Chile: A Dispute Resolution: White-Collar Crime Overview

In recent years, Chile has undergone a significant transformation in its approach to white-collar criminal law. A series of legislative reforms has produced a corporate criminal liability framework that offers greater legal certainty to businesses operating in Chile and equips prosecutors with effective tools to address economic misconduct.

The Economic and Environmental Crimes Law (Law 21.595, 2023) and Law 21.694 (2024) mark a significant reform of Chile’s economic-crime framework, updating both substantive rules and prosecutorial tools, as well as bringing the system closer to European and US standards.

The following sections outline the key points for understanding this new regime and how stakeholders and industries have adapted to it.

Parallel Enforcement: Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Chile’s legal framework for corporate misconduct is characterised by institutional fragmentation rather than a unified enforcement system. Alongside criminal prosecution, a wide array of administrative sanctioning agencies operate with overlapping mandates.

The EECL did not alter this structural feature; rather, it introduced a general provision into the Criminal Code, which explicitly allows criminal custodial sentences to be imposed and enforced regardless of any administrative sanctions imposed for the same conduct.

While parallel proceedings are the general rule, sequential systems exist in certain areas. In competition matters involving collusion, criminal prosecution follows only after the National Economic Prosecutor’s Office has brought its case before the Competition Tribunal (Article 64 of the Decree Law No 211). Similarly, although still operating within a parallel system, the Internal Revenue Service may identify criminal conduct during its administrative proceedings and trigger prosecution (Article 162 of the Tax Code). Some criminal offences go beyond procedural sequentiality by embedding prior administrative sanctions into the definition of the crime itself, such as the environmental provision that criminalises pollution in breach of sectoral regulations by offenders sanctioned administratively at least twice within ten years (Article 306 Criminal Code).

Individual Criminal Liability Under the EECL: Sentencing Reform and Effective Imprisonment

The EECL establishes an entirely autonomous criminal framework for white-collar crime, departing from the ordinary Criminal Code in its rules on sentencing, sanctions, and liability that applies only to offences that qualify as economic crimes under this statute, with criminal consequences for both individuals and corporations.

Economic offences are organised into two categories: absolute economic crimes qualify as such regardless of context, like competition and securities offences; and relative economic crimes, which acquire that character only when committed in connection with a company (Articles 1 to 4 of the EECL). It is important to note, however, that the EECL’s provisions on criminal liability apply exclusively to medium and large enterprises and their agents, deliberately excluding micro and small enterprises (Article 6 of the EECL).

For natural persons, the reform’s most significant breakthrough is its direct impact on the likelihood that custodial sentences will actually be served. Under the prior regime, convictions for economic crimes almost invariably resulted in non-custodial sentences regardless of the severity of the conduct. The EECL eliminates this pattern by establishing a special regime for penalty substitution that makes effective imprisonment a real prospect for serious economic offences (Section § 2, Title II of the EECL).

Finally, both individuals and corporations are subject to a day-fine system drawn from the German Criminal Code, under which monetary penalties are based on “units” calibrated to the offender’s actual daily income rather than set at a fixed amount, and determined according to the severity of the offence (Section § 4, Title II of the EECL). The potential exposure is substantial: individuals convicted of serious offences may face fines of up to USD22.5 million, while corporations may face fines reaching USD225 million. For a senior executive or a large company, this can translate into penalties of considerable magnitude, making the day-fine system a key feature of the new regime.

Corporate Liability: Expanded Scope and New Sanctions

For corporations, the EECL enacts a far-reaching reform of criminal liability. The catalogue of offences for which corporations can be held liable has expanded from twenty to over two hundred; at the same time, the general statutory regime for legal entities remains applicable where the conduct cannot be classified as an “economic crime”, thus co-existing with the EECL framework.

The legal requirements for ascribing criminal liability to a legal person have also been significantly relaxed: it is now sufficient to show that the offence was facilitated or favoured by the lack of effective implementation of a proper crime prevention model (Article 3 of Law No 20393). New sanctions have also been introduced, alongside existing ones, including court-appointed supervision and disgorgement of profits (Articles 11 bis and 19 bis of Law No 20393).

Next-Level Compliance Programmes

When properly designed and effectively implemented, compliance programmes may shield companies from criminal liability, potentially exempting them from prosecution (Article 4 of Law No 20393). However, this protective effect depends on continuous improvement: a compliance programme is not a one-time certification exercise, but a system requiring periodic updates and ongoing monitoring.

Robust compliance programmes not only prevent corporate liability; they also reduce the risk of personal criminal exposure for directors, executives and employees by ensuring adequate supervision, delegation, and control within the organisation, thereby preventing the commission of the underlying offences.

Emerging Corporate Risks

The Economic and Environmental Crimes Law introduces new risks associated with newly defined offences. Environmental crimes are now governed by a comprehensive framework of punishable conduct, while capital markets offences have been significantly expanded, creating new challenges for specific sectors (Section §13, Book II of the Criminal Code and Articles 59 to 62 of the Securities Market Law).

At the same time, the reform gives rise to broader risks across all industries. Negligent offences – such as workplace accidents caused by failure to comply with safety regulations – may now qualify as economic crimes when committed in breach of duties of care inherent in a company’s operations (Article 2 No 28 of the EECL). This expansion applies regardless of sector and extends to other offences, such as trade secret misappropriation and abusive shareholder resolutions (see, in detail, Article 2 of the EECL). In such cases, both the company and employees may incur criminal liability under this special regime.

In this context, compliance programmes play a central role in mitigating both sector-specific and system-wide risks.

Effective Co-Operation: Negotiating Criminal Exposure and Whistle-Blowers

A comprehensive regime for effective co-operation was first introduced by EECL and later refined by Law No 21.694 as a broadly applicable framework, allowing individuals under criminal investigation to negotiate directly with prosecutors in exchange for meaningful sentencing benefits (Section 4th bis, Book II of the Criminal Procedural Code).

The benefits available depend on the nature and value of the information provided and whether it helps identify co-conspirators, trace illicit assets, or prevent further offences. A co-operating defendant may obtain a substantial reduction in their applicable sentence, and in cases of qualified co-operation, even a full dismissal of charges, similar to the USA’s deferred prosecution agreements (DPA). In a regime where the EECL deliberately narrows access to substitute penalties, a successful co-operation agreement can make the difference between serving a sentence in prison and outside of it.