White-Collar Crime 2025 Comparisons

The Chilean Criminal Code classifies criminal offences according to the severity with which they are punished. Crimes (crímenes) are the most serious types of law-breaking, with penalties ranging from five to 20 years of imprisonment; in a few cases, life imprisonment may be considered. Misdemeanours (simples delitos) are punished with 61 days to five years of imprisonment. Offences (faltas) are those acts punished with one to 60 days of imprisonment and fines, and very rarely lead to jail time.

For an act to be punishable, it must have been done with intent. However, certain acts are punishable precisely for their recklessness. The Chilean criminal system does not require any kind of motive to be ascribed to the offender to impose a sanction.

Individuals may also be held responsible for attempting to commit a criminal offence without having completed the criminal act. However, in such cases, the offender will face a reduced penalty.

Chilean criminal procedure considers the presumption of innocence of the accused to be a fundamental principle. In view of the foregoing, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff or the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

To convict, judges must be persuaded, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the evidence presented before them, that the accused committed the relevant crimes.

Under Chilean criminal law, limitation periods are established in consideration of the nature of the criminal offence. Crimes (crímenes) have a limitation period of 15 years in cases where the law imposes a penalty of life imprisonment, or ten years in the other cases; misdemeanours (simples delitos) are limited to five years; and offences (faltas) are limited to six months. The limitation period is suspended once a criminal procedure is directed against the defendant.

This term is counted from the day the criminal offence was committed. If the offence consists of a continuing act, the term starts to run once the defendant performs the last action.

If the accused leaves the country at any time during the limitation period, the limitation period runs at half the speed – ie, two days abroad count as one.

There are some crimes that, as an exception, are not subjected to the statute of limitations. Such is the case, for example, for sexual crimes against minors.

In principle, only crimes committed in Chile can be prosecuted before Chilean courts. There are only a few exceptions to this. The extraterritorial reach of Chilean criminal law is specifically regulated in the Code of Organisation of Courts (Código Orgánico de Tribunales). Instances include crimes committed abroad by Chileans against Chileans, if the offender returns to Chile without having been prosecuted abroad, and cases where bribes are accepted by Chilean public officials abroad or a Chilean bribes a foreign public official.

In addition, most of the Chilean legal literature and jurisprudence understands that the Chilean state can prosecute crimes if the execution of a criminal act begins in Chile, even though its effects are felt in another country, or if the execution of a crime begins abroad but the consequences are felt in Chile.

Regarding international co-operation, Chile has signed several agreements and treaties, such as the Agreement for the Prevention and Combating of Serious Crimes with the US and the Advanced Framework Agreement with the EU, that are meant to facilitate cross-border co-operation. Chile also has signed extradition treaties with many countries, such as the US, Canada, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Australia and South Korea. Chile also has signed the UN Convention Against Corruption and the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, both of which help facilitate the extradition process with other signing countries.

Extradition for white-collar offences has not been specially regulated; therefore, it is ruled by the general legislation. Chilean law on this matter states that, firstly, the extradition treaty will regulate extradition circumstances and process. If there is no applicable treaty, the rule of reciprocity should be followed. And lastly, if the rule of reciprocity cannot be followed, the rules of the Code of Private International Law should be applied.

Chile is a member of INTERPOL, and the National Central Office (OCN) Santiago, a special unit of the Investigations Police, is entrusted with international co-operation on this matter. Since 2024, this unit also involves members of the Police (Carabineros de Chile), Chilean Coast Guard, National Customs Service, and General Directorate of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine, soon to be joined by the Chilean Gendarmerie.

In the context of Chile’s application to become a permanent member of the OECD, Law No 20,393 was enacted in 2009, introducing into the Chilean legal system the concept of corporate criminal liability.

Since the enactment of Law No 20,393, the list of offences for which a company can be held criminally liable has been extended several times. Before Law No 21,595, companies were criminally liable for the following crimes: bribery, money laundering, financing of terrorism, receipt of stolen goods, disloyal management, commercial bribery, unlawful negotiation, misappropriation, instructing a worker to attend the workplace during a quarantine, and certain conduct related to water pollution and illegal fishing activities.

However, Law No 21,595 on Economic and Environmental Crimes introduces profound changes into Law No 20,393, applicable to any crimes committed after August 2024. According to this new law, companies will be criminally liable for every “economic crime” listed in Law No 21,595, which translates into more than 200 offences, exponentially expanding the list of imputable offences. Amongst them, it is worth noting fraud, collusion, corruption between individuals, crimes related to insolvency, and environmental crimes.

Law No 21,595 also states that the responsibility of legal entities can be prosecuted when:

• the illegal conduct consists of the specific crimes listed by the law, which has been relevantly expanded;
• the illegal act is carried out by a person who holds a charge, function or position in the legal entity, a person who provides services to the company managing their affairs before third parties, with or without representation, a person related in the previous terms with a different legal entity, that provides services to the company managing their affairs before third parties, with or without representation or that lacks operational autonomy with regard to it, when there are ownership or participation relationships between them;
• the act has not been exclusively committed against the legal entity; and
• the perpetration of the criminal act was favoured or facilitated by the lack of effective implementation of a suitable crime-prevention model by the legal entity.

