NewsWhore
07-24-2006, 02:10 PM
Press reports are focusing on the only recently disclosed contract whereby the Fernandez administration cedes to a private company the responsibility to collect on debts for government property. According to a report in Diario Libre, the company, Enade, has been operational since September 2005. The contract was sent to Congress on 18 July 2006 for approval, and thus became public information. So far the company had collected RD$201.4 million.
The contract establishes that the government need pay the company 10% of the gross income received by Bienes Nacionales for payments of property already sold, as well as 15% of sales of property whose collections are handled by Enade. Likewise, the company may charge all administrative and legal fees for their services.
As reported in Diario Libre, the contract would also make the government liable to pay Enade for collections carried out by the Central Bank, the State Sugar Council (CEa) and the Dominican Agrarian Institute property. Gustavo Franchella, chief executive of Enade, told Diario Libre that the contract covers urban, rural and tourism property owned by the state.
The contract has met with criticism for lack of transparency, and terms that are considered against the better interests of the state treasury.
Link To Original Article (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#7)
The contract establishes that the government need pay the company 10% of the gross income received by Bienes Nacionales for payments of property already sold, as well as 15% of sales of property whose collections are handled by Enade. Likewise, the company may charge all administrative and legal fees for their services.
As reported in Diario Libre, the contract would also make the government liable to pay Enade for collections carried out by the Central Bank, the State Sugar Council (CEa) and the Dominican Agrarian Institute property. Gustavo Franchella, chief executive of Enade, told Diario Libre that the contract covers urban, rural and tourism property owned by the state.
The contract has met with criticism for lack of transparency, and terms that are considered against the better interests of the state treasury.
Link To Original Article (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#7)