The Fifth Civil Court of Santiago has authorized the forced collection and seizure of assets from the Metropolitan Regional Government (GORE) for a total of 290 million pesos. The court’s ruling concerns three invoices issued by the company Gopa Soluciones SpA, which were accepted by the regional body despite not being associated with any actual services provided.
The court rejected challenges filed by GORE’s defense team, which had argued that the documents were ideologically fraudulent. According to the regional government, the invoices referred to nonexistent projects, such as the "Salón Bulnes" and "Cesfam Urzúa," which were never part of their portfolio.
Judge Giselle Sorhaburu determined that, during the preparatory stage of the trial, invoices can only be challenged based on physical tampering, not on their ideological origin. Furthermore, the court noted that GORE failed to raise objections with the Internal Revenue Service (SII) in a timely manner, leaving the documents "irrevocably accepted."
A 6.5 Billion Peso Fraud
The case stems from a complaint filed last year by the Metropolitan Regional Government itself. The institution alleged that former official Carlos Basaletti accepted a total of 61 invoices into the internal system, amounting to 6.547 billion pesos, none of which had contractual backing.
Boreal Servicios Financieros S.A., one of the companies that factored these documents, initiated executive lawsuits following the non-payment. With the recent court order, a court official must now demand payment from the Regional Government, including interest, adjustments, and legal costs.
Metropolitan Regional Government officials stated they would use all available legal avenues to reverse the measure. "The Regional Government is within the deadline to respond to the executive lawsuit and exercise the corresponding legal actions, including opposing the collection," they stated in an official release.
The case has since escalated to the Electoral Court (Tricel), where a motion to remove Governor Claudio Orrego from office is being debated. The plaintiffs argue that there was a notable dereliction of duty regarding the institution's hierarchical supervision and control. For his part, Orrego's defense argues that the governor acted immediately to protect public funds once the irregularities were detected.