After the enactment of Law No 21,595, according to Article 4° of Law No 20,393, compliance programmes will be considered appropriate for having the aforementioned exemption effect, provided that – considering the company’s corporate purpose, line of business, size, complexity, resources and activities – the compliance programme seriously and reasonably considers the following aspects:

• identification of the activities or processes of the legal entity that involve the risk of criminal conduct;
• the establishment of protocols and procedures to prevent and detect criminal conduct in the context of the activities referred to in the previous point, which must necessarily consider safe reporting channels and internal sanctions in the event of non-compliance;
• assignment of one or more persons as responsible for the application of the protocols (provided with independence, effective management and supervision powers, direct access to the administration, and the material and immaterial resources and means necessary to adequately carry out their tasks); and
• the provision of periodic evaluations by independent third parties and mechanisms for improvement or updating.

In these cases, the public prosecutor may seek both the individual responsibility of the persons who performed the conduct and the criminal responsibility of the company. However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has no institutional guidelines that preferentially prosecute either individuals or companies.

It should be noted that legal entities are not criminally liable for the mere fact of not preventing the crime, but for lack of serious mechanisms to prevent it. Moreover, managers are not criminally responsible for the mere fact that the company is convicted of the crime.

In the case of a reorganisation, merger, acquisition, division or dissolution of a company where one of the sanctioned crimes was committed, Law No 20,393 provides that the responsibility for such acts is transmitted to the successor.

However, it should be noted that the criminal liability of a company does not transmit to their parent company or subsidiaries, therefore, each case must be addressed separately.

Each crime has a specific penalty established by law. Chile has a system in which general rules for penalty assessment are established, but in which the penalty may change depending on the mitigating or aggravating factors of the penalty, such as recidivism. In that sense, the penalty is calculated with attention to the following factors: the penalty assigned by law to the crime, the degree of development of the crime, criminal participation, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the extent of the damage caused.

Law No 21,595 introduces a new system regarding economic crimes, creating a differentiated set of rules for sentencing, with aggravating and mitigating factors more appropriate to business crime. It is based on two elements: (i) culpability, according to the position held by the person in the organisation (the higher the hierarchy, the greater the penalty; the lower the hierarchy, the lesser the penalty) and the way in which that person has acted (greater intervention, greater penalty; less intervention, lesser penalty); and (ii) magnitude of harm, specifically the generation of harm or damage and the efforts to prevent or mitigate them. Additionally in this regard, Law No 21,595 establishes a special regime to determine the effect that the concurrence of the circumstances will have to determine the applicable penalty.

Finally, this new law contemplates a differentiated and stricter regime for the application of substitutive penalties regulated in Law No 18,216 and regulates additional consequences for the penalty, such as (i) fines, according to the “days-fine” (días-multa) system of Article 27; (ii) prohibition of holding public, managerial, or executive positions and contracting with the state; and (iii) confiscation of profits, comprehending the possibility of confiscation of everything obtained as a consequence of the crime and its imposition even when there is no conviction against those responsible.

Deferred prosecution agreements, non-prosecution agreements and plea agreements are possible, as will be explained in 2.7 Deferred Prosecution and 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Victims of a crime may file for damage compensation before the criminal courts or directly before the civil courts. Nevertheless, once the civil action has been declared admissible before the criminal court, the right to do so in the civil court is precluded.

Such a right is exclusive to the victim. If third parties want to seek civil compensation derived from a crime, they must bring it before the civil courts.

On the other hand, the action to obtain the return of the specific assets that were taken from the victim of the crime may only be filed before the criminal court.

In a criminal proceeding, plaintiffs have the option of requesting that the judge order precautionary measures upon the property of the accused to ensure the fulfilment of possible future civil liabilities – ie, through the retention of certain assets and the prohibition on performing acts or contracts regarding certain assets. If these measures are imposed upon the defendant, the victim must file a civil action during the criminal trial to seek damage compensation.

Class actions are not contemplated in Chilean legislation. The nearest equivalent is the common solicitor, by which it is ordered that within a short period of time the plaintiffs designate a common representative to act on behalf of all of them. However, it is not a widely used practice.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office is the agency exclusively in charge of investigation and prosecution before criminal courts. Other special agencies may investigate and enforce a range of non-criminal sanctions under different statutes and proceedings, such as the Financial Market Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Economic Prosecutor (along with the Court for the Defence of Free Competition in antitrust matters), and the Environment Agency and environmental courts.

In recent years, different courts have dealt with the discussion on whether the same facts can be prosecuted at the same time under criminal and administrative proceedings without affecting the double jeopardy principle. The judicial trend has been to permit prosecution in both venues, but there have been some exceptions.

