This is the first case in which a legal entity has been formally charged under the current Economic Crimes Law.
The Bruma case stems from the sinking of the fishing boat of the same name on March 30, 2025, on the high seas off the Biobío Region, which resulted in the disappearance of seven artisanal fishermen.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has argued that the accident occurred in the context of a risky interaction between the artisanal boat and the industrial vessel Cobra, belonging to the company Blumar S.A., which was operating in the same area that night.
Based on this information, the Public Prosecutor’s Office announced its decision to formally charge three members of the Cobra’s crew with manslaughter and, in an unprecedented move, also announced that it would request the formal charging of the legal entity Blumar S.A., making this the first case in which a company will be formally investigated in Chile for a negligent crime resulting in death that occurred in the course of its economic activity.
The criminal aspect of the case focuses, first and foremost, on the configuration of the crime of manslaughter. From a legal perspective, this crime does not require intent to kill, but rather the finding of negligent conduct that violates an objective duty of care and that is likely to generate an impermissible risk, a risk that ultimately results in the death of the victim.
In the field of industrial navigation, this duty of care is defined in accordance with very precise technical standards established by national and international maritime regulations, by the regulations of the competent authority, and by the professional practices required in the operation of high-tonnage vessels.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains that the accused crew members violated these minimum requirements, either by failing to exercise vigilance, by disregarding safety rules, or by failing to take timely action that would have prevented the accident.
Notwithstanding the individual liability that may fall on the crew members, the truly novel element of the case is the attribution of criminal liability to the company.
The Law on Criminal Liability of Legal Entities (Law No. 20,393) establishes that a legal entity may be criminally liable when a crime is committed in the context of its activities and when said crime is made possible, facilitated, or not prevented due to a failure to comply with the management and supervision duties imposed by law.
In this logic, the legal discussion revolves around the existence, sufficiency, and effectiveness of the company’s Crime Prevention Model, an instrument designed precisely to prevent criminally relevant conduct from occurring within the framework of corporate operations.
The keys to possible corporate liability
The Public Prosecutor’s Office argues that the accident involving the Bruma boat was not only attributable to the actions or omissions of the Cobra’s crew, but could also be explained by structural deficiencies within the corporate organization.
The malfunctioning of the ship’s so-called “orange box,” the possible absence of effective safe navigation protocols in risk areas, insufficient staff training, and doubts about compliance with supervision and maintenance procedures are elements that could be interpreted as manifestations of a deficient or inoperative prevention model.
If this were proven, the company could be held legally responsible for failing to take reasonable and adequate measures to prevent the crime from being committed.
This case, therefore, requires an examination of the scope of the duty of corporate organization and supervision in high-risk activities. In sectors such as industrial fishing, where coexistence with smaller vessels is common and where operating conditions can vary abruptly, the duty of prevention takes on greater intensity.
The criminal proceedings that will take place in the Bruma case will require determining whether the accident was solely the result of individual negligence or whether, on the contrary, it reflects an organizational deficit that compromises the criminal liability of the company.
The case will therefore be significant, firstly because it is the first attempt to apply Law No. 20,393 to a culpable offense resulting in death that occurred in the context of a business activity, and secondly because it will require the courts to determine, with greater precision, the effective scope of the organizational, management, and supervisory duties incumbent on companies when they engage in risky activities.
The court’s decision in this case will clarify the extent to which a legal entity can be held criminally liable for the absence, insufficiency, or ineffectiveness of its Crime Prevention Model, especially when such deficiencies result in the creation of impermissible risks that ultimately cause serious harm to third parties.
Finally, the outcome of the case will not only define the standard of diligence required of companies operating in hazardous environments, but will also set a decisive precedent regarding the preventive role that corporate criminal law must play in protecting human life and controlling the risks arising from organized economic activity.
For more information on the case or the application of Law No. 20,393, please contact our Criminal Law team:
Gabriel Zaliasnik | Partner | gzaliasnik@az.cl
Loreto Hoyos | Director Criminal Law Group | lhoyos@az.cl
Doménico Girardi | Associate Criminal Law Group | dgirardi@az.cl
Clemente Soulodre | Associate Criminal Law Group | csoulodre@az.cl
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
