After a series of postponements, the 8th Santiago Guarantee Court finally held the hearing in which he convicted the son of Senator Jorge Pizarro (DC), Sebastián Pizarro Cristi, for tax crimes in the context of the SQM case for irregular financing of the Policy. In the face of this, the parliamentarian – who also became involved in an alleged triangulation of political silvers – ended the case and pointed out his criticism of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
“We close the case involving Ventus S.A. and where I was accused of using political silvers. However, having read the ruling against my son Sebastián Pizarro Cristi, I can only notice the absolute lack of objectivity regarding the conduct of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who carried out a political persecution over the judiciary,” the senator said of a public statement.
Pizarro recalled that in October 2018, the Court of Appeals of Santiago rejected by a large majority the request for his desaferingness by failing to prove any conduct or antecedent constituting a crime, weighing that court all the backgrounds collected by Public Prosecution Service in an investigation that lasted for almost five years.
“With this I was definitively dismissed from all the facts accused, being established the absolute lack of merit in the imputation formulated by the persecutor, being that informed to the 8th Court of Guarantee of Santiago”, argued Pizarro.
However, and in the same case – contrary to the alternative departures offered to other defendants in the same position – the senator accuses the fact that his son was forced to choose between a simplified trial or being part of a long-term oral trial. “The latter option is impossible to sustain because of the high labor and family cost that this entails,” he said.
Pizarro clarified that the election to which Sebastián Pizarro Cristi was forced “does not mean in any case accepting irregular financing of the policy, as the prosecutor in charge points out. It rather responds to the impossibility of following another long period of time in the midst of an unfounded accusation that the Prosecutor’s Office seeks to maintain in order to make some kind of profit of its own to the public.”
Finally, the legislature regretted and criticised the conclusions which, from its point of view, “is conveniently trying to install the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which only confirms the violation of the principle of objectivity that has characterized the public prosecutor’s action in my case, and which at the same time adequately omits the misconduct: in the only instance where a court has reviewed its imputation, it was unappealably rejected for manifest lack of foundation.”