{"id":272,"date":"2024-06-03T11:04:44","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T11:04:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/?p=272"},"modified":"2024-08-15T20:15:41","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T20:15:41","slug":"una-vez-mas-se-determino-que-uber-no-evadio-aportes-de-la-seguridad-social-los-conductores-no-son-sus-empleados-juzgado-nacional-en-lo-penal-economico","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/una-vez-mas-se-determino-que-uber-no-evadio-aportes-de-la-seguridad-social-los-conductores-no-son-sus-empleados-juzgado-nacional-en-lo-penal-economico\/","title":{"rendered":"Once Again It Is Ruled That Uber Did Not Evade Social Security Obligations: Drivers Are Not Considered Employees (National Court of Economic Crimes)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On the 8th of May, 2019, in the case \u201c<em>Uber argentina s\/ inf. ley 24.769<\/em>the Court granted a dismissal due to lack of action, acquitting the defendants of their charges of aggravated tax evasion, aggravated social security evasion and unauthorized appropriation of social security funds. The decision was based on the public prosecutor\u2019s request to dismiss the criminal case, having found that there is no employment relationship between Uber and the drivers, as the requirements of an employment relationship were not there.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/4.-Uber-argentina-s_-inf.-ley-24.769-CPE-524_2019_2.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of 4. Uber argentina s_ inf. ley 24.769\u201d (CPE 524_2019_2).\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-ce2f0ce5-c8d8-446d-9b1f-d94e99170dce\" href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/4.-Uber-argentina-s_-inf.-ley-24.769-CPE-524_2019_2.pdf\">4. Uber argentina s_ inf. ley 24.769\u201d (CPE 524_2019_2)<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/4.-Uber-argentina-s_-inf.-ley-24.769-CPE-524_2019_2.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-ce2f0ce5-c8d8-446d-9b1f-d94e99170dce\">Descarga<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-vertically-aligned-center has-background\" style=\"background-color:#f9f9f9;grid-template-columns:15% auto\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-108-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1293 size-full\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-108-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-108-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-108-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-108.jpg 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.freepik.es\/vector-gratis\/ilustracion-concepto-analisis-facturas_58379940.htm#fromView=search&amp;page=1&amp;position=16&amp;uuid=fc2a4c53-5c9d-4764-8c98-4af4e72b3502\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">&#8211; Cr\u00e9ditos de imagen utilizada<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>En la causa \u201cUber argentina s\/ inf. ley 24.769\u201d, (CPE 524\/2019\/2), 28\/12\/2020, el Juzgado hizo lugar a la excepci\u00f3n por falta de acci\u00f3n, sobreseyendo a los imputados por los delitos de evasi\u00f3n tributaria agravada, evasi\u00f3n previsional agravada y apropiaci\u00f3n indebida [&hellip;]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[30,5,11,21],"tags":[99,106,101,104,87],"class_list":["post-272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-derecho-a-trabajar","category-jurisprudencia","category-jurisprudencia-nacional-y-federal","category-temas","tag-atipicidad-de-la-conducta-delictiva","tag-derecho-a-trabajar","tag-inexistencia-de-relacion-laboral","tag-legalidad-tributaria","tag-sobreseimiento"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3329,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272\/revisions\/3329"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}