There are no specialised courts for white-collar offences in Chile. However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has attorneys specialised in the prosecution of certain types of crimes, including prosecutors dedicated to investigating economic crimes. In addition, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has units specialised in certain crimes, which advise the national prosecutor’s office, regional prosecutor’s offices, and collaborate with the specialised prosecutors who handle the investigation of crimes within their jurisdiction. One of these units is the Specialised Unit on Money Laundering, Economic Crime and Organised Crime (ULDDECO). Moreover, there are specialised police squads in charge of carrying out the investigations requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, such as the Economic Crimes Brigade (BRIDEC) and the Money Laundering Investigative Brigade (BRILAC).

In cases with extended media coverage, public policy and political pressure may affect investigation and prosecution, but generally do not influence enforcement. However, in some cases the involvement of other public entities, such as the State Defence Council (CDE), can alter the decisions made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office – eg, extending the duration of investigations and requiring further studies.

The Chilean Criminal Procedure Code establishes that investigations may be initiated by means of a complaint, the filing of criminal action by the victim and other legally authorised individuals and bodies or by the sua sponte decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. If the victim files a criminal action, the court conducts an admissibility assessment of the complaint, to verify that the facts constitute a criminal offence, prior to the initiation of the investigation.

The law does not allow much discretion to the prosecutor. Therefore, in principle, all crimes that come to its knowledge should be investigated.

Regarding corporate liability, Law No 21,595 introduces new ways to initiate the investigation for cases regulated by Law 20,393. Specifically, it no longer reduces it to a prosecutor’s decision after becoming aware of the crime, but rather adds the possibility of initiation by filing a criminal action by the victim or other legally authorised individuals and bodies.

There is practically no threshold that the prosecutor needs to meet to request the voluntary production of documents by a company under investigation, or even a third party. The same applies to subpoenas to individuals, related to either the company under investigation or a third party. If the documents are not produced or the individual does not appear before the prosecutor, the latter lacks powers to enforce its instructions and will file a request before the courts. Depending on the type of information requested, the legal threshold varies slightly. As a rule, courts rely on the good faith of the prosecutors and deny these requests only exceptionally.

The prosecutor will be granted permission to perform raids and seizures if it shows the court that there is a reasonable case for them.

In general terms, the reasonability or correctness of the police and/or prosecutor’s conduct will be discussed ex post facto, upon a request by the defendant with regard to motions to exclude evidence.

Digital assets are not specially regulated in Chilean Law; therefore, they may be subject to tracing, freezing and seizure in accordance with the general rules. However, if the assets are outside regulated institutions, such as banks and finance institutions, they may be difficult to find and enforce judicial orders in relation to them.

During the investigation, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or even the victim, may present a motion to the judge to order precautionary measures on the assets of the defendant, such as their seizure or the prohibition on entering into acts or contracts relating to specific assets. These measures may be requested to secure the results of civil actions, the confiscation of the proceeds or the repairment of the damages caused by the crime.

Enforcement authorities regularly use new technologies available to the public during their investigations. However, more sophisticated technological tools cannot be implemented until a public contract or agreement is signed. For example, the Public Prosecutor’s Office already has access to some AI models and big data review due to agreements signed with other public and private institutions, although they are more commonly used to investigate criminal organisations than in white-collar investigations.

Nevertheless, enforcement authorities are willing to work with new technologies and are usually receptive to information and reports provided by the intervening parties with the aid of technological tools not available to the public institutions.

The conduct of internal investigations has not become a widespread practice in Chile. As a consequence of this, and of the lack of a legal culture that considers such investigations as protected by privilege, prosecutors have seized evidence produced in the context of internal investigations.

Because of this, and until case law clarifies the extent of privilege in Chile, internal investigations should be conducted by external lawyers to help protect the confidentiality of the investigation and its findings.

However, since the changes implemented by Law No 21,595, companies may be exempt from criminal liability if they have effectively implemented a suitable crime-prevention model, and one of the minimum requirements is establishing protocols to prevent, detect and sanction infringements of the crime-prevention model. This could potentially extend the practice of internal investigations in the future.

To comply with data protection and labour laws, companies should clearly state in their employment contracts and internal policies the possibility to conduct internal investigations and the related procedure, as well as their ownership of the electronic systems and communications held through them.

Companies are not obliged to grant prosecution agencies access to the results of their internal investigations. However, under the Corporate Criminal Liability Act (Law No 20,393), the surrender of such documents could be considered a mitigating factor.

White-collar prosecutions are frequently initiated upon the filing of a criminal complaint by the victim, who has the right to have an active role in the proceedings. Once the complaint is admitted by the judge, the prosecutor is obliged to investigate. But even if the case is opened by the prosecutor themselves, the law does not grant them discretion, other than the analysis of the merits. In other words, if there is enough evidence of the alleged crime, the prosecutor should file charges and pursue the case. Unfortunately, there are no guidelines issued by the higher authorities of the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding white-collar crimes in general, and the handling of the case will often depend on the decisions made by each prosecutor. There is no judicial control over the decision of the prosecutor to file or not file charges.

