MOSSACK FONSECA PERJURY IN SWORN TESTIMONY IN US DISTRICT COURT CASE EXPOSED

NML Capital, Ltd., vs. Republic of Argentina is a suit, filed in 2014, by an US-based hedge fund, to collect upon sovereign debt obligations of Argentina. NML, a so-called "vulture fund," purchased defaulted Argentine debt, and a major discount, and brought suit upon it.

 The case became one of great public interest due to the Panama Papers case. When the media published the documents and information, it was revealed that certain large, allegedly corrupt payments, facilitated through MF corporate formation, and bank account opening assistance, greatly reduced the amount of funds that Argentina had on hand to discharge its obligations, including those owed to the plaintiff, NML.

During the discovery phase, sworn testimony was given, seemingly confirming that the MF Nevada company was an independent contractor, and was not controlled by the parent law firm in Panama,, Mossack and Fonseca. Documents released, in connection with the Panama Papers articles, showed that this was no true; that Mossack and Fonseca not only controlled its Nevada subsidiary, but that it:

(1) Concealed and destroyed evidence.
(2) Knowingly proffered false evidence to the court.
(3) Refused to make discovery, without a legal basis for that refusal.
(4) Engaged in dilatory conduct, during the litigation.

While the plaintiff took great pains to note that the attorneys for the MF entities were not at fault for these transgressions, the name partners at the law firm of Mossack and Fonseca clearly engaged in improper, unethical, and illegal conduct, designed to mislead the court, and frustrate the ends of justice. Whether they ever will see the inside of a courtroom is another question, though. Will they be indicted in the United States ? We cannot say, but we will be watching.