simó, through communication, responded that the Banco de Reservas was a mortgage creditor of the building, which had overdue debt pending payment, and therefore it was of utmost interest for the bank to define the fate of the aforementioned property.
They also opposed the arguments of the Chamber of Accounts regarding a violation of Law 340-06, since the Banco de Reservas was an autonomous entity of the State and with its own patrimony, therefore it is vested with the exclusions of Law 340-06.
However, the Chamber of Accounts believes that the Banco de Reservas was used to benefit a third party and concluded that the financial leasing of the building was carried out without observing Law 340-06 on Public Procurement and its modifications, and without the principles of equity, publicity and efficiency that must govern public purchases.
credits of the images of this post: Deultimominuto.net