Nevertheless, regarding the prosecution of corruption cases, the National Prosecutor’s Office issued Official Letter No 278 in 2022, which provides general guidelines in this regard.

The Chilean Criminal Procedure Code provides mechanisms to resolve a criminal proceeding without a trial. Parties may settle a dispute with a direct agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. This is especially applicable in white-collar cases. The judge may dismiss the agreement only if the public interest requires further criminal prosecution.

On a related note, the defendant may reach a deferred prosecution agreement with the Public Prosecutor’s Office consisting of the fulfilment of certain conditions for a certain period, after which the proceedings are terminated, if the estimated penalty to be applied in the particular case does not exceed three years of imprisonment and if the accused has no previous criminal record.

Non-prosecution agreements are new to Chilean criminal law. Recently enacted Law No 21,694, establishes qualified effective co-operation, that in some cases can be equivalent to a non-prosecution agreement, as explained in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

In the case of corporate liability, deferred prosecution agreements usually involve improvements in the crime-prevention model. However, due to the lack of general instructions, this is analysed on a case-by-case basis by the Public Prosecutor in charge of the investigation. This also applies to non-prosecution agreements; nevertheless, it is still unclear how it will be applied in these cases.

As mentioned in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability, Law No 20,393, which governs the criminal liability of legal entities, contains the offences that may give rise to criminal liability of companies. Since the enactment of Law No 21,595, legal entities can be responsible for every “economic crime”. Given that the catalogue of crimes is extensive, this chapter will only analyse the offences previously recognised in Law No 20,393, which are the most paradigmatic white-collar crimes.

• Bribery of public officials – consists of offering or consenting to offer any kind of benefit different from that to which public officials are entitled according to their position (basic bribery). If the benefit is granted in consideration for the performance of an action that they are obliged to perform pursuant to their duties, for either not performing or not having performed an action or for performing or having performed an action, in infraction of a particular duty or for committing certain corruption crimes, the punishment increases (aggravated bribery).
• Money laundering – is committed by anyone who in any way hides or conceals the illicit source of certain assets knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from the perpetration of conduct that constitutes any of the predicate crimes listed by law, or who, knowing the origin of these assets, hides or disguises them.
• Financing of terrorism legislation – punishes those who in any way, directly or indirectly, request, collect or supply funds for those who intend to commit terrorist offences.
• Receipt of stolen goods – is committed when one person transports, sells or possesses any good knowing that it is the result of the commission of other specific offences.
• Disloyal administration – penalises the person in charge of the management of a foreign interest who abuses their powers of attorney or executes or omits in a way manifestly contrary to the interest of the holder of the affected interest, causing damage to them.
• Commercial bribery legislation – sanctions an employee or agent who, in the exercise of their duties, requests or accepts an economic or other benefit for the purpose of favouring or for having favoured the contracting of one offeror over another. Whoever gives, offers or consents to give that benefit to that employee or agent for the same purpose is also sanctioned.
• Unlawful negotiation – consists of taking a personal interest in any negotiation, action, contract or operations by public officials, liquidators and administrators, in which they take an interest by reason of their position or functions.
• Misappropriation – is a crime against property consisting of the retention of goods belonging to somebody else, when those goods were legally in their possession through a title different to ownership.

Finally, new offences included in the catalogue are: the introduction into the sea, rivers or lakes of chemical, biological or physical contaminants that cause damage to hydro-biological resources; the processing, transformation, commercialisation and storage of banned hydro-biological resources or products derived therefrom; the performance of extractive activities in areas of management and exploitation of deep-sea resources, without being the holder of the rights; and being in possession of, producing or storing hydro-biological resources which are in a state of collapse or over-exploitation without being able to prove their legal origin.

Usually, sanctions against corporations consist of a monetary fine. However, applicable penalties may include: dissolution of the legal entity and cancellation of its legal status; a temporary or permanent ban on entering into contracts with state entities; total or partial loss of tax benefits or an absolute ban on receiving these for a certain period, among others.

The Chilean Criminal Code sanctions bribery of domestic and foreign officials. The enactment of Law No 21,121 in 2019 introduces the offence of commercial bribery. Companies are also subject to criminal liability regarding these offences.

Bribery of domestic public officials – as described in 3.1 Criminal Company Law and Corporate Fraud – is punished with imprisonment for a period ranging from two months to ten years and fines related to the circumstances of the bribe.

