Who would have thought that the leak of an audio recording involving Luis Hermosilla, Leonarda Villalobos, and Daniel Sauer would become the starting point of a chain of scandals that has now placed part of the institutional system under severe strain. From judges being removed from office and prosecutors under investigation to notaries, property registrars, and companies under scrutiny, the affair has spread like an oil slick.
In recent days, the so-called “Belarusian Doll” has become the symbol of this crisis, with the Judiciary at the center of the storm and public trust once again being tested. So far, attention has focused on former Supreme Court justice Ángela Vivanco, her partner, and the lawyers allegedly involved in paying bribes. However, one key actor has gone largely unnoticed: the company that would have financed those payments to obtain an economic benefit.
This is the CBM consortium, made up of the Chilean company Movitec and the Belarusian state-owned firm Belaz, identified by the Public Prosecutor’s Office as the main beneficiary of the ruling that gave rise to the case. In 2021, CBM won a US$158 million tender from Codelco for the Rajo Inca project. However, after breaches, delays, and a fatal workplace accident, the mining company terminated the contract early in February 2023 and executed performance bonds worth US$12.8 million. The decision left Movitec in a complex financial situation and intensified internal tensions among its controlling shareholders, while Belaz faced international sanctions for human rights violations.
To defend its interests against Codelco, the consortium hired lawyers Mario Vargas and Eduardo Lagos, who allegedly bribed Justice Vivanco so that the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court—chaired by her—would accept an appeal that had already been rejected by lower courts, including the Copiapó Court of Appeals, allowing the return of the performance bond to the company.
These events are now under investigation for alleged influence peddling, bribery, and money laundering involving payments from CBM to Vivanco and her circle. It is alleged that Migueles and the lawyers laundered part of the money through a currency exchange house and the property registries of Puente Alto and Chillán.
Another troubling element is the European cruise reportedly taken by Supreme Court Justice Diego Simpertigue together with lawyer Eduardo Lagos shortly after Codelco’s payments to CBM were finalized. This fact fuels suspicions of corruption and raises serious ethical questions regarding the failure to recuse himself.
But let us look at the other side of the coin: the role of the company CBM. If the facts are proven, it would be the beneficiary of the bribery. In this scenario, the payments would have been made through third parties—namely, the lawyers who allegedly acted on its behalf.
In Chile, the Corporate Criminal Liability Law has been in force since 2009. Put simply, if a company does not have a properly implemented compliance program, supported by evidence, responsibility for certain crimes does not rest solely with those who commit them but extends to the company itself. In this case, the alleged bribe payers were lawyers acting on behalf of CBM. If bribery is established, the consortium will have to prove that it had an effective compliance program in place at the time of the events. If it cannot do so, it too faces criminal liability.
Beyond CBM, other companies may also have incurred offenses such as money laundering, including the currency exchange house that allegedly funneled the illicit funds. The same legal framework applies to all of them.
The questions that inevitably arise are uncomfortable but necessary: If the company and/or its lawyers paid bribes to win a court case, was it the first time? Are we facing an isolated incident or a modus operandi more widespread than we would like to admit?
All indications suggest this is only the tip of the iceberg. The next step is to allow the investigation to proceed and, if the facts are confirmed, to apply sanctions to all those involved. But we should not forget that corruption always has two sides. No public official commits bribery without someone willing to pay. And no matter how many laws exist, nothing will change as long as we continue to normalize or justify improper conduct, or as long as there are companies willing to launder other people’s money.
This case hurts because it strikes at the heart of our institutions: justice itself. And now, in a bitter paradox, it is justice that must take action. We must not allow this new blow to public trust to weaken the fight against corruption; on the contrary, it is time to strengthen institutions, reinforce good practices, and promote a culture that prevents these abuses.
By Susana Sierra
Published in La Tercera
