Our partner Loreto Hoyos spoke with Diario Financiero, where she analyzed the impact of the Economic Crimes Act on businesses two years after its entry into force.
In March of this year, one of the first major milestones of the Economic Crimes Act (LDE) regarding the criminal liability of legal entities—a regime that took effect in September 2024—occurred, with the indictment of Pesquera Blumar S.A. for a negligent offense resulting in death committed in the course of its business activities, in the case publicly known as “Bruma.”
Criminal defense attorneys—some of whom have participated in the first cases—agree that the implementation of this legislation has been slower than anticipated and that in 2025 there were virtually no convictions under the new statute. However, this year the landscape began to change, notes Joaquín Valenzuela, the senior associate in charge of the Criminal/Compliance Practice at Guerrero Olivos.
Although these are still isolated signs, “the first real criteria for how the courts will apply the law are beginning to take shape,” he explains.
The first year and a half focused almost exclusively on prevention by companies, with the updating of risk matrices and crime prevention models, without any litigated cases that would allow for testing the standard the courts would require. “It is only this year that we have seen the first proceedings that seriously test the criminal liability of legal entities,” notes Valenzuela, who estimates that the evidentiary standard will be demanding.
In this regard, he adds that the first cases brought to court changed the conversation on corporate boards, because they demonstrated that a “paper” crime prevention model does not serve as a defense. As a result, he argues, companies began “requiring the compliance department to ensure that the risk matrix effectively reflects how the business operates on a day-to-day basis, not just an abstract list.”
az partner Loreto Hoyos echoes this view and notes that there is still little experience with cases that have gone to trial and resulted in a final judgment. However, she shares the view that, since this law took effect, “there has been greater concern on the part of companies to strengthen their compliance systems.”
An Effective Prevention Tool?
From the perspective of Jorge Gálvez, a partner at Gálvez Venegas Hess Navarrete, companies’ reactions have depended “largely on the personality of each business owner” and the culture of each organization. Some, he explains, have internalized preventive practices, while others still view these requirements as something unrelated to their day-to-day operations.
Nelson Salas Stevens of Salas Stevens Abogados has a different perspective; he has noted that “companies have begun to view this law with greater concern and seriousness,” particularly “in light of the latest publicly known cases.” For this reason, he is convinced that compliance will eventually establish itself, sooner rather than later, as “a real and effective prevention tool.”
Ciro Colombara, a partner at Colombara Estrategia Legal, offers a “positive” assessment. In general, he argues, large companies, on the one hand, and legal departments and law firms, on the other, “engaged with the amendments regarding corporate criminal liability and analyzed the relevant legal changes.” However, he regrets that the same has not occurred in other companies.
Matías Balmaceda, a partner at BCP Abogados, is more optimistic; he describes the process of implementing this culture in companies as “positive” because “they have genuinely sought to make their compliance systems more robust.”
Following this period, the most critical voice appears to be that of criminal law expert Alex Van Weezel, who still has “many” questions. One of them is “why the law seems to have been applied so little in investigating unreported economic crimes.”
In his view, this could be explained by “the set of disincentives to criminal prosecution created by the LDE, in conjunction with the law on forfeiture, which dates from the same period.” As he explains, the severe and effective penalties provided for in the LDE make it difficult to reach agreements between the victim and the defendant, because the possibility of serving the sentence while remaining free no longer necessarily exists.
The Cases That Are Beginning to Set the Tone
Among the cases that have already come to light, Balmaceda identifies the Sartor case as one of the most significant, because “it is where a large part of the facts fall under the category of economic crimes.”
However, he adds that, for the purposes of applying the regulations, “the judge said that, regardless of which law was applied—the current one or the old one—the penalties would be the same for the crime; so I would say she did not conduct a very thorough analysis of the law or its application. We were left wanting a more comprehensive interpretation.”
In addition to the Sartor case, Salas includes Factop, Primus, and the Polizzi case among the best-known cases.
Colombara, who also mentions Sartor, adds the still-developing Bruma case to the list. Hoyos agrees on its significance and explains that it “constitutes one of the first public precedents in which a legal entity has been formally charged under the expanded criminal liability regime established by the Economic Crimes Act.”