Bribery of foreign officials constitutes an exception to the principle of territoriality generally applicable in Chile. In that sense, Chilean courts may have jurisdiction regarding the bribery of a foreign official committed abroad, either by a Chilean national or a foreigner with residence in Chile. The offence consists of the offering or promising of an economic or any other benefit to a foreign public official in return for the foreign public official’s performance or omission of an act that would provide an unfair advantage in an international transaction (or business deal) to the offeror of the bribe. Similar to the case of domestic officials, this conduct is sanctionable with imprisonment for a period ranging from three to ten years, restrictions on holding public office and a fine ranging from 200% to 400% of the amount of the bribe. If the benefit offered is not of a financial nature, the fines will range from 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units (UTM).

Commercial bribery consists of requesting, accepting, offering or giving bribes of any kind to favour, within the authority of their duties, the engagement of one party over another. In the case of receiving a bribe, the employee that seeks or accepts it faces up to 18 months to three years of imprisonment and, in the case of an economic benefit, a fine of 100% to 200% of the bribe, whereas of any other nature, a fine ranging from 50 to 500 UTM. On the other hand, those that offer commercial bribes face 18 months to three years of imprisonment, whereas those who agree to offer a bribe privately face imprisonment for periods ranging from two to 18 months, and fines ranging from 50 to 500 UTM.

Chilean legislation does not include a specific obligation to prevent bribery, influence peddling or any other crime, nor a general legal obligation to report any crime. It also does not oblige companies to maintain compliance programmes. Nonetheless, Law No 20,393 acknowledges the importance of compliance programmes; a suitable and effectively implemented crime-prevention model may be an exculpatory factor for the legal entity, as mentioned in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

Under Chilean criminal law, the obligation to report a crime is exceptional, for example in the case of policemen, public officials when they become aware of a crime while on duty, chiefs of ports, airports, railways or bus stations, or other means of transport or freight, etc. Failure to comply with this obligation constitutes an offence, which can lead to a fine of up to USD285.

The Securities Market Law (Law No 18,045) includes several offences that violate the protection of information in transactions of securities, including adulteration, misuse and concealment or improper disclosure of information to be considered in sales decisions or in the terms of commercial acts involving publicly traded securities.

Article 59 punishes providing false information to the market. Article 60 contains a series of offences involving the fraudulent acquisition of shares without making a tender offer in cases in which it is mandatory, the use or disclosure of privileged information to obtain benefits or avoid a loss in transactions of public offer values, the improper use of values in custody and the deliberate concealment or elimination of accounting records or custody of securities.

It is also worth mentioning that Law No 18,045 assumes that the directors, managers, administrators, principal executives and liquidators of an issuer of securities or institutional investor are in possession of privileged information.

The penalties for these crimes generally range from three to ten years of imprisonment, but the circumstances in which the crime is committed can alter these timeframes.

The General Banking Act provides some specific offences that affect banking activity and bank staff. The most common crime covered by this law is related to the fraudulent obtainment of loans, where a person who, by providing false data about their situation or assets, causes damage to the bank or financial institution. It is also worth mentioning that the General Banking Act provides for a specific criminal offence that sanctions unauthorised banking activity. The penalties for these crimes generally range from 18 months to five years of imprisonment, but, again, the specific circumstances can alter these timeframes.

Law No 21,595 slightly modifies some of the offences contemplated in Law No 18,045 and introduces a new offence, consisting of the maintenance or artificial alteration of prices.

Chilean criminal law does not distinguish between tax fraud and mere tax evasion, however, it requires the use of fraudulent procedures or machinations.

The Chilean Tax Code, in its Article 97 No 4, sets out various hypotheses of tax fraud:

• providing maliciously incomplete or false statements that may lead to a tax burden lower than the correct one, malicious omission in the accounting books, the use of commercial documentation already used in previous transactions, and the use of other fraudulent procedures aimed at hiding or distorting the true amount of the transactions carried out or to circumvent tax;
• the malicious performance, by taxpayers subject to sales and services tax or other taxes subject to withholding or surcharge, of any manoeuvre aimed at increasing the amount of credits to which they are entitled in relation to the amounts they must pay; and
• obtaining tax refunds that do not correspond to the taxpayer’s actual situation, by simulating a tax operation or any other fraudulent manoeuvre.

The same provision provides a penalty to any person who maliciously forges any commercial document or title, with the purpose of committing or enabling the commission of the crimes just described.

In tax fraud cases, the Chilean Internal Revenue Service may proceed administratively or criminally, having the exclusive power to file the complaint that allows the Public Prosecutor to open a criminal investigation.

In October 2024, Law No 21,713, on Tax Compliance, was enacted and elevates the penalties for tax fraud as well as established fines of up to USD215,000 for the person or legal entity that designed a declared tax fraud scheme.

Tax fraud is usually punishable with three years and one day to ten years of imprisonment. However, some cases, such as fraudulently obtaining tax refunds, can be sanctioned with three to 15 years of imprisonment.

As mentioned in 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation, Chilean legislation does not include a specific obligation to prevent bribery, tax evasion or any other corporate crime, a general legal obligation to report any crime, nor does it oblige companies to maintain compliance programmes. Nonetheless, the effective implementation of a suitable crime-prevention model may be an exculpatory factor for the legal entity.

