By mistake, Codelco is out of the lawsuit for scam in Caso Seguros

A bad play is hitting Codelco hard. Due to its own error, the state company withdrew from the complaint for fraud that it presented to the Calama Guarantee Court on January 13 and thus ended the case that the company itself initiated and where it sought criminal responsibility for those who are responsible for the surcharge in life and accident insurance policies that some unions of the mining company in the north had agreed with Chilena Consolidada for 14 years and where Gestión y Servicios (GyS) was an intermediary. Initially, the state company had indicated that the alleged perpetrators were the executives of GyS, the union leaders of Chuquicamata and Radomiro Tomic that the copper company seeks to unlawful and also Chilena Consolidada. And it was precisely to remove the insurance company from the case – given the agreement they agreed on last Monday – that the court dismissed the legal action.

On Monday, lawyer Miguel Ángel Chávez, representing Codelco, presented a document to withdraw from the lawsuit “under the terms indicated.” In the text, the partner of Chávez y Abogados indicates that after seven months have elapsed since the filing of the complaint and after reviewing and analyzing the background information available to date, “Codelco has decided to withdraw from its complaint regarding both Chilena Consolidada Seguros de Vida SA, as well as its related companies and the current directors and employees of these and that one ”.

The court’s response was not long in coming. In the document, the Calama Guarantee Court accepted the petition, stating “the complainant party, namely Codelco, has withdrawn from the complaint filed against those who are responsible, in accordance with the provisions of article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code ”.

The mining company returned in its onslaught and asked the court to clarify that the withdrawal is only in relation to Chilena Consolidada and that Codelco “will continue with the criminal action with respect to the others involved.”

However, the reading made by the northern court is different from that made by the lawyer of the main state company in the country, because in the response, issued this Thursday by María José Salas, Calama Guarantee Judge, at the time that Codelco filed the complaint “it was not filed against a specific person -natural or legal-, the partial withdrawal is not applicable, as well as the assumptions to clarify, rectify or amend the resolution against which it is appealed, because it is clear and does not contain errors ”.

Therefore, the resolution indicates, “there is no room for the complainant Codelco’s request, in order to rectify the resolution dated August 25, 2020, since the complaint filed on January 13, 2020 did not identify a person or natural persons against whom it is requested to direct the investigation of the Public Ministry ”.

The news was not well received in the state. After knowing the scope of the court’s response, a series of internal consultations were initiated to find out which way to go. Conversations that also include the board of the mining company, since today was the ordinary meeting of the state table. When consulted, the company indicated that “regardless of the judicial strategy that is defined, Codelco will continue to pursue criminal responsibility in this case in the terms that it has already reported.”

Among the ways that the state company has is to appeal to the court’s resolution or to file a new complaint. While that is being defined, the case brought by the chief prosecutor of Calama, Cristián Aliaga, continues its course, the sources consulted emphasize. “The crime of criminal action is a public action. Every lawyer knows that withdrawal does not extinguish criminal responsibility, ”says a source who knows the progress of the process in the north.

But if Codelco does not continue to lead the case, the State Defense Council (CDE) could take the power of legal action. The agency is already aware of the progress of the case and today has the case in a state of “surveillance.”

–