Arquímedes Puccio

El clan was made up as a limited company (anonymous society) who was the house owner. The clan was formed by Arquímedes Puccio, Fernández Laborda, colonel Franco, Puccio's children, and as trustee, the accountant Revuelta, who was not arrested for lack of evidence. Revuelta was also the accountant for the Gotelli family, one of whom had also been kidnapped.[12]

The clan appeared to be a common family. None of his acquaintances suspected them.[8] In addition to the four known kidnappings, the police at the time suspected that the clan was related to other kidnappings that had taken place a few years earlier. Puccio had been accused of kidnapping a businessman from Bonafide, Enrique Pels, in 1973.[13] The clan planned to kidnap about ten people, according to a list written on a piece of paper the police found when they raided the Puccio house when the clan was dismantled.[2]

In 1982 Laborda and Puccio met again at Customs, where Laborda was a commission agent, and Puccio commented on his plan to carry out extortive kidnappings.[4]

The clan's first victim was Ricardo Manoukian, 24, Manoukian was kidnapped on 22 July 1982. His car was designed to prevent kidnappings and Manoukian was also trained to avoid abductions. This was because a familiar success occurred 8 years previous to his kidnap, in which his uncle was kidnapped and stabbed to death by another criminal organization (presumably a group of corrupt police officers). However, he got cheated because he had a relationship with Alejandro, one of the involved in the Clan[14] He was held captive for 11 days hand-tied and feet-tied and hooded in the toilet's bathtub on the first floor, with the bathroom's curtain closed. His family, owner of the supermarket chain Tanti, paid a rescue fee of US$250,000 ($663,582.90 as of 2019). Even though his family paid for the freedom of his son, Manoukian was murdered on 30 July 1982, being shot three times on the head. His corpse was thrown away in a river close to Escobar. His remains were found months later in Benavídez.[13][15][4]

On 5 May 1983 the clan kidnapped Eduardo Aulet, an industrial engineer and Rugby player in the Pueyrredón Club. Shortly before his kidnapping, he married Rogelia Pozzi. Autlet, was captured while driving to his work. Gustavo Contepomi whistleblowed Autlet to Arquimedes, Contepomi was the couple of María Esther Aubone, mother of the wife of Florencio Aulet, Eduardo's father[4] The family paid $150,000 for his liberation, but Aulet was murdered General Rodríguez even before the family paid for the rescue fee. His whereabouts remained unknown until his corpse was found years later, in 1987.

The clan's third victim was the entrepreneur, Emilio Naum, aged 38, who, along with his wife, he owned the McTaylor store chain. On 22 June 1984, They created a plan that consisted in Puccio, who already met his victim, to stop him while Naum was driving in his car, so he could get closer to the Puccio's house, to ease the kidnapping. But at the moment of carrying out the crime, Naum resisted even though he had two men trying to reduce him. So one of them, who was holding a gun, accidentally shot him in the chest, killing him instantly. As they knew they couldn't stay there for long because they would be discovered shortly. They escaped from the crime scene, leaving the corpse.[2][16]

On 23 August 1985, the police broke into the Puccio's house. When they had already kidnapped their fourth and last victim, Nélida Bollini de Prado, aged 58, who had been held captive for one month. Before the discovery, authorities had already been suspecting about the family (without knowing their responsibility in the three previous crimes).[17] At the moment of the intervention of the Argentine police, Alejandro was with his girlfriend. The couple along with the clan's other members, who were about to collect the ransom, were arrested.[2][18][17]

The women, the mother, the daughters and Alejandro's girlfriend denied knowing everything, but the judge in the case, María Servini de Cubría, was struck by the fact that none of them were surprised or asked what had happened.[19] According to the judge, the only one who could not be held responsible was the younger daughter, but the rest could not ignore it.[12] According to the psychologists who took care of her, the girl knew what was happening but she was not old enough to understand the facts.[20]