In the Chilean legal system, there is no specific criminal sanction related to financial record-keeping. However, there are many rules that impose on corporations an obligation to maintain correct accounts and a duty to provide reliable financial information.

There are, nevertheless, specific criminal sanctions for acts that consist of providing false or misleading information to the market (including false information contained in financials delivered to the Financial Market Commission) in connection with publicly traded securities.

The penalties for these crimes are established in Law No 18,045, and have been mentioned previously in 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law.

Competition law identifies two stages of prosecution in cases of collusion: (i) an administrative phase, where the National Economic Prosecutor files a lawsuit against the identified offenders before the Court of Defence of Free Competition; and (ii) when, and only if convicted in the administrative phase, the National Economic Prosecutor, in severe cases, decides also to file a criminal action before criminal courts.

The National Economic Prosecutor is forced to initiate the criminal prosecution of collusion cases when the facts under investigation “seriously jeopardise free competition”.

If convicted in the administrative phase, offenders are exposed to sanctions of up to 30% of the revenue derived from the product or service associated with the offence. If the amount is indeterminable, companies are subject to a maximum fine of 60,000 Annual Tax Units (UTA). Additionally, executives may be disqualified for a period of five to ten years from serving as directors of certain enterprises, and the company will be banned from contracting with any state authority or institution.

During the subsequent criminal procedure, anyone who entered into or ordered the entry into, executed or organised an agreement involving two or more competitors to fix the sale or purchase prices of goods or services in one or more markets; limit their production or supply; divide, allocate or distribute market areas or quotas; or affect the outcome of tenders carried out by public companies, private providers of public services, or public entities, risks imprisonment for a term ranging from three to ten years.

Law No 21,595 establishes that the cases of collusion will always be considered “economic crimes”.

The Consumer Protection Act (Law No 19,496) does not contain criminal offences as such, but rather a catalogue of offences isolated from criminal law, such as unjustified refusal to sell or misleading advertising. Therefore, there is no consumer criminal law as such, and the generic crime of fraud or injuries (for sale of defective products) will be applied in cases that seek to establish criminal responsibility for an act against consumers.

Outside Consumer Law, Law No 21,595 sanctions several crimes regarding consumers, such as fraudulently altering prices of goods and services. The penalty for this crime ranges from 18 months to ten years of imprisonment, depending on the necessity of the goods or service.

To comply with the Budapest Convention, Law No 21,459 introduces new cybercrime-related offences and investigations. The new law amends the Chilean Criminal Procedure Code and introduces eight new offences, including unauthorised access to a computer system, attacks on the integrity of a computer system, handling stolen computer data and cyber fraud. The penalty for these crimes ranges from 61 days to five years of imprisonment, depending on the type of conduct and the damages caused.

Except for customs sanctions, this issue has been previously covered in different sections (in 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law and 3.6 Financial Record- Keeping). Customs offences cover two forms of smuggling. Smuggling, in its proper sense, consists of introducing into or extracting from the national territory goods whose import or export is prohibited. Contraband offences in the improper sense, on the other hand, are types of customs fraud – ie, introducing or exporting a good while defrauding the public treasury by avoiding the payment of taxes on that good.

The penalties vary greatly considering the price of the goods and the recidivism of the perpetrator. Lesser cases are sanctioned with a fine of twice the price of the goods, and major cases are sanctioned with three to ten years of imprisonment.

As mentioned in 1.4 Extraterritorial Reach and Cross-Border Co-Operation, crimes committed in Chile can be prosecuted regardless of the defendant’s departure from the national territory, according to the extradition rules. Furthermore, Chilean Criminal Law considers different cases in which a crime committed elsewhere can be prosecuted in Chile.

According to the Chilean Criminal Code, concealers are those who, with knowledge of the perpetration of a crime or of the acts carried out to commit it, and without having participated in it as perpetrators or as accomplices, intervene after its execution. The concealers are sanctioned with a penalty two degrees lower than that indicated by law for the perpetrator of the crime. In principle, if the defendant is convicted for an offence, they cannot also be convicted for concealment, except for the case of money laundering, where the defendant can be convicted for a specific offence and for self-laundering their own money, which can be understood as a way of concealing the product of a crime.

Therefore, both the constituent elements and the applicable sanctions strictly depend on the crime committed by the perpetrator, which is being concealed.

The Chilean Criminal Code distinguishes between two classes of co-operators: (i) the co-perpetrator, legally equated with the perpetrator, although they do not take direct part in the execution of the crime; and (ii) the accomplice in the strict legal sense.

The co-perpetrator is the one who conspires with another and provides the means for the commission of the crime. The accomplice, on the other hand, is one who is not included in the definition of co-perpetrator, but who also assists in the execution of the act with previous or simultaneous actions. The co-perpetrator is punished with the same penalty as the perpetrator, while the accomplice is punished with a lower penalty.

