translated from Spanish: Court of Appeals upheld fine against former executive for insider trading in La Polar case

The Court of Appeals of Santiago upheld the judgment and fine applied by the former Superintendency of Securities and Insurance (SVS) – today the Commission for the Financial Market (CMF), to former executive Nicolás Ramírez Cardoen for use inside information in the so-called La Polar case.
In unanimous ruling, the Ninth Chamber of the Court rejected the appeal it lodged in the former general manager of the multi-store, and ratified the applied penalty of 13,000 UF, equivalent to $364,624,000.
In addition, he ruled out a double trial with the sanctioning procedure of the SVS and the criminal proceedings where he was convicted.
The resolution considers that “while there are discordant voices, majority doctrine does not preclude multiple judgments, provided that the principle of non bis in idem is not procedurally affected in that process. That is why the legislator of the Securities Market Act allowed two penalty regimes to coexist; what has been called the “regime of accumulation of criminal sanctions and administrative sanctions”.
It adds that “the criminal court’s action, independent of that of the administrative body, which may impose financial penalties,” to “ensure that the reproach engulfs all the criminality and the damage caused to the legal good is repaired.”
Moreover, the Court contends that there is no open trial because a criminal ruling was chosen. Moreover, it cannot be argued that the same facts were the same, since no evidence was discussed at the criminal office or evidence of discharge was presented, but was dealt with on the basis of a background.
“Consequently, it can be ruled that the conviction does so by res judicata in civil proceedings as to what is resolved in that judgment implies admitting the material existence of the facts that motivated the punitive conviction and which serve as the basis for the claim, the participation of the accused in those, the criminal legal classification of the fact, his anti-jurisdiction, the imputability of the factual and his guilt, as he was dole or wrongly,” the document concludes.

Original source in Spanish