The doubts about who recorded the audio published this week by Ciper in which Daniel Sauer’s lawyer Luis Hermosilla alludes to a series of alleged payments to be made to officials of the SII and the CMF as part of the investigations carried out against Factop, a company , which belonged to him together with other partners, continues to give rise to questions and suspicions. And above all, who made it known.
In fact, Luis Hermosilla’s lawyer, his brother Juan Pablo, answered a series of questions from journalists about the case for more than 40 minutes over the course of the morning.
In his statement, Juan Pablo Hermosilla pointed out that “I have the information that this (the leak) could have come from the political sphere, the decision to leak it I don’t know, but it makes sense to me, because it is so.” “There’s something strange about all this,” he said. The lawyer stated that he had been tipped off to this idea by a journalist. “A colleague of his (told the press) told me confidentially that this came from the political sphere.”
“There is something strange. “Neither the participants in the meeting nor the former partners benefit from this,” he questioned.
In an interview with La Segunda, Sauer claims that the audio recordings were in the hands of a former partner’s lawyer and were made available to other people.
In a statement signed by the Rodrigo Topelberg Legal Team – written in civil cases by José Clemente Coz and in criminal cases by Alejandro Awad and Miguel Schürmann – they stated: “In light of the recent statements made by Daniel Sauer, we categorically deny that any member of the legal team “Rodrigo Topelberg purchased or disclosed the audio in question, which is nothing more than a strategy designed to divert attention from the frauds perpetrated by him and his brother.”
In addition, they stated that “in light of the audio released this week, the reported facts about false invoices, signature forgery and the deliberate involvement of actors such as LarraínVial and other stockbrokers in the scheme now appear to be confirmed in their report.” The truth is, and they do nothing other than make it clear that our client was one of the primary complainants in this situation.”