Therefore, both the constituent elements and the applicable sanctions strictly depend on the crime committed by the perpetrator.

Money laundering offences are committed by concealing or dissimulating the illicit origin of the products of certain crimes, or even possessing the products for personal enrichment if they were received knowing their illicit origin. It is also possible to commit these crimes without knowing the illicit origin for inexcusable negligence.

Therefore, a constituent element of money laundering is the commission of a base crime, which has been established by law, for example drug dealing, arms trafficking, sex trafficking, terrorism, tax fraud, financial crimes, fraud, illicit association, etc.

Law No 19,913 – which created the Financial Analysis Unit (UAF) – contains the main money-laundering regulation in Chile, under which both natural and legal entities may be prosecuted. Sanctions for individuals include fines of up to USD80,000 and the confiscation of the laundered assets, as well as up to 15 years of imprisonment. Legal entities may face penalties such as the dissolution of the legal entity, a temporary or permanent ban on entering into contracts with state entities, loss of tax benefits, seizure of goods and monetary fines.

As mentioned in 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation, Chilean legislation does not include a specific obligation to prevent any kind of crime, a general legal obligation to report any crime, nor does it oblige companies to maintain compliance programmes. Nonetheless, the effective implementation of a suitable crime-prevention model may be an exculpatory factor for the legal entity.

However, regarding money laundering, some institutions, such as banks, stock markets, jewellers and casinos, are legally obligated to report suspicious operations to the UAF, and the infringement of their legal obligations can generate administrative sanctions. Failing to report can lead to a fine of up to USD200,000.

As mentioned in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability, Law No 21,595 on Economic and Environmental Crimes introduces profound changes into Chilean criminal law. One of them was introducing environmental crimes, both for individuals and corporations.

The main offences are the following:

• knowingly eluding the environmental impact evaluation, while being obliged to produce an environmental impact study, and releasing polluting substances into the water, soil or air, or extracting water or soil components. This is sanctioned with 541 days to five years of imprisonment;
• while being authorised to perform the acts of the aforementioned crime, infringing emission or quality norms; prevention, decontamination or environmental measures; environmental qualification resolutions; or any condition associated with the authorisation, if the infringer has been administratively sanctioned in at least two separate sanctioning proceedings for serious or very serious infringements within the previous ten years. This is sanctioned with 541 days to five years of imprisonment;
• while being authorised to extract waters, infringing the rules of distribution and utilisation in case of temporal reduction ordered by the authorities or in an area that has been declared a prohibited zone for new exploitations, has been decreed a restricted area in terms of hydrogeology, has been declared to have exhausted its natural water sources, or has been declared a zone of water scarcity. This is sanctioned with 541 days to five years of imprisonment;
• pouring, depositing or releasing polluting substances, or extracting water or components from the soil or subsoil, seriously affecting waters, soil, air, animal or plant health, water resources or the supply of drinking water, or seriously affecting wetlands by dumping earth or other solids into them. This is sanctioned with three years and one day to ten years of imprisonment; and
• committing the acts of the aforementioned crime through reckless behaviour, mere carelessness or negligence, in violation of regulations. This is sanctioned with 61 days to five years of imprisonment.

Each one of these crimes is also sanctioned by a fine, ranging from USD8,500 to USD8.5 million, proportional to the main penalty.

Legal entities are only expected to monitor supply chains for compliance, and their compliance programmes should address them, when a person provides services to the company managing their affairs before third parties, with or without representation, as explained in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

These new technologies have not yet been regulated by Chilean law; therefore, misuse can only be prosecuted if it constitutes an already-established crime. For example, algorithmic trading could only be prosecuted in accordance with the general rules of the Stock Market, as explained in 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law.

These new technologies have not yet been regulated by Chilean Law; therefore, misuse can only be prosecuted if it constitutes an already-established crime. For example, the rules regarding fraud and money laundering can be applied to cases that involve crypto-assets and digital currency, because they can be valuable goods. However, other already-established rules may be insufficient to prosecute this new type of criminality, such as those around market manipulation, because many crypto-assets are traded in foreign or unregulated markets.

Crypto-asset and digital currency service providers operating from Chile are subject to Law 20,393 and can be criminally liable, as explained in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

There are no special defences available for individuals charged in connection with white-collar offences. In that sense, those offenders have the same defences available to them as for other crimes. Defendants in the Chilean criminal system have ample rights of defence; they are granted access to the file at the beginning of the investigation and have broad access to an attorney, including the Public Criminal Defence.

As mentioned in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability, Law No 20,393 considers the effective implementation of a suitable crime-prevention model as a circumstance which may exempt companies from criminal liability. Even when it does not meet the requirements for exemption from criminal liability, it may be accepted as a mitigating factor.

The Chilean criminal system does not contemplate de minimis exceptions of any kind regarding white-collar offences.

