RE:RE:RE:I am optimisticzorsofstesab wrote: A message to Juan, is there any corruption within the mining industry in Peru where this decision is made knowingly to benefit other entities who may want a stake to the expired claims?
There's indeed corruption in the mining industry but I'm pretty sure this is not the case. Peruvian regulations in general are punitive and the worst part is that most peruvian are happy with that. That's something I kind of hate about peruvian culture and which clearly PLU is being a victim of.
If you mix punitive regulations with lazy and inefficient authorities (MINEM) then you get unfair results like these Mining Council resolutions. But you have to bear in mind that, if you take the law as it is and Macusani's arguments as they were presented in their Appeal for Review, then the Mining Council's resolutions are just a natural consequence, that is, they are correct.
I still don't understand why Macusani's attorneys didn't present the facts about the late MINEM's resolution which caused all this mess; the Mining Council has the right to apply a very wide set of legal base to decide and I'm pretty sure had said argumentos been correctly presented the resolutions would have been favourable.
That said, PLU has three months to appeal before the Judiciary, so my bet is that (again) MINEM attorneys won't present at the trial (following the minister's orders) and this time Macusani's attorneys will show ALL the facts, including MINEM's late resolution (exonerating the claims from Penalty), so PLU will win the trial in a very short period of time.