The second part of the question relates to the topic

[mahbubamim077]

“4. The final judgment examined the issue of prescription again, upholding the decision that had repealed it, on the grounds that the facts alleged by the author, objectively considered, constitute a crime (Penal Code, art. 177, § 1, items I and VI) and, therefore, the prescription, instead of being that of the body of arts. 156 and 157, becomes that of the crime, in accordance with the sole paragraph of each of those provisions”.

“As to the merits, the judge understood that the disputed bulk sms colombia balance sheets present fictitious results, due to an excessive evaluation of the coffees in stock and in receipts. And he concluded by sentencing all defendants, jointly and severally, in accordance with the plaintiff's request. Only with regard to defendant Dr. Celso Junqueira Meireles, and with reference to the 1949 fiscal year, he limited the sentence to the restitution of the percentages he had received, because, having retired from the administration on December 7, 1949, he had no responsibility for preparing the balance sheet for that fiscal year.”

2. In view of the above, the first question is:

“Was the accountant appointed by the trustee to examine the accounts of the bankrupt company and who presented a report and expert opinion, on which the claims of the above-mentioned actions were based, not prevented from acting as an expert in said actions?”

It was. The impediment arises from the law and from the doctrine. From the law, because article 129, sole paragraph, of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that the expert may be refused for the same reasons that justify the refusal of judges and witnesses. Now, art. 185, paragraph III, establishes that the suspicion of bias of the judge will be considered well-founded when he is “particularly interested in the decision of the case”.