Plea agreements are available when the conviction sought by the Prosecutor’s Office does not exceed five years of imprisonment. When defendants acknowledge the crime for which they are being prosecuted, they may apply for a reduced conviction, with the authorisation of the judge.

There are no other guidelines that judges and/or prosecutors should follow in any of these situations.

If the crime is considered an economic crime according to Law No 21,595, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances available will change, as mentioned in 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties.

Regarding individuals, self-reporting or substantial co-operation in the context of a criminal investigation may be considered as mitigating factors when considering the extent of criminal responsibility.

Law No 21,694 severely modifies co-operation in criminal procedures, establishing new legislation regarding effective co-operation, qualified effective co-operation and co-operation agreements.

Effective co-operation is reinforced substantial co-operation, requiring the administration of precise, truthful and verifiable information that allows clarification of the facts under investigation, the identification of the perpetrators, the prevention or impediment of other crimes, or facilitation any confiscation. This kind of co-operation is only available in cases of illicit associations, drug dealing, arms trafficking, terrorism, economic crimes, money laundering and other especially severe crimes. The court must recognise the effective co-operation established in a co-operation agreement with the Public Prosecutor, but can also recognise it without one, reducing the penalty of the crime.

Qualified effective co-operation requires the administration of precise, truthful and verifiable information that allows one to: (i) identify the leaders, criminal bosses or financiers of illicit associations, presuming their intervention in crimes, (ii) identify products, money or source of income of illicit associations and facilitate their confiscation, or (iii) identify the place of the victim of kidnap, child abduction, human trafficking or murder. This kind of co-operation is available in the same cases as non-qualified co-operation, but it can only be recognised through a co-operation agreement with the public prosecutor. Qualified effective co-operation can severely reduce the penalty of a crime, or even stop the prosecution entirely, through a final dismissal of the criminal facts (sobreseimiento definitivo). A condemned person can also enter this type of agreement to significantly shorten their sentence.

Regarding legal entities, Law No 20,393 establishes an incentive mechanism for self-denunciation for companies. Thus, if the managers of a company report their own misconduct before the start of a criminal prosecution, they will have the right to a reduced sentence.

In the case of collusion, Law Decree No 211 sets out another manifestation of this figure known as “compensated disclosure” (delación compensada), which can operate as a mitigating and/or an exonerating circumstance when, having participated in a collusion cartel, the defendant provides information that leads to the verification of the facts or of those liable. In this context there are high incentives for rapid co-operation, because it only allows the collaboration to act as an exonerating circumstance for the first defendant to disclose relevant information, and as a mitigating circumstance for the second one to disclose relevant information, that must be additional to that provided by the first.

Until recently, due to the absence of legal regulation, whistle-blowing was not a widespread practice in the Chilean system. The Chilean criminal procedural system allowed the prosecutor to enter into agreements with individuals, generally approved by the judge or court, but this was more of a general rule than a direct regulation to protect whistle-blowers.

The recently enacted Law 21,694 establishes effective co-operation, qualified effective co-operation and co-operation agreements, as explained in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency. Co-operation agreements can involve protection measures such as the concealment of their identity, advanced deposition, remote deposition, police protection, identity change or any other suitable protective measure. Whether this new legislation is effective at promoting and protecting whistle-blowers is yet to be determined.

There is no regulation of the above in the private sector, so the treatment of individuals who report suspicious or illegal conduct within a company will depend on that company’s internal policies. Due to the increased application of compliance programmes in recent years, it has become more common for companies to have systems which protect whistle-blowers.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Undersecretary of Crime Prevention has a special programme, which functions every hour of every day, to anonymously report any crime. Using the information provided by citizens, if sufficient, the programme files a report with the Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate the investigation and criminal prosecution.

When a criminal case involves multiple jurisdictions, it is crucial that the defence strategies and arguments presented coincide or, at the very least, can coexist. Therefore, every application or document submitted must consider the general scope of the defence strategy defined beforehand.

These types of cases are not acknowledged by Chilean legislation, therefore, there are no co-ordinated defence mechanisms or limits to cross-border co-operation defined by law.

There are important reforms currently being discussed by Congress that would change how white-collar crimes are usually investigated and prosecuted.

• Bill No 16.457-05 That Creates a Register of Final Beneficiaries, could greatly aid the prosecution of white-collar crimes, often committed through legal entities.
• Bill No 15975-25 on Economic Intelligence Against Crime aims to strengthen the investigation of illicit money by, among other measures, creating intelligence units within the National Customs Service and the Internal Revenue Service.

Several regulatory and enforcement agencies have established their priorities for the coming years.

• The Internal Revenue Service (SII) has presented a plan to intensify analytics-driven audits on high-earning taxpayers, cross-border structures and crypto-assets, crack down on false invoicing and informality, and expand data-matching.
• The Financial Market Commission (CMF) has stated that for the next two years it will focus on updating its market abuse prevention and detection rules, refining obligations regarding insider information and senior management, and issuing conduct standards for banks, insurers and asset managers.