20. The Applicant explained that in [date], he was appointed as the commercial director of the [Country 1] branch of [Company 1], a [Country 3] construction company. In that capacity, he was not in charge of determining any fiscal liabilities, manage contracts with fiscal authorities or decide what amount of taxes should be paid. Mr [Person 1], the actual director of the branch, was responsible for such tasks. According to the extract from the Registration Office of Commercial Legal Entities, Mr [Person 1] is [Company 1]'s legal representative, he was appointed manager of the [Country 1] branch on [date], and his name was used for the [xxx] signature that controls all of activities of the companies in [Country 1].
21. While the Applicant admitted that he ordered the transfer of sums between the branches' accounts and tax authorities, he did so under the instructions of his hierarchy, in particular under the orders of members of the [Company 1]'s Board of Directors in [Country 3]. [Country 1] authorities should have investigated the directors of the [Country 3] company itself, who are legally responsible for the branches' activities in [Country 1], and the only persons receiving benefit from the branches' entrepreneurial activities.
22. With regards to the construction of cement plants, which [Country 1] considers as illegal entrepreneurship because of the lack of license, he submitted that contrary to what is alleged, the Company had obtained the license from the [Country 1] authorities on [date], of which he provided a copy. Additionally, this was also outside of the remit of his responsibilities.
23. He opposed the calculations of [Company 1]'s branch tax obligations as described by the authorities and denied having made any direct benefits from the tax evasions. According to the Supreme Court of [Country 1] case law, only the person receiving income from an entrepreneurial activity can be subjected to tax obligations, and therefore liable to commit the offence of tax evasion. In his case, he received no benefit from the branches' entrepreneurial activities, only his salary which cannot be considered as deriving from an entrepreneurial activity.
24. He argued that the offence is not criminal, but of a purely financial nature, as he was told that should he repay the amounts due, the charges would be dropped. Additionally, on [date] when issuing the arrest warrant, the Court found that the offences are "a less serious crime". Moreover, they resulted from an alleged violation of laws and regulations of an administrative nature, thereby questioning the validity of using INTERPOL's channels in this case. The Applicant submitted that this was clear from the decisions issued on [date] by the Chief investigator at the Department of Initial Investigation of Tax Crimes at the Ministry of Taxes of [Country 1] that the offences originated from violations of administrative provisions, i.e., tax law and presidential decrees.
