The Public Prosecutor's Office has filed a formal accusation against former gubernatorial candidate Karina Oliva and 10 others for fraud in subsidies during the 2021 electoral campaign in the Metropolitan Region. Prosecutors are seeking seven years in prison for Oliva for declaring unprovided services to obtain undue refunds from Servel. The case involves members of the former Comunes party and the Chile Movilizado Foundation.
Over four years after the 2021 gubernatorial elections, the Southern Metropolitan Prosecutor's Office has concluded its investigation into alleged corruption in Karina Oliva's campaign, a former Comunes militant who ran against current governor Claudio Orrego.
Prosecutor Alex Cortés filed a 197-page document with the Seventh Guarantee Court, accusing Oliva and 10 others of subsidy fraud under the electoral financing law. According to the accusation, during the campaign, Oliva's team, including electoral administrator Martín Miranda, former Comunes president Jorge Ramírez, and executive secretary Camila Ríos, coordinated maneuvers to inflate electoral expenses. They issued ideologically false invoices and receipts for unprovided services or exaggerated amounts, along with plagiarized reports from the Chile Movilizado Foundation, led by David Castillo, Juan Pablo Sanhueza, and Miranda as treasurer.
In the first round, this led to an undue $163 million refund from Servel, transferred to the foundation and withdrawn by Castillo and Miranda. In the second round, the fiscal damage amounted to $54 million in honorarium receipts and $100 million in inflated invoices after knowing the votes obtained. Additionally, a similar fraud is alleged in an internal Comunes campaign for $86 million, including an unpaid expense to Ibero Americana Radio Chile.
Prosecutors seek seven years in prison for Oliva, Miranda, Ramírez, and Ríos; five years for Sanhueza, José Robredo, Castillo, and Marcelo Riffo; and three years for Jean Flores, Luis Romero, and Ailine Ramírez. Miranda faces additional charges for violations of the electoral spending law. For the trial, they offer 106 witnesses, seven experts, 1,270 documents, and over 260 pieces of evidence.
This case underscores vulnerabilities in electoral financing, where the accused had 30 business days post-election to declare expenses and request refunds based on votes received.
